The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.20260114AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 14, 2026 4:30 PM, City Council Chambers - 3rd Floor 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 I.ROLL CALL II.MINUTES II.A Draft Minutes - 11/12/25 III.PUBLIC COMMENTS IV.COMMISSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS V.DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI.PROJECT MONITORING VII.STAFF COMMENTS VIII.CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT ISSUED IX.CALL UP REPORTS X.SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS XI.SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT XII.OLD BUSINESS XIII.NEW BUSINESS XIII.A Resolution #01, Series of 2026 - 320 West Main Street - Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development Review and Commercial Design Review (Approval) and Planned Development Project Review and Growth Management Quota System Review (Recommendation to City Council). minutes.hpc.20251112_DRAFT.docx 1 1 XIV.ADJOURN XV.NEXT RESOLUTION NUMBER 320 Main Staff Report.pdf HPC Resolution # 01 , Series of 2026.pdf Attachment A_Application.pdf Attachment B_Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Analysis.pdf Attachment C_Planned Development Project Review.pdf Attachment D_Growth Management Quota System Review.pdf Attachment E_Commercial Design Review Criteria.pdf Attachment F_Referral Comments.pdf Attachment G_Public Comment.pdf Attachment H_Boutique Lodge Use Standards.pdf TYPICAL PROCEEDING FORMAT FOR ALL PUBLIC HEARINGS (1 Hour, 15 Minutes for each Major Agenda Item) 1. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest (at beginning of agenda) 2. Presentation of proof of legal notice (at beginning of agenda) 3. Applicant presentation (10 minutes for minor development; 20 minutes for major development) 4. Board questions and clarifications of applicant (5 minutes) 5. Staff presentation (5 minutes for minor development; 10 minutes for major development) 6. Board questions and clarifications of staff (5 minutes) 7. Public comments (5 minutes total, or 3 minutes/ person or as determined by the Chair) 8. Close public comment portion of hearing 9. Applicant rebuttal/clarification (5 minutes) 10. Staff rebuttal/clarification (5 minutes) End of fact finding. Chairperson identifies the issues to be discussed. 11. Deliberation by the commission and findings based on criteria commences. No further input from applicant or staff unless invited by the Chair. Staff may ask to be recognized if there is a factual error to be corrected. If the item is to be continued, the Chair may provide a summary of areas to be restudied at their discretion, but the applicant is not to re-start discussion of the case or the board’s direction. (20 minutes) 12. Motion. Prior to vote the chair will allow for call for clarification for the proposed resolution. Please note that staff and/or the applicant must vacate the dais during the opposite presentation and board question and clarification session. Both staff and applicant team will vacate the dais during HPC deliberation unless invited by the chair to return. Updated: March 7, 2024 2 2 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 12TH, 2025 ROLL CALL Chair Thompson called the meeting to order. Also present were Commissioners Roger Moyer, Jodi Surfas, Barb Pitchford, and Kim Raymond. Commissioners Duncan Clauss and Dakota Severe were absent. Staff present:  Gillian White – Principal Preservation Planner  Luisa Berne – Assistant City Attorney  Tracy Terry – Deputy City Clerk MINUTES Draft Minutes - 10/8/25 Ms. Pitchford made a motion to approve the draft minutes from the October 8th, 2025 meeting. Ms. Thompson seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 5-0, motion passes. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chair Thompson opened the public comment period for items not on the agenda. There were no comments, and the public comment period was closed. COMMISSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS Ms. Pitchford thanked Ms. White for sending the local government ordinances on commissions to the board. She suggested that it would be beneficial for potential applicants to the Historic Preservation Commission to review these documents during the application process to better understand the purpose and requirements of serving on the commission. Ms. White agreed to pass along this suggestion to the clerk's office. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST No conflicts of interest were disclosed for items on the agenda. PROJECT MONITORING Ms. White presented updates on several insubstantial amendments that had been approved. ● 110 West Main Street (former White Elephant property): Approval of matte black metal material for pergola, minor changes to pool fence and gate, and new trellis at valet entry ● 333 West Bleeker Street: Installation of keypad intercom and hose bib ● 420 West Francis Street: Installation of wood jam extension in existing door jambs ● 202 East Main Street: Addition of vents and foundation modifications, including cladding the new foundation with a thin brick veneer made from salvaged historic brick Ms. Thompson inquired about a fence approval for 333 West Bleeker that she recalled but was not included in the report. Ms. White agreed to investigate this approval to ensure it was properly documented. 3 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 12TH, 2025 STAFF COMMENTS Ms. White indicated that she and legal staff were continuing to work on general language for resolutions regarding chance discoveries after approval, which would be presented at a future meeting. Ms. Thompson requested that future administrative approval updates include photos of the properties for context, as addresses alone were not always sufficient for commissioners to recognize the properties. Ms. White agreed this would be appropriate and would implement this change. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT ISSUED Ms. White presented updates on several Certificates of No Negative Effect that had been administratively approved: ● 635 West Bleeker Street garage: Installation of a structural ridge beam sistered on historic framing ● 1096 Waters Avenue (non-historic residence): Removal of two non-historic windows on non- street facing facade, replacement of front door and sliding doors, and addition of faux square columns on balcony ● 535 East Cooper Avenue: Violation-related certificate allowing repair of damaged brick, repair and reset of historic pavers, and replacement of a concrete pad with historic brick pavers ● 205 South Mill Street (Louis Vuitton store): In-kind replacement of two storefront windows, removal of alley-mounted ductwork, relocation of mechanical units from second floor to rooftop, in-kind awning replacement, and replacement of terrace decking with teak ● 105 South Mill Street: Replacement of rooftop mechanical equipment ● 332 West Main Street: Installation of radon mitigation equipment ● 234 West Francis Street: Installation of a winter moon tree sculpture CALL UP REPORTS Ms. White also reported that the items for potential call-up by City Council (504 West Hallam and 406 Smuggler) were not called up and would be moving forward as approved. SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS Public notice was confirmed as properly submitted. NEW BUSINESS 500 W. Francis St. Lot 1 – Recommendation to City Council Regarding the Establishment of Six (6) Transferable Development Right Certificates Ms. Raymond recused herself from this item due to her work on the neighboring property, as required by ethics guidelines. Applicant Presentation: - Mr. Alan Richmond - Alan Richmond Planning Services, LLC Mr. Alan Richmond presented on behalf of the property owner, Jerry Murdock. He explained the history of the property, which was originally a 9,000 square foot lot designated as a historic landmark in 1982. In 2007, the property was split into a 6,000 square foot lot (Lot 2) containing the 4 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 12TH, 2025 historic structure and a 3,000 square foot vacant lot (Lot 1). During that process, the HPC assigned all remaining developable floor area to Lot 1 and granted an additional 500 square foot floor area bonus, resulting in 1,593 square feet of allowable development on Lot 1. Mr. Richmond explained that the current application seeks to reinforce the historic preservation decision made in 2007 by removing all remaining floor area from the subdivision by creating six Transferable Development Right (TDR) certificates totaling 1,500 square feet. This would effectively sterilize the vacant lot, preserving open space adjacent to the historic structure and eliminating potential development. Mr. Richmond argued that this approach would respect the historic development pattern of the West End, which historically included generous side yards on larger properties. He noted that the property is currently for sale, and without the TDRs being severed, a new owner would likely develop the allowable 1,593 square feet. Staff Presentation: Gillian White - Senior Preservation Planner Ms. White presented the staff analysis, detailing the complexities surrounding the request to sever TDRs from the site. While acknowledging that the main effect of this action would not directly preserve any designated historic resource, she pointed out that it could nonetheless serve to protect Aspen's heritage and maintain the neighborhood's historic character. As part of this preservation perspective, she emphasized the importance of considering the overall pattern and context of the area. Additionally, Ms. White highlighted a key point of concern for staff, which was the inclusion of the previously granted 500 square foot floor bonus in the current TDR request. She noted that the bonus was originally awarded with the specific purpose of promoting development exclusively on Lot 1, as opposed to facilitating additional construction associated with the historic resource on Lot 2. She suggested that the change in context might require reevaluating the purpose of granting such bonuses concerning the present preservation objectives for the site. Public Comments: None Board Discussion: There was a detailed discussion on the different perspectives regarding the inclusion of the 500 square foot bonus in the TDR request. Some commissioners, like Ms. Pitchford, expressed concern about whether the bonus, originally intended to incentivize development on Lot 1, should now contribute to the Transferable Development Rights request since its preservation purpose had shifted. She questioned the appropriateness of including this bonus in the request given the changed circumstances and the fact that the original intent was to encourage development rather than sterilize the lot. Other commissioners took the stance that the preservation of an open, undeveloped lot would be more consistent with the historic development patterns typical of the West End. Mr. Richmond highlighted that in the past, larger lots in the West End often featured generous side yards, and preserving this lot as open space would align with that historical pattern. Some Commissioners felt that maintaining the lot as open space could be beneficial in preventing potential short-term rental developments which might not fit well with the neighborhood's character. After deliberation, the Commission reached consensus that recommending approval of all six TDRs would be appropriate. Motion: Ms. Thompson moved to approve Resolution #13, recommending City Council establish the 6 TDRs for a total of 1,500 square feet. Mr. Moyer seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 4-0, motion passes. 5 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 12TH, 2025 ADJOURN Ms. Pitchford moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Thompson seconded. All in favor, motion passes. _____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk ** These draft minutes were created with the assistance of AI. 6 STAFF REPORT TO: Aspen’s Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Gillian White, Historic Preservation Officer, Principal Planner THROUGH: Dan Folke, Planning Director MEETING DATE: January 14, 2026 SUBJECT: Resolution #01, Series of 2026 320 West Main Street - Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development Review and Commercial Design Review (Approval) and Planned Development Project Review and Growth Management Quota System Review (Recommendation to City Council). ______________________________________________________________________ INTENDED OUTCOME: The request of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is to consider the following land use code review processes: • Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development (Section 26.415.070(c)) • Planned Development (Section 26.445) • Growth Management Quota System (Section 26.470.100) • Commercial Design Review (Section 26.412.060) The HPC is the final review authority for the Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development, Commercial Design Review, and the Planned Development (PD) Detailed Review. City Council is the final review authority for the Planned Development Project Review with a recommendation from the HPC. At this hearing, the HPC is asked to provide a determination on the Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development and Commercial Design Review, a recommendation on the Planned Development Project Review, and a recommendation on the request to mitigate for affordable housing via fee-in-lieu. The intended outcome for this request is to maintain the integrity of the historic resource, the historic preservation program, and align with Aspen’s Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and applicable code sections to the extent possible. 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this report is to provide the HPC with details on the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development Review and associated requests so the HPC can make an informed decision on approval and recommendation. Per Land Use Code (LUC) Section 26.415.070(c) the HPC may approve, disapprove, or approve the application with conditions. The HPC may also continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Overview of Project: The applicant proposes to turn the property from an Office use into a Boutique Lodge use. Per Aspen’s LUC Section 26.104.110, Boutique Lodges must have a minimum of ten (10) rooms. As a means of best preserving the interior and the exterior configuration of the resource, the applicant is requesting to establish a Planned Development to allow for the boutique lodge to have six (6) rooms. In addition to this request, minimal exterior alterations are proposed including an ADA lift at the back entrance, exterior lighting, installation of a kitchen vent, and alterations to the existing parking spaces near the rear of the property. Fig. 1. Aerial image showing the subject property outlined in yellow. 8 Staff Recommendation: Staff is supportive of the Boutique Lodge use as this best preserves the historic resource given that the applicant is proposing to maintain the resource as it currently exists apart from the minimal alterations for the ADA rear entry and relocation of a pathway. To ensure interior preservation is the intention of this request, staff has recommended conditions of approval that require preservation of specific historically significant interior elements. DISCUSSION: Background: 320 W. Main St. is an individually designated historic landmark, is located within the Main Street Historic District, and is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Constructed in 1886, and commonly known as the Smith-Elisha House, the property has been owned by notable Aspen residents including Eben Smith, a prominent miner and mine manager, followed by Laurence and Svea Elisha, who owned and managed the Hotel Jerome until 1945 after taking over from Laurence’s father Mansor Elisha. In 2002, a Historic Landmark Lot Split was approved for the property, creating two 4,500 square foot lots – one for a carriage house (314 W. Main St.), and one for the main building (Ordinance 14, Series of 2002). In that approval, the allowed floor area was stated as based on the use of the buildings. The approval contemplated that potential changes in use could occur over time, subject to the regulations in place at the time of any future change. A 500 square foot floor area bonus was provided for the Smith-Elisha House to enable the existing structure, a residential use at the time, to be a conforming structure on the new lot size. Over the years, 320 W. Main St. has been used as a residence and commercial building, completing at least two Change in Use reviews. In 2003 the building was converted to office use. No subsequent Change in Use approvals have been granted, although the most recent request to return the commercial building to a residential use was denied by City Council as no new, free-market residences are allowed in the Mixed Use Zone District. Figure 2: 1890 Sanborn Map with Property Boundary 9 Staff Comments: Overall, staff is supportive of the proposal as the applicant’s representation aligns with the intent of Aspen’s Historic Preservation program and allows for the potential preservation of historically significant interior elements. Staff would like to note that while this request would typically involve parking requirements, the HPC approval in 2002 included a condition stating that “The HPC has waived any of the required parking that cannot be contained on the site in the form of legal sized spaces.” Although this approval was specific to the lot split, it resulted in a recorded plat that included this condition as a plat note. Therefore, the applicant is not required to mitigate for parking under current code provisions. Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development - Section 26.415.070(c) The proposal includes very minimal alterations to the historic resource, all of which could have been approved administratively via the Certificate of No Negative Effect process. However, the proposal includes a request to vary the minimum number or lodge keys required for a boutique lodge with the justification that this is in the best interest of the preservation of the resource as it requires no expansions/additions. It is appropriate for the HPC to review and determine if this request is indeed in the best interest of the resource. Alterations to the rear porch are necessary to install the proposed ADA lift. These alterations include the installation of a wider door, shortening of the existing columns to allow for a higher deck height, and new code compliant stairs. The applicant has proposed a design that allows for the existing deck and stair to remain under the new materials. This work meets Guideline 12.1 which speaks to meeting accessibility requirements while maintaining historic character. The applicant is proposing the installation of a kitchen vent on the west façade of the resource towards the front of the house. Although this would require the removal of minimal amounts of siding, requiring the applicant to route the vent through the roof would likely result in the removal of more historic material given the amount of historic material remaining in the interior. Currently, mechanical equipment is located along the west side yard next to the resource and within the subgrade space. The applicant is proposing to move the mechanical to the rear of the resource near the back porch, with fencing proposed to screen the equipment. Staff find that relocating the mechanical to the rear of the property better meets Guideline 12.4 which speaks to minimizing the visual impacts of mechanical equipment. The applicant is proposing to relocate the existing side yard pathway from the east side yard to the west side yard to better direct potential guests to the parking/rear entrance. 10 The proposed material will be the same sandstone material that is existing, which is an appropriate material for the pathway. Five pathway lights are also proposed for safety purposes, and are proposed to be a downcast, simplistic design which meets Guideline 1.14. Staff find that these alterations strike a balance within applicable Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Further analysis of the project as it relates to the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines can be found in Attachment B. Planned Development (Section 26.445) Planned Developments (PD) are a tool within Aspen’s land use code (and used in many communities) to allow for site specific flexibility related to dimensional or use provisions in the code. Normally reserved for larger projects, PDs can also be utilized for smaller projects if the Community Development Director determines that there is a community interest to do so. In this case, the desire to better preserve the exterior and interior integrity of this important resource provides that justification. Establishing a new Planned Development requires three public hearings: 1. Project review before the Historic Preservation Commission (recommendation). 2. Project review before the City Council (decision). 3. Detailed review before the Historic Preservation Commission (decision). Project review focuses on the overall concept and general parameters of a project. Allowed uses, layout, mass, scale, and dimensions of the project are established at this time. Detailed review focuses on refining project design and operational characteristics, including final architectural details and materials. In this case, the Planned Development request is being utilized to solely review the appropriateness of a Boutique Lodge with less rooms than required by Code. For background, the Boutique Lodge Use and related provisions were created recently – in 2017 – to ensure that small lodges functioned as actual lodges – and not free- market residences in our commercial zone districts. Boutique lodges are a conditional use within the code. There are several standards for Boutique Lodges generally that this project will be required to fulfill, regardless of its size. However, it is possible that HPC could include recommended conditions of approval for Council’s consideration for this specific project. The general standards for Boutique Lodges are included as Exhibit H. If approved by Council, these standards will be included in the Planned Development provisions within the eventual Ordinance. At this time the HPC is asked to provide a recommendation to Council regarding the Planned Development Project Review criteria. The request will then go to City Council for decision. The HPC has review and approval authority over the Planned Development Detailed Review, which will come back to the HPC following Council review of the Planned Development Project Review criteria. 11 As previously stated, the request to convert the property to a Boutique Lodge with less than ten rooms would require the flexibility allowed by a Planned Development. Staff are in support of this request since this flexibility would allow for minimal alterations to the resource, including the interior which has a significant amount of historic integrity remaining. Because the interior is not part of the current designation of this property, staff recommend conditions of approval that speak to preserving significant interior features to formalize the applicants intent. Without these conditions in place, the applicant would be able to reconfigure and/or demolish the interior of the resource without preserving any of the existing interior elements. Recommended elements to preserve include the fireplaces, stairway, historic doors, historic wood molding/trim, and historic window and door surrounds. Staff analysis of the Planned Development Project Review criteria can be found in Attachment C. Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) (Section 26.470.100) There are three aspects of the project that need consideration under GMQS review. These will be part of the Ordinance considered by Council and are included in the recommendation portion of HPC’s Resolution #01. First A GMQS review is required for a Change in Use from roughly 3,900 square feet of net leasable commercial area to six (6) lodge keys (rooms). The change in use, if approved requires affordable housing mitigation for the new lodge rooms. Secondly, the approval would grant the allocation of 12 pillows from the 2026 GMQS allotment system for lodge uses. (112 pillows in total are available annually). Lastly, the applicant has requested to provide mitigation for housing via cash-in-lieu; per the LUC. At this time, 2.34 FTEs at Category 4 would be the required mitigation, equal to $811,540.72. Final fee-in-lieu calculation will be determined at building permit submission. This is a request that requires specific Council approval. At this time, due to challenges in the market for Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, staff is supportive of this request. Figure 3: Image from previous real estate listing showing significant interior elements. 12 Staff analysis of the GMQS Review criteria can be found in Attachment D. Commercial Design Review (Section 26.412.060) Given the minimal exterior alterations as noted previously, the project is subject to commercial design review, specifically the Remodel section withing the General chapter and the Main Street Historic District chapter. Overall, staff find the proposal meets applicable review criteria. Staff analysis of the Commercial Design Review criteria can be found in Attachment E. Referral Comments: Staff referred out the final application to other City departments for comments. The aggregated referral comments are included in Attachment F. Some of the feedback may have already been incorporated into the subsequent application revisions. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommend HPC provide a positive recommendation to Council for the Planned Development Project Review and GMQS. Staff also recommend approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development and Commercial Design Review. Additionally, staff have recommended the following condition of approval: 1. Should the project receive Planned Development approval as a Boutique Lodge, no alterations shall be made to significant interior features, specifically: a. Fireplaces and surrounds b. Main stair area including railings, newel posts, and other wood detailing c. Historic doors d. Historic wood molding/trim e. Historic door surrounds f. Historic window surrounds ATTACHMENTS: HPC Resolution #01, Series of 2026 Attachment A – Application Attachment B – Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Analysis Attachment C – Planned Development Project Review Criteria Attachment D – Growth Management Quota System Review Criteria Attachment E – Commercial Design Review Criteria Attachment F – Referral Comments Attachment G – Public Comment Attachment H – Boutique Lodge Use Standards 13 HPC Resolution #1, Series of 2026 Page 1 of 4 RESOLUTION #01, (SERIES OF 2026) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT, COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, A RECOMMENDATION ON GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM REVIEW, AND A RECOMMENDATION ON PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 320 WEST MAIN STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT A OF THE HISTORIC LANDMARK AT 320 WEST MAIN STREET SUBDIVISION, ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL ID: 2735-124-41-010 WHEREAS, the applicant, West Main Holdings LLC, Scott Kay, Manager, and represented by Sara Adams, BendonAdams LLC, has requested HPC approval for Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development, for the property located at 320 West Main Street, Lot A of the Historic Landmark at 320 West Main Street Subdivision, Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that “no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;” and WHEREAS, for approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report, and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070(c) of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, for approval of Commercial Design Review, the HPC must find the application meets the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.412; and WHEREAS, HPC is requested to make a recommendation to City Council on the following reviews: Planned Development to allow for the use as a Boutique Lodge with less than the required number of lodge units, and Growth Management Quota System; and WHEREAS, to recommend approval of Planned Development – Project Review, the HPC must find the application meets the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.445, Planned Development; and WHEREAS, to recommend approval of Growth Management Quota System, the HPC must find the application meets the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.470.080, General 14 HPC Resolution #1, Series of 2026 Page 2 of 4 Review Standards, 26.470.100, Planning and Zoning Commission Growth Management review; and WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for compliance with the applicable review standards and recommended approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development and Commercial Design Review; and WHEREAS, Community Development Staff reviewed the application for compliance with the applicable review standards for Planned Development and Growth Management Quota System reviews and recommend that HPC recommend approval of the project to City Council; and, WHEREAS, the HPC reviewed the project on January 14, 2026, and considered the application, the staff memo, and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and granted approval of HPC Resolution #01, Series of 2026 by a vote of X to X (X-X). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Section 1: Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development, Commercial Design Review: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Historic Preservation Commission hereby grants a Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development and Commercial Design Review for the property located at 320 West Main Street, legally described as Lot A of the Historic Landmark at 320 West Main Street Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, with the following condition(s): 1. Should the project receive Planned Development approval as a Boutique Lodge, no alterations shall be made to significant interior features, specifically: a. Fireplaces and surrounds. b. Main stair area including railings, newel posts, and other wood detailing. c. Historic doors. d. Historic wood molding/trim. e. Historic door surrounds. f. Historic window surrounds. Any proposed alterations to these elements would require staff and monitor review. Section 2: Planned Development- Project Review: The HPC recommends approval of Planned Development Project Review specifically to vary the minimum required lodge keys for the Boutique Lodge use from ten (10) keys to six (6). An approved Boutique Lodge shall be subject to the other required standards for a Boutique Lodge described in Section 26.425.035. Section 3: Growth Management Review: HPC recommends approval of Growth Management review and supports the mitigation method of fee-in-lieu for required affordable housing mitigation. In addition, HPC recommends the Change in Use from Commercial to Lodge, and the allocation of 12 pillows in the GMQS allotment system. 15 HPC Resolution #1, Series of 2026 Page 3 of 4 Section 4: Material Representations All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department, the Historic Preservation Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. Section 5: Existing Litigation This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 6: Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 7: Vested Rights The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site-specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 320 West Main Street. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. 16 HPC Resolution #1, Series of 2026 Page 4 of 4 The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 14th day of January 2026. Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: __________________________________ ____________________________________ Luisa Berne Kara Thompson Assistant City Attorney HPC Chair ATTEST: _________________________________ Mike Sear Deputy City Clerk 17 320 West Main Street Land Use Application BendonAdams May 12, 2025 revised October 3, 2025 18 TABLE OF CONTENTS 03 10 10 97 Project summary and background A. Review Criteria A.1 HP Design Guidelines and Commercial Design Review E.3 HOA Form 98 111 112 116 E.4 Proof of Ownership E.5 Authorization to Represent E.6 Mailing List F. Past Approvals 116 F.1 Recorded Lot Split Plat (Book 66 Page 32) 27 32 A.2 Conditional Use including description of management plan A.3 Planned Development 41 45 A.4 Growth Management A.5 Transportation and Parking Management 52 56 B. Land Use Application and Dimensional Requirement Forms C. Vicinity Map and Neighborhood Context 58 95 D. Proposal E.2 Agreement to Pay Form 81 D.2 Engineering Report and Civil Drawings 91 91 E. Application Requirements E.1 Pre-application Summary 58 D.1 Drawings, Survey, and cut sheets 117 F.2 Subdivision Exemption Agreement (reception #487833) 122 F.3 City Council Ordinance 14- 2002 (reception #471904) 126 G. Referral Response 19 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Aspen City Council Aspen Community Development Department May 12, 2025 Dear Council members, Commissioners, and Staff, Please accept this application for a change in use from commercial to a boutique lodge at 320 West Main Street. A Planned Development application is submitted to request the creation of 6 lodge keys and amenity space to preserve the interior and exterior of this important historic building. Conversion to a boutique lodge supports the strong lodging history of the Elisha Family who owned and operated the Hotel Jerome while raisting their family at 320 West Main. 320 West Main Street is a designated landmark located within the Main Street Historic District. The property was originally owned by Eben Smith in 1889 for a few short years. Smith was one of the most prominent miners in Colorado with forty years of experience and a reputation for safety and productivity in the mining industry.1 The manager of the Franklin Mine and The Deep Shaft in 1890. In 1891 the property transferred to Mary Thatcher who owned the home with George Thatcher for over fifty years, until 1946.2 Laurence and Svea Elisha Family purchased the home in 1946 as their family residence. They raised four kids in the home. Elisha’s father Mansor Elisha came to Aspen around 1888 and owned a cigar, stationery and confectionery business until 1911 when he purchased the Hotel Jerome. He owned and operated the hotel until his death in 1935 when Laurence assumed management employing his wife Svea and his older sons Lowell and Don. Laurence and Svea were inducted into the Aspen Hall of Fame in 1994. 1 National Register of Historic Places application background. 2 The Aspen Daily Chronicle, September 7, 1891, page 4 Top: Current photograph of 320 West Main. Bottom: 1965, Svea Elisha in front of house. Courtesy Aspen Historical Society, Lane Collection, 1993.048.0017. Page 3 of 128 20 Following is an excerpt from the Aspen Hall of Fame website and the Aspen Times, July 2011: Laurence became legendary in a short time. His charm and wit were every visitor’s introduction to Aspen. Laurence, as one of the 20 founding members and president for the 1944-1945 season of the Roaring Fork Winter Sports Club (later to become Aspen Ski Club), poured all of his energy into making 1930s skiers love the town. Early skiers were as impressed with Aspen’s hospitality as they were with its skiing. Laurence was one of the volunteers that helped cut Roch run, the first ski trail on Aspen mountain, and he donated the motor that powered the boat tow. Hotel business grew as Aspen’s skiing reputation spread. Tenth Mountain Division soldiers spent as many weekends at the hotel as possible, partaking in the famous Aspen Crud (a drink at the bar) and Elisha’s hospitality. Janet Ela, one of the early Madison, Wisconsin ski club members, wrote this description of Elisha about her first visit in 1941: “When we struggled down onto the Glenwood (train) platform with our skis, Laurence was there to meet us. He was a good man for one’s first Aspenite. You knew right off you weren’t going to a ghost town when you saw Laurence. He was hard-set, bouncy, and nimble as a prizefighter, with a slightly askew flattened nose and remarkably bright brown eyes, which managed to look both soulful and shrewd in one glance. He greeted us lustily, yet even at that first meeting, there was no forced joviality. Laurence, as we grew to know him better, was the perfect hotel man because he knew his job and liked it; he had a fine gregarious temperament, but he was never toadying to anybody in order to get extras on the bill.” Walter Paepcke saw the Jerome as the natural starting point for his own Aspen endeavors. Known for demanding complete control of his projects, he made Elisha an offer he couldn’t refuse. Elisha did not have the capital to remodel the aging hotel and he could not compete with a new Paepcke lodge. Much to the chagrin of his friends, he turned over the hotel in 1945. After Paepcke leased and refurbished the Jerome in 1946, he discouraged locals from frequenting the Jerome and appointed a new manager, Charles Bishop. Laurence was kept on as Assistant Manager for Maintenance for the hotel and other Aspen Company properties and was missed by the many guests who craved a visit with Elisha as part of their Aspen vacation package. He stepped in as Manager again in 1960 (the year Peapcke died) and continued until his death in 1961. After his death, his son Don became Manager.3 3 www.aspenhalloffame.org/inductee/svea-laurence-elisha/ Page 4 of 128 21 In 1946 the Hotel Jerome was leased to Walter Paepcke’s Aspen Company.4 Laurence died in 1962 and Svea remained in the home and raised their two youngest children MJ and Ingrid. The property was included as a contributing structure within the Main Street Historic District in 1976 and designated to the Aspen Inventory of Sites and Structures as an individual landmark in 1988. In 1989 the “Smith Elisha House” was listed in the National Register of Historic Places as “one of Aspen’s best Queen Anne style residences.” Land Use Background and Existing Conditions The property operated as a residence until around 1989 when a Change In Use to office was granted concurrent with local historic designation.5 In 1998 the property applied for a permit to reinstall the kitchen and bathroom in a single family home and convert back to a residence via an administrative change in use approval. In 2002 a historic lot split was approved to separate the carriage house and the main house onto separate 4,500 sf lots. Lot A contains the Smith-Elisha House (aka main house), and Lot B contains the carriage house. At the time, the main house was to be converted back to a residence and the carriage house was to remain mixed use (commercial on the main level and a small apartment on the second level). HPC granted a 500 sf FAR bonus to allow conversion of the main house to a residence and compliance with allowable floor area without removing any historic fabric. Approval of the FAR bonus was contingent on not expanding the historic home. Onsite parking requirements were waived for both newly created lots and a 3 foot east side setback variance was granted for the main house. In 2004 a Change In Use was granted to convert the main house from residential to office use. In 2005 the Mixed Use Zone District (formerly the Office Zone District) was amended, including a 20% reduction of allowable floor area for the establishment of residential use.6 4 National Register of Historic Places application background. 5 Aspen Building Permit #246. Note this permit also include the addition of the exterior fire escape on the west elevation. 6 Ordinance 7- 2005. 1949, Ingrid Elder with family on porch. Courtesy Aspen Historical Society, 2022.022.002. Page 5 of 128 22 This amendment effectively prohibited the main house from converting back to residential use as the floor area would exceed allowable. In 2017 Boutique Lodge was added to the Land Use Code as a new type of lodge use conditionally permitted in the Mixed Use zone district and other similar districts. In 2019 an interpretation of the applicable zone district for this property was requested by the previous owner after Community Development indicated that conversion of the property to a single family residence was not allowed due to the overage of floor area. Community Development issued the interpretation to confirm the applicability of the Mixed Use zone district to 320 West Main, and to reiterate the requirement to comply with the 20% floor area reduction for a conversion to residential use. The interpretation was appealed to City Council and the staff decision upheld.7 320 West Main was sold in 2021 to the current owners, Scott Kay and Kate Dellas, who have strong ties to Aspen and a background in restoration of historic homes for lodging in Charleston, South Carolina. Scott and Kate request approval to convert the property from office to a boutique lodge with very minimal changes to the interior and exterior unless required by Building Code. 7 Resolution 96-2019. Note Ordinance 13-2022 removed new free market residential units as a permitted use. Circa 1970 photograph courtesy Aspen Historical Society, Mary Eshbaugh Hayes Collection, 2013.048.1712. Page 6 of 128 23 Proposal 320 West Main is one of Aspen’s best Queen Anne style residences and has very minimal alterations to the exterior and interior. The new owners request approval to convert the office use to a boutique lodge through the Planned Development process. A boutique lodge is defined as between 10 – 14 lodge keys and is a conditional use in the Mixed Use Zone District. A Planned Development review is required to vary the number of keys to 6 lodge keys in order to preserve the historic interior of this important building. Every lodge key is required to have a full bathroom, and an accessible room is provided on the main level. A maximum of 6 keys with onsite amenity space can be accommodated with very minimal alterations. HPC Reviews: A.1 Design Reviews: Minor Development and Commercial Design Review A.2 Conditional Use approval for Boutique Lodge A.4 Growth Management A.5 Parking and Transportation Recommendation to Council: A.3 Planned Development Review City Council Reviews: A.3 Planned Development Review A brief summary of each review is provided below, and all review criteria are addressed in detail in Exhibit A. HP and Commercial Design Reviews Exhibit A.1 – Exterior changes are limited to adapting the rear porch and rear door to meet ADA requirements and accommodating a kitchen vent. A few pathway lights are proposed for guest safety along the existing sandstone walkway, and along the alleyway the trash/recycle area is relocated onto the property and permeable pavers are proposed to formalize two parking spaces. Conditional Use for Boutique Lodge Exhibit A.2 – The Land Use Code defines a Boutique Lodge as a small lodge with 10 – 14 keys, onsite reception, and amenity space proportionate to number of lodge keys. 320 West Main Street is a unique situation where the interior of the three story historic landmark is somewhat intact. The proposal is to preserve interior walls, doors and transoms, the original stairway, the original parlors, and interior fixtures and finishes. This is rare in Aspen where many historic homeowners completely remove the interior of the landmark. The request for 6 lodge keys stems directly from the goal to preserve the interiors as-is and to have the smallest impact on the building as possible. The boutique lodge is planned to be operated similar to a bed and breakfast with a limited breakfast served to lodge guests in the front parlor. Common areas and reception are located on the main floor for guests. Page 7 of 128 24 Planned Development (PD) Exhibit A.3 – Planned Development review is required to vary the boutique lodge use – specifically the number of lodge keys from 10 key to 6 keys. Dimensional variances are not requested or necessary for the project. The minor 30 sf floor area increase results from the removal of the interior rear stair to meet ADA requirements on the main level. This slight increase does not impact the footprint or exterior of the structure, and is within the allowable floor area of the current zone district plus the bonus granted in 2002. Growth Management Exhibit A.4 – Growth Management review is required for the change in use from roughly 3,900 sf of net leasable commercial area to 6 lodge keys. Due to the constraints of the landmark, an employee housing unit cannot be located onsite. Cash in lieu is requested as housing mitigation. The housing credit market is almost dry, and there are no projects in the pipeline that would result in credits coming to the market. The team explored adding a housing unit within the building but could not make the minimum size requirements reasonably work for an acceptable unit. There is a short timeframe expected for completion of this project after land use approvals, so rather than request mitigation through housing credits now and return to Council for cash in lieu approval in the future, it seemed prudent to request cash in lieu at this time. A total of 2.34 FTEs at Category 4 is required mitigation for the project.8 Parking Exhibit A.5 – Three parking spaces are generated by the 6 lodge keys and 60% are required to be provided onsite (1.8 spaces). The project proposes 2 surface spaces with alley access. The third parking space does not fit onsite and will be mitigated through cash in lieu as permitted in the Code, or through an additional TIA credit contribution to Wecycle. The Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) has been vetted with Engineering and Transportation Departments prior to submission. Bike parking is provided onsite, and a contribution to Wecycle for capital purchase is proposed. Engineering – Conceptual civil drawings are included to demonstrate URMP compliance. Analysis of service, utilities, and electric loads is addressed in the Engineering Report provided by Roaring Fork Engineering (RFE). RFE met with Engineering staff early in the project to discuss options for URMP that also comply with historic preservation design requirements. Parks - The large spruce tree in the front yard is protected and preserved. Environmental Health - The current trash/recycle area will be relocated on property and upgraded to include trash, recycle, and compost with on-property access as required by Code. Referral Comments – Referral comments are addressed in Exhibit G and are reflected in the drawing set provided in Exhibit D.1. 8 There is no credit applied for the commercial use. Mitigation is calculated based on 6 new lodge keys. Page 8 of 128 25 Thank you for reviewing this application. We look forward to discussing the project with you and would like to conduct a site visit to the property before the public hearings commence. As always please reach out with any additional information you may need for your review. Sincerely, Sara Adams, AICP sara@bendonadams.com Page 9 of 128 26 Exhibit A.1 Design Review HP Minor Development Review 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. Response: Applicable Design Guidelines are addressed below: Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Streetscape 1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood or district. Response – The proposed landmark remains in its original location. 1.2 Preserve the system and character of historic streets, alleys, and ditches. Response – No changes are proposed in the right of way unless required by Engineering and Parks Departments. 1.3 Remove driveways or parking areas accessed directly from the street if they were not part of the original development of the site. Response – n/a. 1.4 Design a new driveway or improve an existing driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. Response – All vehicular access is proposed off the alley. 1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces. Response – The direct walkway from sidewalk into the historic building is proposed to remain. The access easement along the east property line is proposed to be relocated to the west side yard using the same sandstone pavers; however the pathway will be 3’6” wide compared to the front walkway which is currently 4’ wide and is not proposed to change. Relocating the walkway addresses the concerns of the carriage house owners by shifting pedestrian activity to the other side of the property. Proposed location of relocated side walkway from parking area in sandstone. Shortened east walkway to provide access to carriage house owners in grey. Page 10 of 128 27 Exhibit A.1 Design Review From a historic preservation perspective, removal of the walkway visually strengthens the relationship between the main house and the carriage house. Photograph showing relationship between the two structures. Denver Public Library Special Collections. X-4860. 1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on residential projects. Response – The existing sandstone front walkway is proposed to remain (see photograph at right). 1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site. Response – There is no change proposed to the existing open space around the site. The open space around the landmark and its relationship to the carriage house remain and are strengthened by the removal of the side walkway between the two structures. This walkway is proposed to be relocated to the west side yard as requested by the owner of the carriage house. 1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process. Response – Storm water design is considered as part of this change in use application as explained in the attached civil engineering report and conceptual civil drawings. A grass buffer of 1,500 sf is proposed in the front yard and 500 sf of pervious pavers are proposed in the rear yard (parking area) to meet URMP requirements. Existing front walkway and retaining wall. Page 11 of 128 28 Exhibit A.1 Design Review 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. Response – Built-in furnishings and grills are not proposed. 1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. Response – No trees are proposed for removal. 1.12 Provide an appropriate context for historic structures. See diagram. Response – There is no change to the existing landscape. 1.13 Additions of plant material to the landscape that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate. Response – There is no new plant material proposed. 1.14 Minimize the visual impacts of landscape lighting. Response – A few pathway lights are proposed along the main walkway and the west side walkway for safety. Light fixtures are minimal and downcast, and in a black finish. 1..5 -1.20 Response – n/a. 1.21 Preserve original retaining walls Response – The sandstone retaining wall along the sidewalk is original and is not proposed to be changed. 1.22 When a new retaining wall is necessary, its height and visibility should be minimized. 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 – The site is not proposed to be regraded. Minor grading is expected to occur near the drywell cap to create positive drainage to the drywell. Proposed pathway lights. Page 12 of 128 29 Exhibit A.1 Design Review 1.24 Preserve historically significant landscapes with few or no alterations. Response – No changes are proposed in the right of way along Main Street, which has a significant pattern of cottonwood trees lining the street. 1.25 New development on these sites should respect the historic design of the landscape and its built features. Response – Existing setbacks are maintained – the location of the landmark is not proposed to change. 1.26 Preserve the historic circulation system. Response – Parking is located off the alley. 1.27 Preserve and maintain significant landscaping on site. Response – Existing trees are preserved and protected in this proposal. Detail of photograph by Theodore Cooper showing 320 West Main Street and the retaining wall. Circa 1910. Courtesy Denver Public Library Special Collections, [CPHOTO513-2020-125]. Page 13 of 128 30 Exhibit A.1 Design Review Restoration Materials 2.1 Preserve original building materials. 2.2 The finish of materials should be as it would have existed historically. 2.3 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary surfaces. 2.4 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for original building materials. 2.5 Covering original building materials with new materials is inappropriate. 2.6 Remove layers that cover the original material. Response – The historic landmark is in excellent condition and repairs are not anticipated at this time. A small section of siding on the west elevation will be removed for a kitchen vent. The kitchen cannot be located at the rear of the property due to ADA requirements for an accessible lodge room. The kitchen vent cannot be routed through the roof as it would go through a lodge room and require removal of more historic material than the small amount of siding on the west elevation. Windows 3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. 3.2 Preserve the position, number, and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. 3.3 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. 3.4 When replacing an original window, use materials that are the same as the original. 3.5 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. 3.6 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the original window. 3.7 Adding new openings on a historic structure is generally not allowed. 3.8 Use a storm window to enhance energy conservation rather than replace a historic window. Response – Windows are not proposed to be altered. Page 14 of 128 31 Exhibit A.1 Design Review Doors 4.1 Preserve historically significant doors. 4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening. 4.3 When a historic door or screen door is damaged, repair it and maintain its general historic appearance. 4.4 When replacing a door or screen door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original door or a door associated with the style of the building. 4.5 Adding new doors on a historic building is generally not allowed. 4.6 If energy conservation and heat loss are concerns, use a storm door instead of replacing a historic entry door. 4.7 Preserve historic hardware. Response – The front door facing Main Street is not proposed to change. The rear door facing the alley must be enlarged to meet ADA requirements. The new door is a simple wood paneled door. Proposed ADA compliant rear door. Page 15 of 128 32 Exhibit A.1 Design Review Porch 5.1 Preserve an original porch or balcony. 5.2 Avoid removing or covering historic materials and details. 5.3 Enclosing a porch or balcony is not appropriate. 5.4 If reconstruction is necessary, match the original in form, character and detail. 5.5 If new steps are to be added, construct them out of the same primary materials used on the original, and design them to be in scale with the porch or balcony 5.6 Avoid adding handrails or guardrails where they did not exist historically, particularly where visible from the street. Response – The prominent wrap around porch is a character defining feature of this property and is proposed to remain and to be repaired if needed. The rear porch is original but does not meet ADA requirements. Minor changes are proposed to bring the rear porch into compliance. The existing porch columns are proposed to be shortened and reinstalled to accommodate the deck height increase required for the lift. The existing deck and stair will remain underneath the new compliant deck and stair. All existing historic details will be removed and reinstalled where possible. A lift is proposed along the east side of the stair as opposed to a ramp. Architectural details of the proposed changes are found on Sheet A-401. 1898 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map shows the rear porch. Page 16 of 128 33 Exhibit A.1 Design Review Architectural Details 6.1 Preserve significant architectural features. 6.2 When disassembly of a historic element is necessary for its restoration, use methods that minimize damage to the original material. 6.3 Remove only the portion of the detail that is deteriorated and must be replaced. 6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features are required to be based on original designs. 6.5 Do not guess at “historic” designs for replacement parts. Response – Architectural details will be repaired as needed. Roof 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. 7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices. 7.4 New vents should be minimized, carefully, placed and painted a dark color. 7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they are made non-functional. 7.6 A new dormer should remain subordinate to the historic roof in scale and character. 7.7 Preserve original roof materials. 7.8 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to the original. 7.9 Avoid using conjectural features on a roof. 7.10 Design gutters so that their visibility on the structure is minimized to the extent possible. Page 17 of 128 34 Exhibit A.1 Design Review Response – The roof is not proposed to change. The kitchen requires a new range hood exhaust which is located on the west elevation – running venting through the second floor and the roof removes more historic material than placing the vent on the west elevation. The kitchen is required to move from the rear of the property to the front of the property in order to create an ADA lodge key. Best case scenario, Environmental Health allows the small kitchen to use a domestic vent as opposed to a commercial vent. The location of the vent is significantly setback from the property line and is completely blocked by the large spruce tree and the proximity of Cooper Horse next door. Proposed west elevation (left) with approximate vent location, and photograph of existing conditions demonstrating the vent will not be easily visible from the sidewalk. Page 18 of 128 35 Exhibit A.1 Design Review Building Additions 10.1 - 10.2 - n/a. Additions are not impacted by this project. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one’s ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. Response – The proposed alterations to the rear porch are required for ADA access. The “addition” is placed on top of the existing stairs and decking to preserve the original materials and create a reversible condition (as recommended by the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Historic Properties). 10.4 The historic resource is to be the focus of the property, the entry point, and the predominant structure as viewed from the street. Response - Alterations to the steps, decking, and the columns, and the addition of a folded platform are minimally intrusive to the landmark. These minor changes do not impact the appearance of the landmark as the focus on the property, and are located on the rear facing the alley. 10.5 On a corner lot, no portion of an addition to a one story historic resource may be more than one story tall, directly behind that resource, unless completely detached above grade by a distance of at least 10 feet. n/a. 10.6 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. Response – In this specific case, it is our opinion that the rear porch should not be expressed as a product of its own time but instead is proposed to be a minimally intrusive addition to a historic element that is clearly modern in function (it has a foldable lift). 10.7 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic alignments on the street. n/a. 10.8 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. Response - The alterations are in scale with the existing rear porch. Proposed accessible rear porch. Page 19 of 128 36 Exhibit A.1 Design Review Accessibility, Architectural Lighting, Mechanical Equip, Service Areas, Signage 10.9 If the addition is taller than a historic building, set it back from significant façades and use a “connector” to link it to the historic building. n/a. 10.10 Place an addition at the rear of a primary building or set it back substantially from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. Response- The alterations to the rear porch are on the rear of the building. 10.11 Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building : n/a. 10.12 Design an addition to a historic structure that does not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. Response- The intent is to maintain as much existing historic material as possible while meeting ADA requirements – the recommendations to differentiate between new and historic construction are met by building the compliant decking, steps, and lift on top of the existing historic rear porch. There is no other alternative to provide access to this building without changing the rear porch. 10.13 - 10.15: n/a. Rooftop additions are not proposed. 12.1 Address accessibility compliance requirements while preserving character defining features of historic buildings and districts. • All new construction must comply completely with the International Building Code (IBC) for accessibility. Special provisions for historic buildings exist in the law that allow some flexibility when designing solutions which meet accessibility standards. Response – The proposed alterations to the rear porch including the addition of an ADA lift meets accessibility standards while preserving the historic character of the building. Early in the project we met with the Chief Building Official to discuss accessibility, the grade changes between the sidewalk and the property, the historic retaining wall and steps, and ultimately received direction to explore altering the rear porch to meet accessibility standards. The rear of the property is limited and a ramp cannot be accommodated with the other requirements such as onsite parking, transformer setbacks, utilities, and trash/recycle area. The ramp vs. lift option was discussed with Gillian White on January 16, 2025, with direction to pursue a lift. Proposed ADA lift for rear stairs. Page 20 of 128 37 Exhibit A.1 Design Review 12.2 Original light fixtures must be maintained. When there is evidence as to the appearance of original fixtures that are no longer present, a replication is appropriate. Response – The existing hanging light fixture on the front porch is proposed to remain. 12.3 Exterior light fixtures should be simple in character. Response – New exterior light fixtures are not proposed at this time, pathway lights are addressed in Chapter 1. 12.4 Minimize the visual impacts of utilitarian areas, such as mechanical equipment and trash storage. Response – Trash and utility areas are located along the alley. Mechanical equipment is located in the basement, at the rear of the building, and potentially in the northeast corner of the building. Current mechanical equipment is located at the southwest corner of the landmark behind a fence. This equipment will be removed and likely relocated to the northeast corner of the landmark – much farther from the street. A fence will shield the trash area from view. 12.5 Awnings must be functional. Response – Awnings are not proposed. 12.6 Signs should not obscure or damage historic building fabric. Response – The existing standing sign is proposed to remain and new lettering added. 12.7 Sign lighting must be subtle and concealed. Response – Sign lighting will meet Outdoor Lighting Code and will be proposed for review and approval by staff and monitor through the insubstantial amendment process. 12.8 Locate signs to be subordinate to the building design. Response – The standing sign does not impact the building design or architectural significance of the landmark. 12.9 Preserve historic signs. N/a. Existing hanging light fixture to remain. West side yard looking toward Main Street. Arrow points to existing mechanical equipment to be relocated. Page 21 of 128 38 Exhibit A.1 Design Review Commercial Design Review General Commercial Design Guidelines The purpose of Commercial Design Review is to preserve and to encourage appropriate architecture that creates walkable neighborhoods and supports the heritage of Aspen. The Standards and Guidelines below apply to all projects subject to Commercial Design Review. Site Planning and Streetscape 1.1 – 1.6 Response – N/a, no changes to site plan or building location are proposed. Alleyways 1.7 – 1.8 Response – N/a, the alleyway remains parking, trash, and utility access without any major changes. Parking 1.9 Minimize the visual impacts of parking. Response – Parking is located off the alley behind the landmark, and is screened from the street. The parking area will be permeable pavers per URMP requirements, and to differentiate between the alley and the parking area. Building Mass, Height, and Scale 1.10 – 1.13 Response – N/a, no change to building height, mass or scale. Street Level Design 1.14 – 1.17 Response – N/a, commercial storefronts are not proposed. Roofscape 1.18 – 1.21 – Response – N/a, no rooftop access proposed. Materials and Details 1.22 -1.25 Response – N/a, new materials are not proposed. The ADA improvements to the rear porch are proposed in wood to meet the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Lighting, Service and Mechanical Areas 1.26 The design of light fixtures should be appropriate to the form, materials, scale, and style of the building. Response – The only new light fixtures are pathway lights along the existing front and new west walkways (image at right). Proposed pathway light fixture. Page 22 of 128 39 Exhibit A.1 Design Review 1.27 Trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located along an alleyway where one exists, and screened from view with a fence or door. Response – The trash area is located along the alley with a 6’ tall fence screening the wildlife safe bins. 1.28 Design trash and recycle areas thoughtfully and within the style of the building, with the goal of enhancing pedestrian and commercial uses along alleys. Response – The trash area is a simple painted wood privacy fence surrounding the three toter bins. The fence will be painted to match the landmark and fully shields the bins from alley view. 1.29 Delivery areas shall be located along an alleyway where one exists. Response – Deliveries will occur along the alleyway, ideally in one of the parking spaces onsite. 1.30 Mechanical equipment, ducts, and vents shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or co-located on the roof. Response – Mechanical equipment is located in the cellar of the building. Equipment that requires open air is located at the rear of the property and potentially in the northeast corner as indicated on the site plan. All venting occurs through the roof with the exception of the kitchen vent which is located on the west, non-street facing, façade as described above under Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. 1.31 Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Response - Service boxes and the transformer are located on the alley and are not proposed to change. 1.32 Transformer location and size are dictated by City and utility company standards and codes. Response- The transformer along the alley is not proposed to change. Remodel 1.33 – 1.36 Response – N/a, a remodel project is not proposed. The proposed ADA lift at the rear porch is addressed above in the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines section. 1.37 Creative solutions that incorporate ADA compliance into the architecture are encouraged. Response – A lift and addition of a deck and steps on top of the historic rear porch are creative solutions to meet accessibility and preserve the landmark. Ramps were explored but were not feasible due to significant grade changes from Main Street to the front porch and limited space along the alley, which either did not provide enough space for a ramp or significantly impacted historic characteristics of the landmark and historic district. Page 23 of 128 40 Exhibit A.1 Design Review Main Street Historic District 3.1 Orient a new building or addition to the street. Response – N/a, no change to building location. 3.2 Design a new structure to be recognized as a product of its time. Response – N/a, no new structure is proposed. The accessible lift is addressed under other criteria. 3.3 The imitation of older historic styles blurs the distinction between old and new buildings and is discouraged. Response – The proposed rear porch alterations maintain historic details where possible. New materials like the lift and the railing are simple in design. 3.4-3.9 Response - N/a, no new structure is proposed. 3.10 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the Victorian-era residences seen traditionally on Main Street. Response – The proposed rear porch alterations maintain historic details where possible. New materials like the lift and the railing are simple in design. 3.11 Architectural details should reinforce the historic context of the block. Response – The proposed rear porch alterations maintain historic details where possible. New materials like the lift and the railing are simple in design. 3.12 Primary materials should be wood or brick. Response – Wood is proposed for rear porch alterations. 3.13 Secondary materials should relate to the historic context. Response – n/a. 3.14 Use roofing materials that are similar in appearance to those seen historically. Response – n/a. Page 24 of 128 41 Exhibit A.1 Design Review Sec. 26.412.070. Pedestrian Amenity. (a) Applicability and Requirement. The requirements of this Section shall apply to the development of all commercial, lodging and mixed-use development within the CC, C-1, MU, NC, S/C/I, L, CL, LP and LO Zone Districts, as well as any Essential Public Facility pursuant to Section 26.412.020(a). This area represents the City's primary pedestrian- oriented downtown, as well as important mixed-use, service and lodging neighborhoods. Development in these zone districts consisting of entirely residential uses is exempt from these provisions. Remodel and renovation activities that do not trigger demolition, and which maintain one hundred percent (100%) of the existing pedestrian amenity present on the site are exempt from this Section. Changes to pedestrian amenity space as a result of required accessibility or building code compliance are exempt from compliance with the twenty-five percent (25%) requirement if demolition is not triggered. Response – 320 West Main Street is a 4,500 sf lot. Demolition is not triggered with this project and existing amenity space is not reduced. Sec. 26.575.180. Required Access. This Section shall apply to new development and redevelopment, remodeling, or expansion following demolition. Redevelopment, remodeling, or expansion that has not triggered demolition shall comply with the provisions of this Section to the greatest extent practical. (a) Elevators. Response – Demolition is not triggered in this project; however, an accessible lift and ADA compliant door proposed on the rear porch. The trash and recycle area is relocated onto the property (it currently sits partially in the alley), and an accessible on property path is provided. (b) Delivery Areas. Response – The delivery area is located on the alleyway in one of the onsite parking spaces. (c) Trash and Recycling Areas. Response – Trash and recycle areas are upgraded to meet City of Aspen requirements for a 6-key lodge. Discussions with Environmental Health informed the number and type of toters proposed. A simple trash enclosure with three wildlife safe toters is proposed along the alley. On property access is provided to the 8’8” x 3’7” trash area. Page 25 of 128 42 Exhibit A.1 Design Review Existing alley conditions at 320 West Main (left side of photograph). Site plan and detail of proposed trash area with 6’ tall fence surrounding the bins. Page 26 of 128 43 Exhibit A2 Conditional Use Sec. 26.425.035. Standards for Boutique Lodge uses. When considering a development or change of use application to create a Boutique Lodge use, in addition to the standards in Section 26.425.050, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether all of the following standards are met, as applicable. (a) General Requirements. The proposed use meets the requirements of Boutique Lodge as provided in Section 26.100.104; and Response – The proposed boutique lodge use at 320 West Main Street meets the definition in the Land Use Code: the entire building and parcel will operate as overnight lodging for the general public on a short term basis for a fee. Each lodge room has a bathroom and small meals may be provided by staff using the common kitchen on the main level. Onsite management and reception will be provided during business hours, and common cleaning services will be used. The kitchen and common areas on the main level are for guests. Six keys are proposed in order to preserve the historic interior walls and layout of the landmark. Planned Development review is requested to reduce the minimum required 10 keys to 6 keys to facilitate the interior preservation of this important landmark. (b) Bed-base diversification. The proposed use will support the lodging sector by contributing to and diversifying the bed base in the City of Aspen; and Response – Most of the small lodges in historic 19th century homes have closed over the years. 320 West Main Street proposes to reintroduce a small lodge experience in a grand historic home within the Main Street historic district. A range of lodge room sizes are available based on the current interior configuration of the landmark. Guests will experience the historic interior and exterior of this important architecture, and learn about the Smith and Elisha families that contributed to Aspen history. (c) On-site amenities. The development contains a sufficient level of on- or off-site recreational facilities (such as exercise equipment, a pool or spa or similar facilities) and other amenities (such as a lobby, meeting spaces and similar facilities) to serve the lodge occupants. The extent of the facilities provided should be proportional to the size of the development. The types of facilities should be consistent with the planned method and style of operating the development. Response – Amenity space is provided on the main level in two parlors, a reception area, and a kitchen. A total of 742sf of amenity space is provided for 6 lodge keys in addition to the large wraparound front porch. The parlors will be flexible space with various seating areas. The owners plan to create a “buffet parlor room” similar to the popular buffet room at the Hotel Jerome when it was owned and operated by the Elisha family. The buffet parlor room would offer morning breakfast for guests, and an afternoon/evening lounge area for guests. (d) Management plan. A property management plan shall be submitted for any Boutique Lodge that is part of a mixed-use parcel (i.e. there are more uses than the Boutique Lodge use on the parcel). Page 27 of 128 44 Exhibit A2 Conditional Use Response – A mixed use parcel is not proposed. The sole use is boutique lodge. The owners provided the following management plan to further explain how the lodge will function: The management of this lodge is similar to a traditional bed and breakfast. The kitchen space (in the front parlor, aka the Buffet Room) becomes the main amenity and gathering area offering morning breakfasts & evening wine & cheese pairings. The onsite management staff oversee this shared amenity area and the two adjacent common parlors. Staff greet and check-in/check-out guests in the entry hall/reception area, and allow them to explore the common space. The kitchen area closes when the staff is off duty - this will be addressed through signage &/or use of the pocket doors for security. The common parlors remain open for guest to enjoy with the opportunity for scheduled nightly offerings that highlight the history of the property and Aspen hosted by the onsite manager. Partnerships with community organizations like the Aspen Historical Society are encouraged to engage with the history of the property and will be explored if this project is approved. Back of house space is limited due to the existing Footprint. Laundry is addressed off- site with only immediate needs addressed by the limited laundry facility in the basement. Storage space is also located in the basement. The entire design, layout, experience, and operations intend to follow traditional bed and breakfast models – an experience that is quickly fading in Aspen. The entire plan intends to restore the simplicity of this approach while preserving a grand historic home. (e) Décor. The Boutique Lodge units should use a standard palate of décor that has been established for the property. Response - The lodge units will be furnished in a standard palate of décor that highlights the history of the property. Main level of historic home. Common areas are highlighted in blue. RECEPTION COMMON PARLOR COMMON PARLOR BUFFET ROOM FRONT PORCH ADA LODGE KEY Page 28 of 128 45 Exhibit A2 Conditional Use (f) Signage. A Boutique Lodge shall have a wayfinding or other identification sign so the general public can find the Boutique Lodge. A signage plan, meeting the requirements of Chapter 26.510, Signs, shall be included in the application. Response – A simple sign is proposed in the same location as the existing sign in the front yard along Main Street. (g) No-residential uses. Based on floor plans and room configurations, the development or individual units therein will not function as a residential use. Response – The project is designed to retain as many interior original walls and rooms as possible and to create a unique lodge experience in a historic landmark. The project and individual units are not designed to function as a residential use. (h) Development Documents. The project shall be required to enter a development agreement, pursuant to Chapter 26.490, Approval Documents, that addresses the ongoing operation as a Boutique Lodge. Response – Development documents will be submitted for review and approval as requested by Community Development. (i) Unit Reduction. For applications which propose to reduce the number of units/keys on the property, the applicant shall demonstrate that the reduction is needed to improve or expand on-site amenities, meet market demand, or otherwise ensure the ongoing successful operation of the lodge. Response – The property is currently commercial use. A total of 6 keys are proposed within the historic landmark. This is the maximum number of keys that can fit within the existing building while meeting Building Code and preserving the interior walls, transom windows, fixtures, historic stairway, and finishes. This project thoughtfully balances historic preservation with current lodge requirements. Sec. 26.425.040. Standards applicable to all conditional uses. When considering a development application for a conditional use, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether all of the following standards are met, as applicable. (a) The conditional use is consistent with the intent of the Zone District in which it is proposed to be located and complies with all other applicable requirements of this Title; and Response – The proposed lodge complies with the intent of the Mixed Use Historic District and the Main Street Historic District “as a transition from the more intense commercial areas of the CC and C-1 zones, and the residential and lodging zones surrounding Main Street. By allowing for a mix of commercial and residential uses and smaller-scale development, the Mixed Use zone reflects Aspen's historic character and provides different economic and residential opportunities from more traditional commercial zones. Particularly along Main Street, the Mixed Use zone serves as a buffer from the traffic of Highway 82 while allowing for smaller scale commercial and residential opportunities.” Page 29 of 128 46 Exhibit A2 Conditional Use A small lodge located in a historic landmark supports the mix of uses along Main Street, and provides a unique opportunity for the public to experience the interior of a historic landmark. (b) The conditional use is compatible with the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping, and open space, as well as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan. Response – The boutique lodge use is compatible with the range of large and small lodges along Main Street, and adjacent commercial and multi-family residential uses. The proposed 6 lodge keys and onsite parking are consistent with surrounding uses. The exterior of the building facing Main Street, existing open space, and existing landscaping are not proposed to change in the conversion to boutique lodge use. Same block face as 320 West Main Street: 109 North 2nd Street – historic landmark, single family home. 314 West Main Street – historic landmark (carriage house), single family home 330 West Main Street- historic landmark (Copper Horse), deed restricted affordable housing multi-family residential use 332 West Main Street – commercial and free market residential mixed use Across from 320 West Main Street: 333 West Main Street – historic landmark, free market multi-family residential 323 West Main Street – commercial use 311 st Main Street – Aspen Mountain Lodge, condominium lodge (c) The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses and enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; and Response – The boutique lodge is consistent with surround uses noted above. The six key lodge compliments the surrounding land uses and activities along Main Street. (d) The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties; and Response – Impacts on traffic, noise, trash, and circulation are expected to be minimal and improvements on the existing condition. For example parking will be formalized and the trash enclosure will be relocated onto the property (it extends into the alley currently). Trash and deliveries will be minimal for a six key lodge and will occur in the alley. (e) There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, Page 30 of 128 47 Exhibit A2 Conditional Use emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems and schools; and Response – The attached engineering report from Roaring Fork Engineering describes the existing utilities and the ability to serve the proposed small lodge use. (f) The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use; and Response – Affordable housing is addressed in Exhibit A4 of this application. (g) The Community Development Director may recommend and the Planning and Zoning Commission may impose such conditions on a conditional use that are necessary to maintain the integrity of the City's Zone Districts and to ensure the conditional use complies this Chapter and this Title; is compatible with surrounding land uses; and is served by adequate public facilities. This includes, but is not limited to, imposing conditions on size, bulk, location, open space, landscaping, buffering, lighting, signage, off-street parking and other similar design features, the construction of public facilities to serve the conditional use and limitations on the operating characteristics, hours of operation and duration of the conditional use. Response – This condition is understood. Page 31 of 128 48 Exhibit A3 Planned Development Review 26.445.050. Project Review Standards. (a) Compliance with Adopted Regulatory Plans. The proposed development complies with applicable adopted regulatory plans. Response – The 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan encourages the preservation and development of small lodges. Applicable vision statements within the AACP are addressed below: IV Lodging Sector IV.1 Minimize the further loss of lodging inventory. IV.2 Replenish the declining lodging base with an emphasis on a balanced inventory, and diverse price points. IV.3 Loding amenities should be designed to facilitate interaction between visitors and residents. IV.4. Zoning and land use processes should result in lodging development that is compatible and appropriate within the context of the neighborhood, in order to: • Create certainty in land development. • Prioritize maintaining our mountain views. • Protect our existing lodges. • Protect our small town community character and historical heritage. • Limit consumption of energy and building materials. • Limit the burden on public infrastructure and ongoing public operating costs. • Reduce short- and long-term job generation impacts, such as traffic congestion and demand for affordable housing. Response – The 320 West Main project creates a small lodge with a range of unit sizes, and a unique opportunity for the general public to experience Aspen’s history by staying in the Smith Elisha house. IV. Land Use and Zoning IV.1 Affordable Housing should be designed for the highest practical energy efficiency and livability. IV.2 All affordable housing must be located within the Urban Growth Boundary. Response – Required affordable housing is mitigated as described in Exhibit A4. Onsite housing is not possible within the historic landmark without losing at least two of the six lodge keys. Page 32 of 128 49 Exhibit A3 Planned Development Review II. Historic Preservation II.1 Ensure that City codes support innovative development while respecting the historic integrity of designated structures and ensuring compatibility with the surrounding context in terms of site coverage, mass, scale, height and form. VI.1 All historic landmark properties should be maintained in a manner that improves energy efficiency while maintaining architectural integrity. Response – 320 West Main is preserved with only minor exterior changes to make the rear entrance ADA accessible. Relocation of an existing non-historic pathway from the east to the west side yard is proposed as requested by the owner of the carriage house. The interior of the landmark is preserved with minor changes to meet building code requirements. (b) Development Suitability. The proposed Planned Development prohibits development on land unsuitable for development because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the property, including flooding, mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep, rock falls, rock slides, mining activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snow slide areas, slopes in excess of thirty percent (30%), and any other natural or man- made hazard or condition that could harm the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Affected areas may be accepted as suitable for development if adequate mitigation techniques acceptable to the City Engineer are proposed in compliance with Title 29—Engineering Design Standards. Conceptual plans for mitigation techniques may be accepted for this standard. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Response – The subject property is located on land that is already developed with minimal exterior changes proposed (ADA lift on rear stairway). An analysis of existing and proposed conditions is provided in the attached engineering report from Roaring Fork Engineering. (c) Site Planning. The site plan is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: (1) The site plan responds to the site's natural characteristics and physical constraints such as steep slopes, vegetation, waterways, and any natural or man-made hazards and allows development to blend in with or enhance said features. (2) The project preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation, and structures or features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological importance or contribute to the identity of the town. (3) Buildings are oriented to public streets and are sited to reflect the neighborhood context. Buildings and access ways are arranged to allow effective emergency, maintenance, and service vehicle access. Response – No changes are proposed to the existing site plan. The large spruce tree, sandstone walkway and retaining walls are all protected in the proposal. Page 33 of 128 50 Exhibit A3 Planned Development Review (d) Dimensions. All dimensions, including density, mass, and height shall be established during the Project Review. A development application may request variations to any dimensional requirement of this Title. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to the following criteria: (1) There exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such variations. (2) The proposed dimensions represent a character suitable for and indicative of the primary uses of the project. (3) The project is compatible with or enhances the cohesiveness or distinctive identity of the neighborhood and surrounding development patterns, including the scale and massing of nearby historical or cultural resources. (4) The number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the probable number of cars to be operated by those using the proposed development and the nature of the proposed uses. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development, and the potential for joint use of common parking may be considered when establishing a parking requirement. (5) The Project Review approval, at City Council's discretion, may include specific allowances for dimensional flexibility between Project Review and Detailed Review. Changes shall be subject to the amendment procedures of Section 26.445.110— Amendments. Response – The project complies with the Land Use Code and assigned zoning. Dimensions are not proposed to be varied.1 The parking requirement of 3 spaces with 1.8 spaces onsite (60%) is met through two surface parking spaces accessed from the alley and cash in lieu for the third space that does not fit due to the location of the landmark. (e) Design Standards. The design of the proposed development is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: (1) The design complies with applicable design standards, including those outlined in Chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards, Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Standards, and Chapter 26.415, Historic Preservation. (2) The proposed materials are compatible with those called for in any applicable design standards, as well as those typically seen in the immediate vicinity. Exterior materials are finalized during Detailed Review, but review boards may set forth certain expectations or conditions related to architectural character and exterior materials during Project Review. 1 The existing height of the landmark on the south elevation is more than 1 foot over the maximum allowable height of 28’. This historic condition is not proposed to change and will be maintained as-is. The floor area bonus granted as a condition of the lot split remains applicable to the property. Page 34 of 128 51 Exhibit A3 Planned Development Review Response – The project complies with the Historic Preservation Design Standards and the Commercial Design Standards as described in Exhibit A1. (f) Pedestrian, bicycle & transit facilities. The development improves pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. These facilities and improvements shall be prioritized over vehicular facilities and improvements. Any vehicular access points, or curb cuts, minimize impacts on existing or proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The City may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Response – The development does not impact or change any vehicular access points and does not propose curb cuts. A complete Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) is provided in Exhibit A5. (g) Engineering Design Standards. There has been accurate identification of engineering design and mitigation techniques necessary for development of the project to comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29—Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Response – Engineering design and mitigation techniques are described in the attached Engineering Report provided by Roaring Fork Engineering. (h) Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed Planned Development shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at the sole costs of the developer. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Response – Infrastructure upgrades associated with the project will be completed at the cost of the property owner. Identification of existing infrastructure and its ability to serve the boutique lodge are addressed in the Engineering Report. (i) Access and Circulation. The proposed development shall have perpetual unobstructed legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed Planned Development shall not eliminate or obstruct legal access from a public way to an adjacent property. All streets in a Planned Development retained under private ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure adequate public and emergency access. Security/privacy gates across access points and driveways are prohibited. Response - Access and circulation are not impacted by the proposed project. Alley and street access remain unobstructed. Page 35 of 128 52 Exhibit A3 Planned Development Review Sec. 26.445.060. Use Variation Standards. (a) The proposed use variation is compatible with the character of existing and planned land uses in the project and surrounding area. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to the existence of similar uses in the immediate vicinity, as well as how the proposed uses may enhance the project or immediate vicinity. (b) The proposed use variation is effectively incorporated into the project's overall mix of uses. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to how the proposed uses within a project will interact and support one another. (c) The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use variation minimizes adverse effects on the neighborhood and surrounding properties. (d) The proposed use variation complies with applicable adopted regulatory plans. Response – A variation to the minimum number of lodge keys required for a boutique lodge is requested to be reduced from 10 keys to 6 keys. 320 West Main Street is an existing historic home with a high level of integrity including some historic interior walls, fixtures, doors, transoms, and the original stairway. The new owners propose to maintain the existing interiors and convert the property to a boutique lodge. Only six lodge units with adjoining bathrooms fit within the historic home. A breakdown of the net livable spaces within the historic home are provided in Table 1. Table 1: Proposed lodge keys and amenity space Main Level ADA Key 1 297.5 sf Amenity Space 742 sf Second Level Key 2 294.5 Key 3 188.75 Key 4 270.75 Key 5 164.5 Third Level Key 6 475.75 Cellar Back of house (mechanical, storage, and laundry) 777.75 An average room size of 282 sf is proposed. The third floor unit is much larger than the other keys. Adding another key on this level was significantly restricted by head height requirements, required egress, and the ability to fit another bathroom. Varying the number of required keys for this lodge facilitates the preservation of the historic interior for the general public to experience. The location, size and operation of a small 6 room lodge will not impact the surrounding mix of uses along this block of Main Street as described in Exhibit A2 and will contribute to the vitality and walkability of this end of the historic district. The proposed lodge use complies with adopted regulatory plans which encourage historic preservation and small lodge preservation. Page 36 of 128 53 Page 6 of 9 Sec. 26.445.070. Detailed Review Standards. Detailed Review shall focus on the comprehensive evaluation of the specific aspects of the development, including utility placement, and architectural materials. In the review of a development application for Detailed Review, the Planning and Zoning Commission, or the Historic Preservation Commission as applicable, shall consider the following: (a) Compliance with Project Review Approval. The proposed development, including all dimensions and uses, is consistent with the Project Review approval and adequately addresses conditions on the approval and direction received during the Project Review. Response – Project and Detailed Reviews are combined in this application. (b) Growth Management. The proposed development has received all required GMQS allotments, or is concurrently seeking allotments. Response- Growth Management is combined in this application. (c) Site Planning and Landscape Architecture. The site plan is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: (1) The landscape plan exhibits a well-designed treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. Vegetation removal, protection, and restoration plans shall be acceptable to the Director of Parks and Open Space. (2) Buildings and site grading provide simple, at-grade entrances and minimize extensive grade changes along building exteriors. The project meets or exceeds the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and applicable requirements for emergency, maintenance, and service vehicle access. Adequate snow storage is accommodated. (3) Energy efficiency or production features are integrated into the landscape in a manner that enhances the site. (4) All site lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. All exterior lighting shall comply with the City's outdoor lighting standards. (5) Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in compliance with Title 29—Engineering Design Standards and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Response- The existing site plan is not proposed to significantly change. The project meets URMP requirements and ADA access is provided at the rear due to the property’s status as a historic landmark. Minimal downcast pathway lighting is proposed for safety as recommended in the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Page 37 of 128 54 Page 7 of 9 (d) Design Standards and Architecture. The proposed architectural details emphasize quality construction and design characteristics. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: (1) The project architecture provides for visual interest and incorporates present-day details and use of materials respectful of the community's past without attempting to mimic history. (2) Exterior materials are of a high quality, durability, and comply with applicable design standards, including those outlined in Chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards, Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Standards, and Chapter 26.415, Historic Preservation. (3) Building entrances are sited or designed to minimize icing and snow shedding effects. (4) Energy efficiency or production features are integrated into structures in a manner that enhances the architecture. (5) All structure lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. All exterior lighting shall comply with the City's outdoor lighting standards. Response – The existing building is not proposed to change with the exception of ADA access on the rear of the historic home. The project meets Energy Code where possible considering the historic nature of the building. All lighting intends to comply with the City’s outdoor lighting requirements and the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. (e) Common Parks, Open Space, Recreation Areas, or Facilities. If the proposed development includes common parks, open space, recreation areas, or common facilities, a proportionate, undivided interest is deeded in perpetuity to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the Planned Development. An adequate assurance through a Development Agreement for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a prohibition against future development is required. Response – The project proposes to protect the existing historic interior parlors, interior architectural details, and historic front stairway for use by the general public as guests of the lodge. (f) Pedestrian, bicycle & transit facilities. The development improves pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. These facilities and improvements shall be prioritized over vehicular facilities and improvements. Any new vehicular access points minimize impacts on existing pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities. Any specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines as required during Project Review comply with the applicable requirements of the Project Review and as otherwise required in the Land Use Code. These plans shall provide sufficient detail to determine if the design or mitigation concept complies with the intent of the Page 38 of 128 55 Page 8 of 9 requirements and to determine any required cost estimating for surety requirements, but do not need to be detailed construction documents. Response – These facilities are not proposed as part of this small project. The TIA describes transportation techniques proposed for this project including a payment in lieu to Wecycle for a capital project as recommended by the Engineering and Transportation Departments. (g) Engineering Design Standards. There has been accurate identification of engineering design and mitigation techniques necessary for development of the proposed subdivision to comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29— Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). Any specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines as required during Project Review comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29—Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). These plans shall provide sufficient detail to determine if the design or mitigation concept complies with the intent of the requirements, but do not need to be detailed construction documents. Response – An engineering report and civil drawings are included in the application to demonstrate compliance with URMP. The applicant team has discussed the proposed project with Engineering prior to submission of this application. (h) Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed Planned Development shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at the sole costs of the developer. Any specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines as required during Project Review comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29—Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). These plans shall provide sufficient detail to determine if the design or mitigation concept complies with the intent of the requirements, but do not need to be detailed construction documents. Response- The engineering report by Roaring Fork Engineering describes the existing infrastructure as sufficient for the change in use from commercial to a six key small lodge. (i) Phasing of development plan. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. Phasing shall insulate, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. All necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction Page 39 of 128 56 Page 9 of 9 of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the Planned Development, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures shall be completed concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. Response – Phasing of the development plan is not proposed or necessary for this small project. Page 40 of 128 57 Exhibit A4 Growth Management 26.470.080. General Review Standards. All Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council applications for growth management review shall comply with the following standards. (a) Sufficient Allotments. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.040(b). Applications for multi-year development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.110(a) shall be required to meet this standard for the growth management years from which the allotments are requested. Response – Allotments for 6 keys (12 pillows) is requested. The annual allotment is 112 pillows for 2025. Adequate pillows are available for this small project. (b) Development Conformance. The proposed development conforms to the requirements and limitations of this Title, of the zone district or a site specific development plan, any adopted regulatory master plan, as well as any previous approvals, including the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the Planned Development - Project Review approval, as applicable. Response – The proposed project conforms to the zoning allowances and past approvals, and complies with design guidelines and regulatory plans as described in Exhibits A1, A2, A3, and A5 of this application. (c) Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed development shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at the sole costs of the developer. 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 – Public infrastructure and facilities already serve this existing home. Any required upgrades will be completed by the owner. A letter is provided by Roaring Fork Engineering describing the adequacy of existing facilities to serve the 6 room lodge. (d) Affordable Housing Mitigation. (2) For lodge development, sixty-five percent (65%) of the employees generated by the additional lodge pillows, according to Section 26.470.050(b), Employee generation rates, shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. For the redevelopment or expansion of existing lodge uses, see section 26.470.100(g). Response – Employee generations rates for a lodge in the Mixed Use Zone District are 0.6 FTEs/key. 6 keys are proposed which generates 3.6 FTEs. Applying the mitigation rate of 65% means 2.34 FTEs require mitigation at Category 4. (4) Unless otherwise exempted in this Chapter, when a change in use between development categories is proposed, the employee mitigation shall be based on the use the development is converting to. For instance, if a commercial space is Page 41 of 128 58 Exhibit A4 Growth Management being converted to lodge units, the mitigation shall be based on the requirements for lodge space, outlined in Subsection (2), above. Conversely, if lodge units are being converted to commercial space, the mitigation shall be based on the requirements for commercial space, outlined in Subsections (1) and (3), above. Response – Employee mitigation is based on the proposed boutique lodge use. (7) For all affordable housing units that are being provided as mitigation pursuant to this Chapter or for the creation of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540, or for any other reason: a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. b. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of methods outlined in this Chapter, including newly built units, buy down units, certificates of affordable housing credit, or cash-in-lieu. c. Affordable housing that is in the form of newly built units or buy-down units shall be located on the same parcel as the proposed development or located off-site within the City limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to Section 26.470.110(b). When off- site units within City limits are proposed, all requisite approvals shall be obtained prior to approval of the growth management application. d. Affordable housing mitigation in the form of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, shall be extinguished pursuant to Section 26.540.120, Extinguishment and Re-Issuance of a Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.050(f), Employee/Square Footage Conversion. e. If the total mitigation requirement for a project is less than 0.1 FTEs, a cash- in-lieu payment may be made by right. If the total mitigation requirement for a project is 0.1 or more FTEs, a cash-in-lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Section 26.470.110(c). f. Affordable housing units shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.100(d), 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. g. 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 – Cash in lieu is requested for affordable housing mitigation as there are very limited credits on the market currently, and we do not expect a significant amount of credits coming to the market. There is no ability to provide an onsite unit within the landmark that Page 42 of 128 59 Exhibit A4 Growth Management would adequately serve an employee with a kitchen, washer/dryer, bedroom, full bathroom, living space, and separate entrance. The minimum size of a 1-bedroom unit is 700 sf which just does not fit without losing 2 lodge keys and would require alterations to the historic landmark. Using the 2025 cash in lieu rate of $346,808/1FTE at Category 4, the total required mitigation is $811,530. (8) Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may be deed-restricted at any level of affordability, including residential occupied (RO). Response – Not applicable. Sec. 26.470.100. Planning and Zoning Commission applications. The following types of development shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Section 26.470.060, Procedures for review, and the criteria for each type of development described below. Except as noted, all growth management applications shall comply with the general requirements of Section 26.470.080. Except as noted, the following types of growth management approvals shall be deducted from the annual development allotments. Approvals apply cumulatively. (a) Change in use. A change in use of an existing property, structure or portions of an existing structure between the development categories identified in Section 26.470.020 (irrespective of direction), for which a certificate of occupancy has been issued and which is intended to be reused, shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the general requirements outlined in Section 26.470.080. No more than one (1) free-market residential unit may be created through the change-in-use. Response – A change in use from commercial to boutique lodge is requested. Section 26.470.080 is addressed on the preceding page. (g) Expansion or new lodge development. The expansion of an existing lodge, the redevelopment of existing lodge which meets the definition of demolition, or the development of a new lodge shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: Sixty-five percent (65%) of the employees generated by the lodge, timeshare lodge, exempt timeshare units, and associated commercial development, according to Paragraph 26.470.050(b), Employee generation, shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. Free-market residential units included in a lodge development and which may be rented to the general public as a lodge unit shall be considered lodge units and mitigated through the provision of affordable housing in accordance with this section. Affordable housing units provided shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.100(d), Affordable housing. New or redeveloped Boutique Lodges, or the conversion of lodge, residential or commercial uses to boutique lodge is subject to the mitigation standards for commercial uses as provided for in section 26.470.080(d)(1) and (3). Page 43 of 128 60 Exhibit A4 Growth Management Response – The conversion to a Boutique Lodge with 6 keys requires mitigation for 2.34 FTEs. Following is the calculation: 6 keys *0.6 FTEs/key = 3.6 FTEs 3.6 FTEs @ 65% = 2.34 FTEs at Category 4 The size and configuration of the landmark prohibits the addition of a separate employee unit onsite without significant changes to the historic building and the loss of lodge keys. Cash in lieu is requested, rather than housing credits, because the housing credit market is almost completely dry and there are no significant credit projects in the pipeline that would be available when the change in use occurs. Page 44 of 128 61 Exhibit A5 Transportation Management Sec. 26.515.060. Procedures for Review. Development and redevelopment applications shall be reviewed pursuant to the following procedures, as well as standards and the Common Development Review Procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304. (c) Review Criteria. All applicable 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. (2) Project provides full mitigation for the Parking Requirements pursuant to Section 26.515.050. (3) If existing development is expanded, additional Parking Requirements shall be provided for that increment of the expansion. (4) If existing development is redeveloped, on-site parking deficits may not be maintained unless all parking, or at least twenty (20) spaces are provided as Public Parking. Response – The attached TIA addresses required mitigation for the lodge use. The TIA site plan is on Sheet A-007. The project generates 3 parking spaces (6 keys * 0.5 spaces/key) and is required to mitigate for 60% onsite or 1.8 parking spaces. Two surface spaces, including an ADA space, are provided with alley access to satisfy this requirement. A potential third spaces would be 15’10” deep which does not meet the full 18’ depth requirement or the compact car minimum of 16’ deep due to the location of the landmark. Cash in lieu is allowed for 1 parking space per Code; however the applicant and Wecyle are both open to purchasing a TIA credit to further fund a WeCycle capital purchase as allowed in the Code instead of providing cash in lieu. Working collaboratively with the Engineering Department, the applicant received direction on the TDM measures in the TIA. Engineering recommended a contribution for a We-Cycle capital purchase equal to 1 fee in lieu credit ($6,000) be provided as TIA mitigation. We discussed both the TIA credit for TDM and a second TIA credit for the third parking space with Mirte Mallory on May 1, 2025. She confirmed that a capital contribution to Wecycle supports the goals recently adopted by City Council regarding bike sharing in Aspen. . Page 45 of 128 62 DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION: NAME, COMPANY, ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL Peak Hour Max Trips Generated MMLOS TDM Total Trips Mitigated PM 1.9 5 0.00 5.00 0.00 A minimum of two TDM measures must be utilized for minor projects. Please return to Sheet "3. TDM" and select a minimum of two measures. Include the following on a site plan. Clearly call out and label each measure. Attach the site plan to the TIA submittal. Slopes Between Back of Curb and Sidewalk Bike racks are indicated on the site plan. TDM Include any additional information that pertains to the TDM plan in the space provided below. As suggested by Engineering, a fee in lieu credit equal to $6,000 will be provided to Wecycle for capital equipment purchases. MMLOS Site Plan Requirements Project Description In the space below provide a description of the proposed project. The historic landmark at 320 West Main Street is proposed to be converted from commercial use to a 6-room boutique lodge. No exterior changes are proposed except the alterations to the rear porch for accessibility, a new trash area, and formalized parking with permeable pavers with alley access. MMLOS Include any additional information that pertains to the MMLOS plan in the space provided below. 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. Sara Adams BendonAdams 300 S.Spring St., #202 Aspen, CO 81611 970-925-2855 sara@bendonadams.com Summary and Narrative: Narrative: 4/8/2025 320 West Main Street 320 West Main Street Trip Generation SUMMARY Trip Mitigation NET TRIPS TO BE MITIGATED Please see TDM commitment below as previously discussed with Engineering and Transportation. Exhibit A5 Page 46 of 128 63 The payment to Wecycle will be provided at the time of building permit issuance. 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. Monitoring and reporting is not necessary with this proposal. Enforcement and Financing Provide an overview of the Enforcement and Financing plan for the proposed transportation mitigation measures. The City can inspect the bike rack location from the alley. Scheduling and Implementation Responsibility of Mitigation Measures Provide an overview of the scheduling and implementation responsibility for the proposed transportation mitigation measures. 2% Slope at Pedestrian Driveway Crossings Pedestrian Directness Factor (See callout number 9 on the MMLOS sheet for an example) Bicycle Parking Page 47 of 128 64 = 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)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Affordable Housing (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lodging (Units)6 Units 0.86 0.65 1.50 0.97 0.89 1.86 Essential Public Facility (sf)0.0 sf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.65 1.50 0.97 0.89 1.86 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 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. Sara Adams BendonAdams 300 S.Spring St., #202 Aspen, CO 81611 970-925-2855 sara@bendonadams.com Trip Generation 4/8/2025 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? 320 West Main Street 320 West Main Street 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 the project site and are improvements to the current condition. 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. 4. A glossary sheet is provided as an additional tab. Typical terms are defined within this glossary. Transportation Impact Analysis TIA Frequently Asked Questions Page 48 of 128 65 = input = calculation 5 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? 0 2 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width greater than the standard minimum width?0 3 Does the project propose a landscape buffer greater than the standard minimum width?0 0 4 Does the project propose a detached sidewalk on an adjacent block? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer meet standard minimum widths? 0 5 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width on an adjacent block greater than the standard minimum width?0 6 Is the proposed landscape buffer on an adjacent block greater than the standard minimum width?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. 0 10 Does the project propose an improved crosswalk? This measure must get City approval before receiving credit. 0 0 11 Are existing driveways removed from the street?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. 0 15 Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian or bicyclist interaction with vehicles at driveway areas?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. 0 18 Is the project proposing an off site improvement that results in a pedestrian directness factor below 1.2?* 0 19 Are traffic calming features proposed that are part of an approved plan (speed humps, rapid flash)?*0 0 20 Are additional minor improvements proposed which benefit the pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff? 0 21 Are additional major improvements proposed which benefit the pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff? 0 0 0PedestriansSubtotalAdditional Proposed ImprovementsTOTAL NUMBER OF TRIPS MITIGATED:Pedestrian RoutesTraffic Calming and Pedestrian NetworkDriveways, Parking, and Access ConsiderationsMMLOS Input Page Subtotal SubtotalSidewalk Condition on Adjacent BlocksSidewalk Condition on Project FrontageSubtotal Instructions: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable to each measure under the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections. Subtotal Subtotal Pedestrian Total* Page 49 of 128 66 Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points 22 Is a new bicycle path being implemented with City approved design?0 23 Do new bike paths allow access without crossing a street or driveway?0 24 Is there proposed landscaping, striping, or signage improvements to an existing bicycle path?0 25 Does the project propose additional minor bicycle improvements which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?0 26 Does the project propose additional major bicycle improvements which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?0 0 Bicycle Parking27 Is the project providing bicycle parking?Yes 5 5 5 Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points 28 Is seating/bench proposed?0 29 Is a trash receptacle proposed?0 30 Is transit system information (signage) proposed?0 31 Is shelter/shade proposed?0 32 Is enhanced pedestrian-scale lighting proposed?0 33 Is real-time transit information proposed?0 34 Is bicycle parking/storage proposed specifically for bus stop use?0 35 Are ADA improvements proposed?0 0 36 Is a bus pull-out proposed at an existing stop?0 37 Is relocation of a bus stop to improve transit accessibility or roadway operations proposed?0 38 Is a new bus stop proposed (with minimum of two basic amenities)?0 0 0TransitBasic AmenitiesSubtotal Subtotal Enhanced AmenitiesSubtotal Subtotal Bicycles Total* Transit Total*BicyclesModifications to Existing Bicycle PathsPage 50 of 128 67 Category Measure Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT Reductions Will an onsite ammenities strategy be implemented? Which onsite ammenities will be implemented? Will a shared shuttle service strategy be implemented? 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?0.00% 0.00% Category Measure Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT Reductions Will a network expansion stragtegy be implemented? 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? 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? What is the extent of access improvements? 7 Intercept Lot Will an intercept lot strategy be implemented?0.00% 0.00% Category Measure Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT Reductions Will there be participation in TOP? What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a transit fare subsidy strategy implemented? 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? What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a workplace parking pricing strategy implemented? What is the daily parking charge? What percentage of employees are subject to priced parking? Is a compressed work weeks strategy implemented? What percentage of employees are participating? What is the workweek schedule? Is an employer sponsered shuttle program implemented? What is the employer size? What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a carpool matching strategy implemented? What percentage of employees are eligble? Is carshare participation being implemented? How many employee memberships have been purchased? What percentage of employees are eligble? Is participation in the bikeshare program WE-cycle being implemented? How many memberships have been purchased? What percentage of employees/guests are eligble? Is an end of trip facilities strategy being implemented? What is the degree of implementation? What is the employer size? Is a self-funded emergency ride home strategy being implemented? What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a carpool/vanpool priority parking strategy being implemented? What is the employer size? What number of parking spots are available for the program? Is a private employer shuttle strategy being implemented? What is the employer size? What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a trip reduction marketing/incentive program implemented? What percentage of employees/guests are eligible? 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1. 22% work trips represents a mixed-used site (SF Bay Area Travel Survey). See Assumptions Tab for more detail. 21 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 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 TDM Input Page 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Commute Trip Reduction Programs StrategiesOnsite Servicing Shared Shuttle Service Neighborhood/Site Enhancements Strategies0.00% 0.00% Network Expansion Service Frequency/Speed Transit Access Improvement Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Bikeshare Program 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category Maximum Reduction Allowed in CategoryTransit System Improvements Strategies1 2 4 5 6 8 9 10 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.*NOTE: please see summary for TDM measure per COA feedback Page 51 of 128 68 LAND USE APPLICATION PACKET Name: __________________________________________________________________________________ Location: ________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ (Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property) Parcel ID #: ______________________________________________________________________________ PROJECT: Name: __________________________________________________________________________________ Address: ________________________________________________________________________________ Phone # : _______________________ E-mail: __________________________________________________ APPLICANT: Name: __________________________________________________________________________________ Address: ________________________________________________________________________________ Phone # : _______________________ E-mail: __________________________________________________ REPRESENTATIVE: EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) City of Aspen | City Hall, 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 | (970) 920-5000 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM Exhibit B Page 52 of 128 69 City of Aspen | City Hall, 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 | (970) 920-5000 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM LAND USE APPLICATION PACKET Project: __________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: ________________________________________________________________________________________ Project Location: ___________________________________________________________________________________ Zone District: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Lot Size: _________________________________________________________________________________________ Gross Lot Area:________________________________ Net Lot Area:_________________________________________ For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high-water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code. Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued: Variations requested (identify the exact variations being requested): Page 53 of 128 70 City of Aspen | City Hall, 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 | (970) 920-5000 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM LAND USE APPLICATION PACKET Commercial net leaseable: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Number of Lodge Pillows: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Number of Lodge Units: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Number of residential units: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Number of Free-Market residential units: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Number of Affordable residential units: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Proposed % of demolition: ________________ % DIMENSIONS: Write N/A where no requirements exists in the zone district. Floor Area: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Height Principal Building: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Accessory Building: Existing:_____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ On-Site Parking: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ % Site Coverage: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ % Open Space: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Front Setback: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Rear Setback: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Combined Front/Rear: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Indicate N, S, E, W Side Setback: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Side Setback: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Combined Front/Rear: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Distance between Buildings: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Page 54 of 128 71 LAND USE APPLICATION PACKET TYPE OF APPLICATION ESA Review (Stream Margin, 8040 Greenline, View Plane, or Hallam Lake Bluff) Non Conformities Pre-Development Topography Temporary Use Accessory Dwelling Unit/Carriage House Dimensional Variance Growth Management Review Outdoor Vending Planned Development Review Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit Establishment of Zoning or Rezoning Subdivision Review Condominiumization Approval Documents Special Review Wireless Facilities Residential Design Standard Review Conditional Use Review Historic Designation Certificate of Appropriateness Minor Historic Development Major Historic Development (select one below) Conceptual Development Final Development Relocation (temporary, on or off-site) Demolition (total demolition) Substantial Historic Preservation Amendment Historic Landmark Lot Split Establishment of Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) Other City of Aspen | City Hall, 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 | (970) 920-5000 HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEWS Page 55 of 128 72 NEIGHBORHOOD USES 320 West Main Street 4 4 1. 109 North 2nd Street 2. 314 West Main Street 3. 320 West Main Street 4. 330 West Main Street 5. 332 West Main Street 6. 333 West Main Street 7. 323 West Main Street (Aspen Medical Center) 8. 311 West Main Street (The Aspen B&B) 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 66 7 7 88 1 1 2 2 3 3 5 5 66 7 7 88 Page 56 of 128 73 212 201 207 214 222 332 332 300 328 328 331 308 312 332 328 311 311 311 311 311 311 311 323 311 328 116 323 311 311 333 333 323 311 322 325 333 311 323 311 328 323 331 311323 311 328 311 234 323 326 328 311 334 333 327 319 333 324 333 311 311 120 324 233 314 233 333 109320 314 210 210 220 220 132 132 220 220 220220 132 220 132 132 220 220 132 132 132 220 132 233 222 233 210 215 233 222 131 217 233 205 222 200 222 125 200 233 205 233 200 233 135 212 233 232 233 213 233 233 233 219 233 119 233 233233233 211 222 330 310 320 340 401 N 3RD STW MAI N S T S 3RD STS 2ND STS 2ND STW HOP K I N S A V E W HOP K I N S A V E S 1ST STW MAI N S T S 1ST STW MAI N S TN 1ST STN 2ND STN 1ST STW BLE E K E R S TN 2ND STN 1ST STW BLE E K E R S T N 1ST STN 2ND STW BLE E K E R S TN 3RD STN 3RD STW BLE E K E R S T Date: 5/20/2022 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 2022 City of Aspen GIS 0 0.01 0.030.01 mi When printed at 8.5"x11" 4 Legend City of Aspen Historic Sites Parcels Roads Zoomed In Scale: 1:1,495 320 West Main Street vicinity map Page 57 of 128 74 ID NAME DATE 01 02 Planned Development Application Planned Development Application Comment Response 5/2/25 10/1/25 COPYRIGHT: ISSUANCE INDEX PROJECT NO: FORUM PHI DATE OF PUBLICATION: CVR COVER 10/1/25 2433.00 320 W Main St. Aspen CO 81611 320 W Main St. Aspen: 332 W Main St. Suite 101 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Carbondale: 36 N. 4th St. Carbondale, CO 81623 Denver: 2243 Curtis St. Denver, CO 80202 forumphi.com p: 970.279.4157 f: 866.770.5585 FORUMPHI NOT F O R C O N ST R U CTI O N ARCHITECTURAL SHEET INDEX A-004X A-004 A-005 A-006 A-007 A-102X A-103X A-104X A-105X A-102 A-103 A-104 A-105 A-201 A-202 A-203 A-204 A-401 A-402 A-403 A-404 EXISTING FLOOR AREA PLANS PROPOSED FLOOR AREA PLANS PROPOSED LODGE AREA PLANS SITE PLAN AT GRADE TIA SITE PLAN AT GRADE EXISTING LOWER LEVEL PLAN EXISTING MAIN LEVEL PLAN EXISTING SECOND LEVEL PLAN EXISTING THIRD LEVEL PLAN PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL PLAN PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL PLAN PROPOSED SECOND LEVEL PLAN PROPOSED THIRD LEVEL PLAN EXISTING ELEVATIONS EXISTING ELEVATIONS PROPOSED ELEVATIONS PROPOSED ELEVATIONS ENLARGED PATIO DRAWINGS TRASH ENCLOSURE SIGN PLAN EXTERIOR LIGHTING GENERAL SHEET INDEX CVR COVER SURVEY PROJECT DIRECTORY CONTRACTOR TBD CONSULTANTS CIVIL ENGINEER Crystal River Civil Jay Engstrom Carbondale, CO 81623 970.510.5312 Jay@crystalrivercivil.com PLANNER BendonAdams Sara Adams 300 S. Spring St., Suite 202, Aspen, CO 81611 970.925.2855 Sara@bendonadams.com SURVEYOR Aspen Survey ARCHITECT Forum Phi Architecture Aspen: 332 W Main St., Suite 101, Aspen, CO 81611 Carbondale: 36 N 4th St., Carbondale, CO 81623 Denver: 2243 Curtis St., Denver, CO 80202 970.279.4157 info@forumphi.com 320 W Main St. Aspen CO 81611 320 W Main St. Planned Development Application SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDES: CONVERSION OF A HISTORIC RESIDENCE INTO A BOTIQUE LODGE. BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER Exhibit D1 Page 58 of 128 75 Page 59 of 128 76 ID NAME DATE 01 02 Planned Development Application Planned Development Application Comment Response 5/2/25 10/1/25 COPYRIGHT: ISSUANCE INDEX PROJECT NO: FORUM PHI DATE OF PUBLICATION: A-004X EXISTING FLOOR AREA PLANS 10/1/25 2433.00 320 W Main St. Aspen CO 81611 320 W Main St. Aspen: 332 W Main St. Suite 101 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Carbondale: 36 N. 4th St. Carbondale, CO 81623 Denver: 2243 Curtis St. Denver, CO 80202 forumphi.com p: 970.279.4157 f: 866.770.5585 FORUMPHI NOT F O R C O N ST R U CTI O N FAR CALCULATIONS ZONE DISTRICT MU APPLICABLE ZONING CODES Aspen Municiple Code - Title 26 - Land Use Regulations Sec.26.575.020 Aspen Municiple Code - Title 26 - Land Use Regulations Sec.26.575.020 ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA GROSS LOT AREA FAR MAXIMUM (ALLOWED BY RIGHT) FAR MAXIMUM BY SPECIAL REVIEW (MAIN STREET HISTORIC DISCTRICT) UNIQUE APPROVALS ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA TOTALS 4500.00 3375.00 4500.00 500.00 3875.00 NOTES 0.75 : 1 1 : 1 FAR BONUS FROM HPC DURING THE LOT SPLIT REFERENCES EXISTING FLOOR AREA BEFORE EXEMPTIONS FLOOR AREA GARAGE AREA DECK AREA EXEMPTION TOTAL BEFORE EXEMPTIONS LOWER LEVEL 777.75 558.11 MAIN LEVEL 1240.50 345.75 345.75 SECOND LEVEL 1189.00 46 46 THIRD LEVEL 846.50 TOTALS 4053.75 34.5 34.5 4088.25 NOTES WITHOUT EXEMPTIONS WITHOUT EXEMPTIONS DECKS, BALCONIES, EXTEROR STAIRWAYS, ETC EXEMPT FROM FAR FOR MU ZONE LODGE BUILDINGS. REFERENCES SEC 26.575.020 - D.5.C SEC 26.575.020 - D.9 EXISTING COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA COUNTABLE DECK AREA COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA TOTAL COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA EXISTING NONCONFORMING FLOOR AREA ABOVE ALLOWABLE LOWER LEVEL 0 219.64 MAIN LEVEL 0 1,240.50 SECOND LEVEL 0 1189 THIRD LEVEL 0 846.50 TOTALS 0 3495.64 3495.64 0.00 NOTES BELOW GRADE EXPOSURE CALCULATION = 28.24% DECKS, BALCONIES, EXTEROR STAIRWAYS, ETC EXEMPT FROM FAR FOR MU ZONE LODGE BUILDINGS. REFERENCES PROPOSED FLOOR AREA BEFORE EXEMPTIONS FLOOR AREA GARAGE AREA DECK AREA (OUTSIDE OF 8' OVERHANGS)EXEMPTION LOWER LEVEL 777.75 558.11 MAIN LEVEL 1240.5 345.75 SECOND LEVEL 1218.5 46 THIRD LEVEL 846.5 TOTALS 4083.25 34.5 NOTES WITHOUT EXEMPTIONS WITHOUT EXEMPTIONS REFERENCES PROPOSED COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA COUNTABLE DECK AREA COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA TOTAL COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA EXISTING NONCONFORMING FLOOR AREA ABOVE ALLOWABLE LOWER LEVEL 0 219.64 MAIN LEVEL 0 1,240.50 SECOND LEVEL 0 1218.5 THIRD LEVEL 0 846.5 TOTALS 0 3525.14 3525.14 0.00 NOTES BELOW GRADE EXPOSURE CALCULATION = 28.24% DECKS, BALCONIES, EXTEROR STAIRWAYS, ETC EXEMPT FROM FAR FOR MU ZONE LODGE REFERENCES FAR PLAN LEGEND INT | COUNTABLE EXT | COUNTABLE | UNCOVERED DECK | EXEMPT UP TO 15% OF FLOOR AREA INT | EXEMPT | OPEN TO BELOW INT | EXEMPT | CRAWL SPACE INT | EXEMPT | ATTIC INT | EXEMPT | BASEMENT SUBGRADE CALCULATION LEGEND EXPOSED WALL SUBGRADE WALL 1.00 sq ft 9.50 sq ft 7.75 sq ft 11.00 sq ft 17.75 sq ft 9.00 sq ft 21.00 sq ft 1.25 sq ft 1.00 sq ft 76.75 sq ft 21.00 sq ft 5.75 sq ft 51.00 sq ft 42.25 sq ft 54.25 sq ft 46.00 sq ft 19.00 sq ft 38.50 sq ft 57.75 sq ft 43.25 sq ft 54.75 sq ft 42.00 sq ft 83.50 sq ft 34.00 sq ft 51.25 sq ft 10.75 sq ft6'-73/8"14'-911/16" 1'-09/32" 9'-13/4"7'-659/64"9'-103/8"9'-77/8"4'-3" 8'-117/8"15'-31/4"14'-733/64"17'-921/64" 4" 9'-431/64"6'-73/8"01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 CRAWL SPACE 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 111213 UP UPBASEMENT 777.75 sq ft COVERED DECK 280.50 sq ft COVERED DECK 65.25 sq ft TOP OF STAIR 26.00 sq ft UP DN DNUPDN DN UP MAIN LEVEL COUNTABLE AREA 1,240.50 sq ft O.T.B.TOP OF STAIR25.75 sq ftCOVERED DECK 46.00 sq ft UP UPDNSECOND LEVEL COUNTABLE AREA 1,189.00 sq ftFIRE ESCAPE STAIR & DECK34.50 sq ftE E D D C C B B A DN DNTHIRD LEVEL COUNTABLE AREA 846.50 sq ftHEIGHT BELOW 30"HEIGHT BELOW 30"HEIGHT BELOW 30"HEIGHT BELOW 30"HEIGHT BELOW 30"HEIGHT BELOW 30"TOP OF STAIR 79.50 sq ft 2'-6"2'-6"2'-6"2'-6"2'-6"2'-6"2'-6"2'-6"2'-6"LOWER LEVEL WALL EXPOSURE CALCULATIONS EXISTING WALLS 01 TOTAL WALL AREA 97.75 EXPOSED AREA 21.00 02 TOTAL WALL AREA 6.75 EXPOSED AREA 1.00 03 TOTAL WALL AREA 60.50 EXPOSED AREA 9.50 04 TOTAL WALL AREA 50.00 EXPOSED AREA 7.75 05 TOTAL WALL AREA 65.25 EXPOSED AREA 11.00 06 TOTAL WALL AREA 63.75 EXPOSED AREA 17.75 07 TOTAL WALL AREA 28.00 EXPOSED AREA 9.00 08 TOTAL WALL AREA 59.50 EXPOSED AREA 21.00 09 TOTAL WALL AREA 101.00 EXPOSED AREA 43.25 10 TOTAL WALL AREA 96.75 EXPOSED AREA 42.00 11 TOTAL WALL AREA 117.50 EXPOSED AREA 34.00 12 TOTAL WALL AREA 2.25 EXPOSED AREA 1.00 13 TOTAL WALL AREA 62.00 EXPOSED AREA 10.75 TOTAL EXISTING LOWER LEVEL WALL AREA 811.00 TOTAL AREA OF EXISTING LOWER LEVEL WALL EXPOSURE 229.00 PERCENTAGE OF EXISTING LOWER LEVEL WALL EXPOSURE 28.24% PROPOSED WALLS (INCLUDES REMAINING EXISTING WALLS) W-1 TOTAL WALL AREA EXPOSED AREA W-2 TOTAL WALL AREA EXPOSED AREA TOTAL PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL WALL AREA 0.00 TOTAL AREA OF PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL WALL EXPOSURE 0.00 PERCENTAGE OF PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL WALL EXPOSURE #DIV/0! NSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"5 SUBGRADE EXPOSURE CALCULATIONS SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING LOWER LEVEL FAR PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 EXISTING MAIN LEVEL FAR PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"3 EXISTING SECOND LEVEL FAR PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"4 EXISTING THIRD LEVEL FAR PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A ATTIC SECTION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"B ATTIC SECTION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"C ATTIC SECTION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"D ATTIC SECTION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"E ATTIC SECTION Page 60 of 128 77 ID NAME DATE 01 02 Planned Development Application Planned Development Application Comment Response 5/2/25 10/1/25 COPYRIGHT: ISSUANCE INDEX PROJECT NO: FORUM PHI DATE OF PUBLICATION: A-004 PROPOSED FLOOR AREA PLANS 10/1/25 2433.00 320 W Main St. Aspen CO 81611 320 W Main St. Aspen: 332 W Main St. Suite 101 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Carbondale: 36 N. 4th St. Carbondale, CO 81623 Denver: 2243 Curtis St. Denver, CO 80202 forumphi.com p: 970.279.4157 f: 866.770.5585 FORUMPHI NOT F O R C O N ST R U CTI O N FAR CALCULATIONS ZONE DISTRICT MU APPLICABLE ZONING CODES Aspen Municiple Code - Title 26 - Land Use Regulations Sec.26.575.020 Aspen Municiple Code - Title 26 - Land Use Regulations Sec.26.575.020 ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA GROSS LOT AREA FAR MAXIMUM (ALLOWED BY RIGHT) FAR MAXIMUM BY SPECIAL REVIEW (MAIN STREET HISTORIC DISCTRICT) UNIQUE APPROVALS ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA TOTALS 4500.00 3375.00 4500.00 500.00 3875.00 NOTES 0.75 : 1 1 : 1 FAR BONUS FROM HPC DURING THE LOT SPLIT REFERENCES EXISTING FLOOR AREA BEFORE EXEMPTIONS FLOOR AREA GARAGE AREA DECK AREA EXEMPTION TOTAL BEFORE EXEMPTIONS LOWER LEVEL 777.75 558.11 MAIN LEVEL 1240.50 345.75 345.75 SECOND LEVEL 1189.00 46 46 THIRD LEVEL 846.50 TOTALS 4053.75 34.5 34.5 4088.25 NOTES WITHOUT EXEMPTIONS WITHOUT EXEMPTIONS DECKS, BALCONIES, EXTEROR STAIRWAYS, ETC EXEMPT FROM FAR FOR MU ZONE LODGE BUILDINGS. REFERENCES SEC 26.575.020 - D.5.C SEC 26.575.020 - D.9 EXISTING COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA COUNTABLE DECK AREA COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA TOTAL COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA EXISTING NONCONFORMING FLOOR AREA ABOVE ALLOWABLE LOWER LEVEL 0 219.64 MAIN LEVEL 0 1,240.50 SECOND LEVEL 0 1189 THIRD LEVEL 0 846.50 TOTALS 0 3495.64 3495.64 0.00 NOTES BELOW GRADE EXPOSURE CALCULATION = 28.24% DECKS, BALCONIES, EXTEROR STAIRWAYS, ETC EXEMPT FROM FAR FOR MU ZONE LODGE BUILDINGS. REFERENCES PROPOSED FLOOR AREA BEFORE EXEMPTIONS FLOOR AREA GARAGE AREA DECK AREA (OUTSIDE OF 8' OVERHANGS)EXEMPTION LOWER LEVEL 777.75 558.11 MAIN LEVEL 1240.5 345.75 SECOND LEVEL 1218.5 46 THIRD LEVEL 846.5 TOTALS 4083.25 34.5 NOTES WITHOUT EXEMPTIONS WITHOUT EXEMPTIONS REFERENCES PROPOSED COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA COUNTABLE DECK AREA COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA TOTAL COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA EXISTING NONCONFORMING FLOOR AREA ABOVE ALLOWABLE LOWER LEVEL 0 219.64 MAIN LEVEL 0 1,240.50 SECOND LEVEL 0 1218.5 THIRD LEVEL 0 846.5 TOTALS 0 3525.14 3525.14 0.00 NOTES BELOW GRADE EXPOSURE CALCULATION = 28.24% DECKS, BALCONIES, EXTEROR STAIRWAYS, ETC EXEMPT FROM FAR FOR MU ZONE LODGE REFERENCES FAR PLAN LEGEND INT | COUNTABLE EXT | COUNTABLE | UNCOVERED DECK | EXEMPT UP TO 15% OF FLOOR AREA INT | EXEMPT | OPEN TO BELOW INT | EXEMPT | CRAWL SPACE INT | EXEMPT | ATTIC INT | EXEMPT | BASEMENT SUBGRADE CALCULATION LEGEND EXPOSED WALL SUBGRADE WALL 1.00 sq ft 9.50 sq ft 7.75 sq ft 11.00 sq ft 17.75 sq ft 9.00 sq ft 21.00 sq ft 1.25 sq ft 1.00 sq ft 76.75 sq ft 21.00 sq ft 5.75 sq ft 51.00 sq ft 42.25 sq ft 54.25 sq ft 46.00 sq ft 19.00 sq ft 38.50 sq ft 57.75 sq ft 43.25 sq ft 54.75 sq ft 42.00 sq ft 83.50 sq ft 34.00 sq ft 51.25 sq ft 10.75 sq ft6'-73/8"14'-911/16" 1'-09/32" 9'-13/4"7'-659/64"9'-103/8"9'-77/8"4'-3" 8'-117/8"15'-31/4"14'-733/64"17'-921/64" 4" 9'-431/64"6'-73/8"01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 CRAWL SPACE 398.50 sq ft 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 111213UPBASEMENT 777.75 sq ft COVERED DECK 280.50 sq ft COVERED DECK 65.25 sq ft TOP OF STAIR 26.00 sq ft DN DNUPDN UP MAIN LEVEL COUNTABLE AREA 1,240.50 sq ft O.T.B. COVERED DECK 46.00 sq ft UP UPDNSECOND LEVEL COUNTABLE AREA 1,218.50 sq ftFIRE ESCAPE STAIR & DECK34.50 sq ftE E D D C C B B A DN DNTHIRD LEVEL COUNTABLE AREA 846.50 sq ft TOP OF STAIR 79.50 sq ftHEIGHT BELOW 30"HEIGHT BELOW 30"HEIGHT BELOW 30"HEIGHT BELOW 30"HEIGHT BELOW 30"HEIGHT BELOW 30"2'-6"2'-6"2'-6"2'-6"2'-6"2'-6"2'-6"2'-6"2'-6"LOWER LEVEL WALL EXPOSURE CALCULATIONS EXISTING WALLS 01 TOTAL WALL AREA 97.75 EXPOSED AREA 21.00 02 TOTAL WALL AREA 6.75 EXPOSED AREA 1.00 03 TOTAL WALL AREA 60.50 EXPOSED AREA 9.50 04 TOTAL WALL AREA 50.00 EXPOSED AREA 7.75 05 TOTAL WALL AREA 65.25 EXPOSED AREA 11.00 06 TOTAL WALL AREA 63.75 EXPOSED AREA 17.75 07 TOTAL WALL AREA 28.00 EXPOSED AREA 9.00 08 TOTAL WALL AREA 59.50 EXPOSED AREA 21.00 09 TOTAL WALL AREA 101.00 EXPOSED AREA 43.25 10 TOTAL WALL AREA 96.75 EXPOSED AREA 42.00 11 TOTAL WALL AREA 117.50 EXPOSED AREA 34.00 12 TOTAL WALL AREA 2.25 EXPOSED AREA 1.00 13 TOTAL WALL AREA 62.00 EXPOSED AREA 10.75 TOTAL EXISTING LOWER LEVEL WALL AREA 811.00 TOTAL AREA OF EXISTING LOWER LEVEL WALL EXPOSURE 229.00 PERCENTAGE OF EXISTING LOWER LEVEL WALL EXPOSURE 28.24% PROPOSED WALLS (INCLUDES REMAINING EXISTING WALLS) W-1 TOTAL WALL AREA EXPOSED AREA W-2 TOTAL WALL AREA EXPOSED AREA TOTAL PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL WALL AREA 0.00 TOTAL AREA OF PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL WALL EXPOSURE 0.00 PERCENTAGE OF PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL WALL EXPOSURE #DIV/0! NNSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"5 SUBGRADE EXPOSURE CALCULATIONS SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL FAR PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL FAR PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"3 PROPOSED SECOND LEVEL FAR PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"4 PROPOSED THIRD LEVEL FAR PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A ATTIC SECTION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"B ATTIC SECTION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"C ATTIC SECTION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"D ATTIC SECTION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"E ATTIC SECTION Page 61 of 128 78 ID NAME DATE 01 02 Planned Development Application Planned Development Application Comment Response 5/2/25 10/1/25 COPYRIGHT: ISSUANCE INDEX PROJECT NO: FORUM PHI DATE OF PUBLICATION: A-005 PROPOSED LODGE AREA PLANS 10/1/25 2433.00 320 W Main St. Aspen CO 81611 320 W Main St. Aspen: 332 W Main St. Suite 101 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Carbondale: 36 N. 4th St. Carbondale, CO 81623 Denver: 2243 Curtis St. Denver, CO 80202 forumphi.com p: 970.279.4157 f: 866.770.5585 FORUMPHI NOT F O R C O N ST R U CTI O N LODGE AREA LEGEND LODGE SUITES AMENITY SPACES 235.00 sq ft 97.50 sq ft 194.25 sq ft 215.25 sq ft 100'-0"99'-113/4" FOYER FRONT PORCH KITCHEN COMMON PARLOR COMMON PARLOR ADA BEDROOM ADA BATHROOM DN STAIRS DNUPDN UP 297.50 sq ft BEDROOM BEDROOMBEDROOM STAIRS BATHROOM CLOSET BATHROOM BATHROOM BEDROOM BATHROOM UP UPDN164.50 sq ft 270.75 sq ft188.75 sq ft 294.50 sq ft STAIRS BEDROOM BATHROOM ATTICSTORAGE DN DN475.75 sq ft FAR PROPOSED LODGE AREAS SUITES AMENITIES 1,691.91 742.18 N 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL LODGE AREA PLAN 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED SECOND LEVEL LODGE AREA PLAN 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"3 PROPOSED THIRD LEVEL LODGE AREA PLAN Page 62 of 128 79 KEYNOTE LEGEND 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 ID NAME DATE 01 02 Planned Development Application Planned Development Application Comment Response 5/2/25 10/1/25 COPYRIGHT: ISSUANCE INDEX PROJECT NO: DATE OF PUBLICATION: A-006 SITE PLAN AT GRADE 10/1/25 2433.00 320 W Main St. Aspen CO 81611 320 W Main St. Aspen: 332 W Main St. Suite 101 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Carbondale: 36 N. 4th St. Carbondale, CO 81623 Denver: 2243 Curtis St. Denver, CO 80202 forumphi.com p: 970.279.4157 f: 866.770.5585 FORUMPHI NOT F O R C O N ST R U CTI O N FORUM PHI GENERAL SITE PLAN NOTES 1) BUILDING REFERENCE ELEVATION 100' - 0" = 7907.17' 2) REF: CIVIL FOR FURTHER GRADING INFORMATION. TREE LEGEND DECIDUOUS TREE TO BE REMOVED CONIFEROUS TREE TO BE REMOVED EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE EXISTING CONIFEROUS TREE NEW DECIDUOUS TREE NEW CONIFEROUS TREE SHRUB TO BE REMOVED EXISTING SHRUB NEW SHRUB SITE PLAN LEGEND EXISTING DRIVEWAY/HARDSCAPE TO BE REMOVED NEW GRAVEL EXISTING DRIVEWAY/HARDSCAPE NEW EXTERIOR DECK FENCE PATH LIGHTING ACCESSIBLE PATH / AREA TOPOGRAPHY LEGEND EXISTING 1' CONTOUR PROPOSED 1' CONTOUR PROPOSED 5' CONTOUR EXISTING 5' CONTOUR UTILITIES LEGEND WATER LINE GAS LINE SEWER LINE FIBER OPTICS LINE TELEPHONE LINE ELETRIC LINE CABLE LINE UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC LINE 1 A-403 1 A-402 5'-0"REAR SETBACK5'-0" SIDE SETBACK 10'-0"FRONT SETBACK5'-0" SIDE SETBACK 99'-43/4"100'-0"100'-0"22'-93/8"CORNER OF PORCH TO PROPERTY LINE5'-63/8"31'-81/8"HOUSE TO PROPERTY LINE6'-111/2" 6'-0" 1'-103/4"16'-43/4"20'-73/8"10'-0"3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"4'-0"4'-0" 4'-0" 8'-6"8'-6"EXISTING PARKING18'-0"7903790279017904790379027905790579047 9 0 3 TRANSFORMER PROPERTY LINESIDEWALK PROPERTY LINE SETBACK 01 02 05 04 03 6'X'6 ELECTRIC/COMM. ESMT BK 524 PG 964 TRANSFORMER CLEARANCES UP DN DNUPDN DN UP 4' ACESS EASEMENT PLAT BK 66 PG 32 REC# 469504 4' ACESS EASEMENT PLAT BK 66 PG 32 REC# 469504 1 A-403 1 A-402 5'-0"REAR SETBACK5'-0" SIDE SETBACK 10'-0"FRONT SETBACK5'-0" SIDE SETBACK 100'-0"100'-0"99'-113/4"22'-93/8"CORNER OF PORCH TO PROPERTY LINE5'-63/8"31'-81/8"HOUSE TO PROPERTY LINE6'-111/2" 6'-0" 1'-103/4"16'-43/4"20'-73/8"TRASH COMPOST RECYCLE 10'-0"3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"18'-0"5'-0" ACCESS AISLE 8'-6"8'-6" 4'-11/2"3'-7"8'-8"3'-6"3'-6"4'-0"7903790279017904790379027905790579047 9 0 3 TRANSFORMER PROPERTY LINESIDEWALK PROPERTY LINE SETBACK 01 02 05 04 03 6'X'6 ELECTRIC/COMM. ESMT BK 524 PG 964 TRANSFORMER CLEARANCES ACCESSIBLEVIA STAIR LIFTBOLLARDS ALONG VEHICULAR AREAS DN DNUPDN UP EXISTING HISTORIC SANDSTONE WALL AND STEPS EXISTING HISTORIC SANDSTONE WALL AND STEPS EXISTING HISTORIC SANDSTONE WALL AND STEPS PARKING LOT A (PERMEABLE PAVERS) 4' ACESS EASEMENT PLAT BK 66 PG 32 REC# 469504 4' ACESS EASEMENT PLAT BK 66 PG 32 REC# 469504 ADA PARKING SPACE AREA FOR MECH EQUIPMENT TBD AREA FOR MECH EQUIPMENTTBDNN 0 2'5'10'SCALE: 1" = 5'1X EXISTING SITE PLAN AT GRADE 0 2'5'10'SCALE: 1" = 5'1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN AT GRADE EXTERIOR LIGHTING NOTES 1) EXISTING EXTERIOR ENTRY AND PORCH LIGHTING TO REMAIN. 2) FIVE (5) NEW SHIELDED PATH LIGHTS TO BE ADDED. SEE A-404 FOR SPECS. 3) LZ2 LOW VOLTAGE LUMINAIRE MAX OF 430 / FIXTURE FOR A MAXIMUM PROPOSED TOTAL OF 2150 LUMENS ADDED TO THE PROPERTY. Page 63 of 128 80 KEYNOTE LEGEND 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 ID NAME DATE 01 02 Planned Development Application Planned Development Application Comment Response 5/2/25 10/1/25 COPYRIGHT: ISSUANCE INDEX PROJECT NO: DATE OF PUBLICATION: A-007 TIA SITE PLAN AT GRADE 10/1/25 2433.00 320 W Main St. Aspen CO 81611 320 W Main St. Aspen: 332 W Main St. Suite 101 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Carbondale: 36 N. 4th St. Carbondale, CO 81623 Denver: 2243 Curtis St. Denver, CO 80202 forumphi.com p: 970.279.4157 f: 866.770.5585 FORUMPHI NOT F O R C O N ST R U CTI O N FORUM PHI GENERAL SITE PLAN NOTES 1) BUILDING REFERENCE ELEVATION 100' - 0" = 7907.17' 2) REF: CIVIL FOR FURTHER GRADING INFORMATION. TREE LEGEND DECIDUOUS TREE TO BE REMOVED CONIFEROUS TREE TO BE REMOVED EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE EXISTING CONIFEROUS TREE NEW DECIDUOUS TREE NEW CONIFEROUS TREE SHRUB TO BE REMOVED EXISTING SHRUB NEW SHRUB SITE PLAN LEGEND EXISTING DRIVEWAY/HARDSCAPE TO BE REMOVED NEW GRAVEL EXISTING DRIVEWAY/HARDSCAPE NEW EXTERIOR DECK FENCE PATH LIGHTING ACCESSIBLE PATH / AREA TOPOGRAPHY LEGEND EXISTING 1' CONTOUR PROPOSED 1' CONTOUR PROPOSED 5' CONTOUR EXISTING 5' CONTOUR UTILITIES LEGEND WATER LINE GAS LINE SEWER LINE FIBER OPTICS LINE TELEPHONE LINE ELETRIC LINE CABLE LINE UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC LINE5'-0"REAR SETBACK5'-0" SIDE SETBACK 10'-0"FRONT SETBACK5'-0" SIDE SETBACK 100'-0"99'-113/4"22'-93/8"CORNER OF PORCH TO PROPERTY LINE5'-63/8"31'-81/8"HOUSE TO PROPERTY LINE6'-111/2" 6'-0" 1'-103/4"16'-43/4"20'-73/8"TRASH COMPOST RECYCLE 10'-0"3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"18'-0"5'-0" ACCESS AISLE 8'-6"8'-6" 4'-11/2"3'-7"8'-8"3'-6"3'-6"4'-0"7903790279017904790379027905790579047 9 0 3 TRANSFORMER PROPERTY LINESIDEWALK PROPERTY LINE SETBACK 6'X'6 ELECTRIC/COMM. ESMT BK 524 PG 964 TRANSFORMER CLEARANCES ACCESSIBLEVIA STAIR LIFTENHANCED PEDESTRIAN ACCESS POINT (ADA STAIR LIFT AND PORCH IMPROVEMENT) BOLLARDS ALONG VEHICULAR AREAS BICYLE PARKING DN DNUPDN UP WALKIN G DI S T A N C E: 4 5'- 0" PEDES T RI A N DI R E C T N E S S F A C T O R: 1. 2 1 CRO W FLIES DISTA N C E: 37'-4"WALKING DISTANCE: 37'-3"PEDESTRIAN DIRECTNESS FACTOR: 1.02CROW FLIES DISTANCE: 36'-7"CROSS SLOPE AT DRIVEWAY CROSSING IS 2% OR LESS EXISTING HISTORIC SANDSTONE WALL AND STEPS EXISTING HISTORIC SANDSTONE WALL AND STEPS EXISTING HISTORIC SANDSTONE WALL AND STEPS PARKING LOT A (PERMEABLE PAVERS) 4' ACESS EASEMENT PLAT BK 66 PG 32 REC# 469504 4' ACESS EASEMENT PLAT BK 66 PG 32 REC# 469504 ADA PARKING SPACE AREA FOR MECH EQUIPMENT TBD AREA FOR MECH EQUIPMENTTBD= 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)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Affordable Housing (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lodging (Units)6 Units 0.86 0.65 1.50 0.97 0.89 1.86 Essential Public Facility (sf)0.0 sf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.65 1.50 0.97 0.89 1.86 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 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. Kurt Hartmann Forum Phi Architecture 332 W Main St. Suite 101 Aspen, CO 81611 970-319-8138 khartmann@forumphi.com Trip Generation 4/25/25 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? 320 W Main St. Aspen, CO 81611 320 W Main 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 the project site and Minor Development -Inside 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 N 0 2'5'10'SCALE: 1" = 5'1 PROPOSED TIA SITE PLAN AT GRADE Page 64 of 128 81 KEYNOTE LEGEND 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 ID NAME DATE 01 02 Planned Development Application Planned Development Application Comment Response 5/2/25 10/1/25 COPYRIGHT: ISSUANCE INDEX PROJECT NO: DATE OF PUBLICATION: A-102X EXISTING LOWER LEVEL PLAN 10/1/25 2433.00 320 W Main St. Aspen CO 81611 320 W Main St. Aspen: 332 W Main St. Suite 101 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Carbondale: 36 N. 4th St. Carbondale, CO 81623 Denver: 2243 Curtis St. Denver, CO 80202 forumphi.com p: 970.279.4157 f: 866.770.5585 FORUMPHI NOT F O R C O N ST R U CTI O N FORUM PHI WALL LEGEND EXISTING TO REMAIN TO BE DEMOLISHED NEW CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PLAN NOTES 1) BUILDING REFERENCE ELEVATION 100' - 0" = 7907.17' 2) EXISTING FRAMING & SHEATHING TO REMAIN AT AREAS NOT SHOWN AS DEMOLISHED. 3) ALL DIMENSIONS TO EXISTING WALLS TO BE VERIFIED IN FIELD. 4) IF DIMENSION NOT INDICATED - ALL DOORS TO EITHER BE CENTERED IN OPENING OR JAMB TO BE 6" AWAY FROM NEAREST WALL. 5) HISTORIC INTERIOR DOORS TO BE REUSED WHERE POSSIBLE T.O. SLAB 92'-4" STAIRS LAUNDRYBATHROOM MECHANICAL STORAGE UP STAIRS UP1X A-201 2X A-201 1X A-202 2X A-202 N 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1X EXISTING LOWER LEVEL PLAN Page 65 of 128 82 KEYNOTE LEGEND 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 ID NAME DATE 01 02 Planned Development Application Planned Development Application Comment Response 5/2/25 10/1/25 COPYRIGHT: ISSUANCE INDEX PROJECT NO: DATE OF PUBLICATION: A-103X EXISTING MAIN LEVEL PLAN 10/1/25 2433.00 320 W Main St. Aspen CO 81611 320 W Main St. Aspen: 332 W Main St. Suite 101 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Carbondale: 36 N. 4th St. Carbondale, CO 81623 Denver: 2243 Curtis St. Denver, CO 80202 forumphi.com p: 970.279.4157 f: 866.770.5585 FORUMPHI NOT F O R C O N ST R U CTI O N FORUM PHI WALL LEGEND EXISTING TO REMAIN TO BE DEMOLISHED NEW CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PLAN NOTES 1) BUILDING REFERENCE ELEVATION 100' - 0" = 7907.17' 2) EXISTING FRAMING & SHEATHING TO REMAIN AT AREAS NOT SHOWN AS DEMOLISHED. 3) ALL DIMENSIONS TO EXISTING WALLS TO BE VERIFIED IN FIELD. 4) IF DIMENSION NOT INDICATED - ALL DOORS TO EITHER BE CENTERED IN OPENING OR JAMB TO BE 6" AWAY FROM NEAREST WALL. 5) HISTORIC INTERIOR DOORS TO BE REUSED WHERE POSSIBLE 1X A-201 2X A-201 1X A-202 2X A-202 T.O. FF FLOOR 100'-0" = 7907'-2" 100'-0" PROPERTY LINE SETBACK FOYER FRONT PARLOR DINING ROOM SIDE PARLOR KITCHEN BATHROOM STAIRS FRONT PORCH UP DN STAIRS DNUPDN DN UP N 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1X EXISTING MAIN LEVEL PLAN Page 66 of 128 83 KEYNOTE LEGEND 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 ID NAME DATE 01 02 Planned Development Application Planned Development Application Comment Response 5/2/25 10/1/25 COPYRIGHT: ISSUANCE INDEX PROJECT NO: DATE OF PUBLICATION: A-104X EXISTING SECOND LEVEL PLAN 10/1/25 2433.00 320 W Main St. Aspen CO 81611 320 W Main St. Aspen: 332 W Main St. Suite 101 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Carbondale: 36 N. 4th St. Carbondale, CO 81623 Denver: 2243 Curtis St. Denver, CO 80202 forumphi.com p: 970.279.4157 f: 866.770.5585 FORUMPHI NOT F O R C O N ST R U CTI O N FORUM PHI WALL LEGEND EXISTING TO REMAIN TO BE DEMOLISHED NEW CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PLAN NOTES 1) BUILDING REFERENCE ELEVATION 100' - 0" = 7907.17' 2) EXISTING FRAMING & SHEATHING TO REMAIN AT AREAS NOT SHOWN AS DEMOLISHED. 3) ALL DIMENSIONS TO EXISTING WALLS TO BE VERIFIED IN FIELD. 4) IF DIMENSION NOT INDICATED - ALL DOORS TO EITHER BE CENTERED IN OPENING OR JAMB TO BE 6" AWAY FROM NEAREST WALL. 5) HISTORIC INTERIOR DOORS TO BE REUSED WHERE POSSIBLE 1X A-201 2X A-201 1X A-202 2X A-202 T.O. FF FLOOR 110'-11" BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOMBEDROOM BATHROOM STAIRS STAIRS BATHROOM CLOSET CLOSET UP UPDNN 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1X EXISTING SECOND LEVEL PLAN Page 67 of 128 84 KEYNOTE LEGEND 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 ID NAME DATE 01 02 Planned Development Application Planned Development Application Comment Response 5/2/25 10/1/25 COPYRIGHT: ISSUANCE INDEX PROJECT NO: DATE OF PUBLICATION: A-105X EXISTING THIRD LEVEL PLAN 10/1/25 2433.00 320 W Main St. Aspen CO 81611 320 W Main St. Aspen: 332 W Main St. Suite 101 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Carbondale: 36 N. 4th St. Carbondale, CO 81623 Denver: 2243 Curtis St. Denver, CO 80202 forumphi.com p: 970.279.4157 f: 866.770.5585 FORUMPHI NOT F O R C O N ST R U CTI O N FORUM PHI GENERAL PLAN NOTES 1) BUILDING REFERENCE ELEVATION 100' - 0" = 7907.17' 2) EXISTING FRAMING & SHEATHING TO REMAIN AT AREAS NOT SHOWN AS DEMOLISHED. 3) ALL DIMENSIONS TO EXISTING WALLS TO BE VERIFIED IN FIELD. 4) IF DIMENSION NOT INDICATED - ALL DOORS TO EITHER BE CENTERED IN OPENING OR JAMB TO BE 6" AWAY FROM NEAREST WALL. 5) HISTORIC INTERIOR DOORS TO BE REUSED WHERE POSSIBLE WALL LEGEND EXISTING TO REMAIN TO BE DEMOLISHED NEW CONSTRUCTION 1X A-201 2X A-201 1X A-202 2X A-202 T.O. FF FLOOR 120'-8" STAIRSLIVING AREA CLOSET DN DNN 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1X EXISTING THIRD LEVEL PLAN Page 68 of 128 85 KEYNOTE LEGEND 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 ID NAME DATE 01 02 Planned Development Application Planned Development Application Comment Response 5/2/25 10/1/25 COPYRIGHT: ISSUANCE INDEX PROJECT NO: DATE OF PUBLICATION: A-102 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL PLAN 10/1/25 2433.00 320 W Main St. Aspen CO 81611 320 W Main St. Aspen: 332 W Main St. Suite 101 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Carbondale: 36 N. 4th St. Carbondale, CO 81623 Denver: 2243 Curtis St. Denver, CO 80202 forumphi.com p: 970.279.4157 f: 866.770.5585 FORUMPHI NOT F O R C O N ST R U CTI O N FORUM PHI WALL LEGEND EXISTING TO REMAIN TO BE DEMOLISHED NEW CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PLAN NOTES 1) BUILDING REFERENCE ELEVATION 100' - 0" = 7907.17' 2) EXISTING FRAMING & SHEATHING TO REMAIN AT AREAS NOT SHOWN AS DEMOLISHED. 3) ALL DIMENSIONS TO EXISTING WALLS TO BE VERIFIED IN FIELD. 4) IF DIMENSION NOT INDICATED - ALL DOORS TO EITHER BE CENTERED IN OPENING OR JAMB TO BE 6" AWAY FROM NEAREST WALL. 5) HISTORIC INTERIOR DOORS TO BE REUSED WHERE POSSIBLE T.O. SLAB 92'-4" LAUNDRYBATHROOM MECHANICAL STORAGE STAIRS UP2 A-203 1 A-203 2 A-204 1 A-204 N 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL PLAN Page 69 of 128 86 KEYNOTE LEGEND 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 ID NAME DATE 01 02 Planned Development Application Planned Development Application Comment Response 5/2/25 10/1/25 COPYRIGHT: ISSUANCE INDEX PROJECT NO: DATE OF PUBLICATION: A-103 PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL PLAN 10/1/25 2433.00 320 W Main St. Aspen CO 81611 320 W Main St. Aspen: 332 W Main St. Suite 101 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Carbondale: 36 N. 4th St. Carbondale, CO 81623 Denver: 2243 Curtis St. Denver, CO 80202 forumphi.com p: 970.279.4157 f: 866.770.5585 FORUMPHI NOT F O R C O N ST R U CTI O N FORUM PHI WALL LEGEND EXISTING TO REMAIN TO BE DEMOLISHED NEW CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PLAN NOTES 1) BUILDING REFERENCE ELEVATION 100' - 0" = 7907.17' 2) EXISTING FRAMING & SHEATHING TO REMAIN AT AREAS NOT SHOWN AS DEMOLISHED. 3) ALL DIMENSIONS TO EXISTING WALLS TO BE VERIFIED IN FIELD. 4) IF DIMENSION NOT INDICATED - ALL DOORS TO EITHER BE CENTERED IN OPENING OR JAMB TO BE 6" AWAY FROM NEAREST WALL. 5) HISTORIC INTERIOR DOORS TO BE REUSED WHERE POSSIBLE A A 1 A-401 2 A-203 1 A-203 2 A-204 1 A-2042'-21/2"31/2"7'-63/4" 31/2" 7'-21/2"5'-67/8"6'-3"5'-0"T.O. FF FLOOR 100'-0" = 7907'-23/64" 100'-0"99'-113/4" ROLL IN SHOWER W/ BENCH PROPERTY LINE SETBACK RECEPTION DESK FOYER FRONT PORCH KITCHEN COMMON PARLOR COMMON PARLOR ADA BEDROOM ADA BATHROOM DN STAIRS DNUPDN UP N 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL PLAN Page 70 of 128 87 KEYNOTE LEGEND 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 ID NAME DATE 01 02 Planned Development Application Planned Development Application Comment Response 5/2/25 10/1/25 COPYRIGHT: ISSUANCE INDEX PROJECT NO: DATE OF PUBLICATION: A-104 PROPOSED SECOND LEVEL PLAN 10/1/25 2433.00 320 W Main St. Aspen CO 81611 320 W Main St. Aspen: 332 W Main St. Suite 101 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Carbondale: 36 N. 4th St. Carbondale, CO 81623 Denver: 2243 Curtis St. Denver, CO 80202 forumphi.com p: 970.279.4157 f: 866.770.5585 FORUMPHI NOT F O R C O N ST R U CTI O N FORUM PHI WALL LEGEND EXISTING TO REMAIN TO BE DEMOLISHED NEW CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PLAN NOTES 1) BUILDING REFERENCE ELEVATION 100' - 0" = 7907.17' 2) EXISTING FRAMING & SHEATHING TO REMAIN AT AREAS NOT SHOWN AS DEMOLISHED. 3) ALL DIMENSIONS TO EXISTING WALLS TO BE VERIFIED IN FIELD. 4) IF DIMENSION NOT INDICATED - ALL DOORS TO EITHER BE CENTERED IN OPENING OR JAMB TO BE 6" AWAY FROM NEAREST WALL. 5) HISTORIC INTERIOR DOORS TO BE REUSED WHERE POSSIBLE A A A A A A 2 A-203 1 A-203 2 A-204 1 A-204 T.O. FF FLOOR 110'-11" BEDROOM BEDROOMBEDROOM STAIRS BATHROOM CLOSET BATHROOM BATHROOM BEDROOM BATHROOM BENCH UP UPDNN 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED SECOND LEVEL PLAN Page 71 of 128 88 KEYNOTE LEGEND 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 ID NAME DATE 01 02 Planned Development Application Planned Development Application Comment Response 5/2/25 10/1/25 COPYRIGHT: ISSUANCE INDEX PROJECT NO: DATE OF PUBLICATION: A-105 PROPOSED THIRD LEVEL PLAN 10/1/25 2433.00 320 W Main St. Aspen CO 81611 320 W Main St. Aspen: 332 W Main St. Suite 101 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Carbondale: 36 N. 4th St. Carbondale, CO 81623 Denver: 2243 Curtis St. Denver, CO 80202 forumphi.com p: 970.279.4157 f: 866.770.5585 FORUMPHI NOT F O R C O N ST R U CTI O N FORUM PHI 2 A-203 1 A-203 2 A-204 1 A-204 T.O. FF FLOOR 120'-8" 6'-8"6'-8" STAIRS BEDROOM BATHROOM ATTICSTORAGE DN DN266.00 sq ft > 5' CEILING HEIGHT 135.00 sq ft > 7'-6"101.00 sq ft> 5' CEILING HEIGHT50.75 sq ft > 7'-0" 1 A-204 2 A-401 3 A-401 2 A-403 2 A-402 T.O. FF FLOOR 120'-8" 6'-8"6'-8" DN DN0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED THIRD LEVEL PLAN 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED THIRD LEVEL CEILING HEIGHTS PLAN Page 72 of 128 89 KEYNOTE LEGEND 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 ID NAME DATE 01 02 Planned Development Application Planned Development Application Comment Response 5/2/25 10/1/25 COPYRIGHT: ISSUANCE INDEX PROJECT NO: DATE OF PUBLICATION: A-201 EXISTING ELEVATIONS 10/1/25 2433.00 320 W Main St. Aspen CO 81611 320 W Main St. Aspen: 332 W Main St. Suite 101 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Carbondale: 36 N. 4th St. Carbondale, CO 81623 Denver: 2243 Curtis St. Denver, CO 80202 forumphi.com p: 970.279.4157 f: 866.770.5585 FORUMPHI NOT F O R C O N ST R U CTI O N FORUM PHI WALL LEGEND EXISTING TO REMAIN TO BE DEMOLISHED NEW CONSTRUCTION T.O. FF = 100'-0" (7,907.17' ASL) MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF = 111'-0" SECOND LEVEL T.O. FF = 120'-8" THIRD LEVEL 133'-10 7/8" V.I.F. T.O. RIDGE 27'-93/4"27'-37/8"12 11 02 01 08 02 04 06 32 15 09 10 03 07 14 28 29 21 22 31 16 7 12 12 12 12 12 7 12 EAVE POINT 1/3RD POINT EAVE POINT 1/3RD POINT T.O. FF = 100'-0" (7,907.17' ASL) MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF = 111'-0" SECOND LEVEL T.O. FF = 120'-8" THIRD LEVEL 133'-10 7/8" V.I.F. T.O. RIDGE 27'-21/4"27'-31/8"22 21 17 35 13 34 3228 29 2523 24 3130 18 33 01 02 36 19 26 27 12 12 12 12 EAVE POINT 1/3RD POINT EAVE POINT 1/3RD POINT 20 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1X EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2X EXISTING EAST ELEVATION 05 0112 08 02 06 04 09 10 03 14 15 07 13 11 16 19 17 34 31 30 18 23 24 25 28 29 32 33 22 35 36 20 21 26 27 Page 73 of 128 90 KEYNOTE LEGEND 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 ID NAME DATE 01 02 Planned Development Application Planned Development Application Comment Response 5/2/25 10/1/25 COPYRIGHT: ISSUANCE INDEX PROJECT NO: DATE OF PUBLICATION: A-202 EXISTING ELEVATIONS 10/1/25 2433.00 320 W Main St. Aspen CO 81611 320 W Main St. Aspen: 332 W Main St. Suite 101 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Carbondale: 36 N. 4th St. Carbondale, CO 81623 Denver: 2243 Curtis St. Denver, CO 80202 forumphi.com p: 970.279.4157 f: 866.770.5585 FORUMPHI NOT F O R C O N ST R U CTI O N FORUM PHI T.O. FF = 100'-0" (7,907.17' ASL) MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF = 111'-0" SECOND LEVEL T.O. FF = 120'-8" THIRD LEVEL 133'-10 7/8" V.I.F. T.O. RIDGE 26'-23/8"25'-91/8"17 15 06 141420 21 16 18 22 2324 11 EAVE POINT 1/3RD POINT EAVE POINT 1/3RD POINT 8 12 12 12 12 12 LOCATION OF NEW RANGE HOOD EXHAUST T.O. FF = 100'-0" (7,907.17' ASL) MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF = 111'-0" SECOND LEVEL T.O. FF = 120'-8" THIRD LEVEL 133'-10 7/8" V.I.F. T.O. RIDGE 28'-0"29'-23/4"13 06 07 04 01 02 03 05 08 09 10 12 11 1415 23 24 16 EAVE POINT 7 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 7 12 12 12 8 12 8 12 1/3RD POINT EAVE POINT 1/3RD POINT WALL LEGEND EXISTING TO REMAIN TO BE DEMOLISHED NEW CONSTRUCTION 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1X EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2X EXISTING WEST ELEVATION 15 18 17 14 07 06 01 02 03 04 05 08 09 11 12 13 10 20 21 22 24 25 19 23 16 Page 74 of 128 91 KEYNOTE LEGEND 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 ID NAME DATE 01 02 Planned Development Application Planned Development Application Comment Response 5/2/25 10/1/25 COPYRIGHT: ISSUANCE INDEX PROJECT NO: DATE OF PUBLICATION: A-203 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS 10/1/25 2433.00 320 W Main St. Aspen CO 81611 320 W Main St. Aspen: 332 W Main St. Suite 101 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Carbondale: 36 N. 4th St. Carbondale, CO 81623 Denver: 2243 Curtis St. Denver, CO 80202 forumphi.com p: 970.279.4157 f: 866.770.5585 FORUMPHI NOT F O R C O N ST R U CTI O N FORUM PHI WALL LEGEND EXISTING TO REMAIN TO BE DEMOLISHED NEW CONSTRUCTION T.O. FF = 100'-0" (7,907.17' ASL) MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF = 111'-0" SECOND LEVEL T.O. FF = 120'-8" THIRD LEVEL 133'-10 7/8" V.I.F. T.O. RIDGE T.O. FF = 100'-0" (7,907.17' ASL) MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF = 111'-0" SECOND LEVEL T.O. FF = 120'-8" THIRD LEVEL 133'-10 7/8" V.I.F. T.O. RIDGE 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION NO CHANGE NO CHANGE Page 75 of 128 92 KEYNOTE LEGEND 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 ID NAME DATE 01 02 Planned Development Application Planned Development Application Comment Response 5/2/25 10/1/25 COPYRIGHT: ISSUANCE INDEX PROJECT NO: DATE OF PUBLICATION: A-204 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS 10/1/25 2433.00 320 W Main St. Aspen CO 81611 320 W Main St. Aspen: 332 W Main St. Suite 101 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Carbondale: 36 N. 4th St. Carbondale, CO 81623 Denver: 2243 Curtis St. Denver, CO 80202 forumphi.com p: 970.279.4157 f: 866.770.5585 FORUMPHI NOT F O R C O N ST R U CTI O N FORUM PHI WALL LEGEND EXISTING TO REMAIN TO BE DEMOLISHED NEW CONSTRUCTION T.O. FF = 100'-0" (7,907.17' ASL) MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF = 111'-0" SECOND LEVEL T.O. FF = 120'-8" THIRD LEVEL 133'-10 7/8" V.I.F. T.O. RIDGE T.O. FF = 100'-0" (7,907.17' ASL) MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF = 111'-0" SECOND LEVEL T.O. FF = 120'-8" THIRD LEVEL 133'-10 7/8" V.I.F. T.O. RIDGE 4'-0" MIN LOCATION OF NEW RANGE HOOD EXHAUST 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION NO CHANGE Page 76 of 128 93 ID NAME DATE 01 02 Planned Development Application Planned Development Application Comment Response 5/2/25 10/1/25 COPYRIGHT: ISSUANCE INDEX PROJECT NO: FORUM PHI DATE OF PUBLICATION: A-401 ENLARGED PATIO DRAWINGS 10/1/25 2433.00 320 W Main St. Aspen CO 81611 320 W Main St. Aspen: 332 W Main St. Suite 101 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Carbondale: 36 N. 4th St. Carbondale, CO 81623 Denver: 2243 Curtis St. Denver, CO 80202 forumphi.com p: 970.279.4157 f: 866.770.5585 FORUMPHI NOT F O R C O N ST R U CTI O N 99'-4 3/4" EXISTING DECK 99'-11 3/4" NEW DECK 0203 06 04 EXISTING DECK AND STAIR TO REMAIN AND BE ADDED ON TO / ON TOP OF. COLUMNS AND RAILING TO BE REINSTALLED AT NEW DECK HEIGHT. THIS PRESERVES THE MAXIMUM HISTORIC DETAILS WHILE ALSO MEETING RAILING HEIGHT CODE. EXISTING COLUMNS WILL REQUIRE SHORTENING DUE TO INCREASED DECK ELEVATION. HEIGHT TO BE REDUCED FROM THE TOP SQUARE SEGMENT TO MAINTAIN THE REST OF THE HISTORIC DETAILS. 99'-4 3/4" EXISTING DECK 99'-11 3/4" NEW DECK 01 0204 06 ADA LIFT 2 A-401 3 A-401 2X A-401 3X A-401 2 A-402 99'-43/4"100'-0"100'-0" 01 02 05 04 03 UP DN 2 A-401 3 A-401 2 A-402 100'-0"100'-0" 3'-31/8" 3'-37/8" UNFOLDED PLATFORM 31/2" POST MOUNTED WIDTH 1'-51/2" FOLDED PLATFORM 6'-1"VARIES DEPENDING ON SELECTED PLATFORM99'-113/4" 01 02 05 04 03 DN 99'-4 3/4" EXISTING DECK 100'-0" INTERIOR FINISH FLOOR 0203 06 04 EXISTING DECK AND STAIR TO REMAIN AND BE ADDED ON TO / ON TOP OF. EXISTING WOOD COLUMNS AND RAILING TO BE DECONSTRUCTED AND REINSTALLED. EXISTING HISTORIC DETAILS TO BE REMOVED AND REINSTALLED AS NECESSARY. 99'-4 3/4" EXISTING DECK 100'-0" INTERIOR FINISH FLOOR 01 0204 06 N SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED WEST PATIO ELEVATION SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"3 PROPOSED NORTH PATIO ELEVATION 0 1'2'4'SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"1X EXISTING ENLARGED PATIO PLAN 0 1'2'4'SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED ENLARGED PATIO PLAN SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"2X EXISTING WEST PATIO ELEVATION SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"3X EXISTING NORTH PATIO ELEVATION 01 0203 04 05 06 Page 77 of 128 94 ID NAME DATE 01 02 Planned Development Application Planned Development Application Comment Response 5/2/25 10/1/25 COPYRIGHT: ISSUANCE INDEX PROJECT NO: FORUM PHI DATE OF PUBLICATION: A-402 TRASH ENCLOSURE 10/1/25 2433.00 320 W Main St. Aspen CO 81611 320 W Main St. Aspen: 332 W Main St. Suite 101 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Carbondale: 36 N. 4th St. Carbondale, CO 81623 Denver: 2243 Curtis St. Denver, CO 80202 forumphi.com p: 970.279.4157 f: 866.770.5585 FORUMPHI NOT F O R C O N ST R U CTI O N 6'-0" TRASH COMPOST RECYCLE 3'-0"4'-11/2"3'-7"8'-8"6'-0"PRIVACY FENCE PAINTED WHITE TO MATCH THE HOME PRIVACY FENCE PAINTED WHITE TO MATCH THE HOME N 0 1'2'4'SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"1 TRASH ENCLOSURE PLAN SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"2 TRASH ENCLOSURE GATE ELEVATION SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"3 TRASH ENCLOSURE SIDE ELEVATION Page 78 of 128 95 ID NAME DATE 01 02 Planned Development Application Planned Development Application Comment Response 5/2/25 10/1/25 COPYRIGHT: ISSUANCE INDEX PROJECT NO: FORUM PHI DATE OF PUBLICATION: A-403 SIGN PLAN 10/1/25 2433.00 320 W Main St. Aspen CO 81611 320 W Main St. Aspen: 332 W Main St. Suite 101 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Carbondale: 36 N. 4th St. Carbondale, CO 81623 Denver: 2243 Curtis St. Denver, CO 80202 forumphi.com p: 970.279.4157 f: 866.770.5585 FORUMPHI NOT F O R C O N ST R U CTI O N 2 A-40310"EQ 2'-93/4"EQ 15/8"13/4"81/2"1'-0"EQ EQ2'-31/2"EQEQEQEQEXISTING SIGN WITH NEW TEXT ALL SIGNAGE: FONT - TIMES NEW ROMAN FINISH - BRASS SCALE: 1" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED SIGN PLAN SCALE: 1" = 1'-0"2 SIGN ELEVATION Page 79 of 128 96 ID NAME DATE 02 Planned Development Application Comment Response 10/1/25 COPYRIGHT: ISSUANCE INDEX PROJECT NO: FORUM PHI DATE OF PUBLICATION: A-404 EXTERIOR LIGHTING 10/1/25 2433.00 320 W Main St. Aspen CO 81611 320 W Main St. Aspen: 332 W Main St. Suite 101 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Carbondale: 36 N. 4th St. Carbondale, CO 81623 Denver: 2243 Curtis St. Denver, CO 80202 forumphi.com p: 970.279.4157 f: 866.770.5585 FORUMPHI NOT F O R C O N ST R U CTI O N PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS © Copyright 2019, VOLT® Lighting, Lutz, FL USA 33549 • All rights reserved • 813.978.3700 www.voltlighting.com Project Name __________________________________Date ___________ Type or Model __________________________________Qty ____________ VOLT® Low Voltage Landscape Lighting Flat Hat 7” Path & Area Lights – 320 Series The Flat Hat 7” Path & Area Light is a high-quality outdoor light that is great for illuminating smaller areas. Featuring a tall stem and a simple, yet attractive hat; this luminaire projects a beam of illumination with a diameter of 12 ft. Two versions are available – one constructed of solid brass, the other of copper. Corrosion-resistant internal components and an easy-to-change bulb socket-and-enclosure ensure years of optimal performance – carries a lifetime warranty. ◗Solid Brass or Copper Construction. ◗Pre aged patina or powder coated finish. ◗Stem is 1-inch thick and includes extra-long (1-inch) strip resistant threading for greater stability. ◗Beryllium copper socket – more corrosion resistant than copper. ◗Silicone plug at lead wire exit prevents ground moisture and insects from entering luminaire through the stem. ◗Machine threaded body screws tight onto an O-ring for a moisture tight design. Product Description Features & Benefits Product Dimensions ◗Construction: Solid Brass or Solid Raw Copper ◗Finish: Bronze, Powder Coated Black, or Raw Copper ◗Lead Wire: 4’ (standard) or 25’ (optional) 18AWG ◗Mounting: 10” Hammer® Stake with cutout for wire exit ◗Lens: Clear protective polycarbonate lens ◗Light Source (sold separately): Bi-Pin (LED or Halogen) ◗Operating Voltage: 12V AC ◗Powered by: VOLT’s Low Voltage Transformer Specifications Lifetime Warranty Warranty File #E466348 Certifications File #E466348LISTED Max 20 Watts Max 20 Watts 7” 21 1/4” 2 3/4” SCALE: 1' = 1'-0" PROPOSED PATH LIGHTING SCALE: 1:0.87 EXISTING FRONT ENTRY SCALE: 1' = 1'-0" EXISTING REAR ENTRY Page 80 of 128 97 Preliminary Engineering Report 320 W. Main St Aspen, CO 81611 Prepared by: Tyler Stevens Roaring Fork Engineering 592 Hwy 133 Carbondale, CO 81623 April 2025 Exhibit D.2 Page 81 of 128 98 Preliminary Engineering Report April 2025 i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Purpose ........................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Site Location, Access, & Hazards .................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Utilities .............................................................................................................................................. 3 3.0 Proposed Conditions ..................................................................................................................... 4 4.0 Onsite drainage .............................................................................................................................. 5 4.1 North Basin ...................................................................................................................................... 5 4.2 south basin ....................................................................................................................................... 5 4.3 water quality capture volume ........................................................................................................... 5 5.0 Appendix ......................................................................................................................................... 6 5.1 Existing Conditions & Drainage Basin Map ..................................................................................... 6 Page 82 of 128 99 1.0 PURPOSE This report has been prepared by Roaring Fork Engineering (RFE) to satisfy the drainage requirements set forth by the City of Aspen’s Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The property is located at 320 West Main Street (Parcel ID: 273512441010). The subject property encompasses 4,530 square feet and is designated within the Main Street Historic zoning district. This civil design is classified as a Minor Project that is disturbing less than 1,000 square feet of the site and less than 25% of the entire site. This historical structure is undergoing a interior remodel with the exterior addition of a previously paved parking area. Page 83 of 128 100 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 SITE LOCATION, ACCESS, & HAZARDS The site is bounded by West Main Street to the south and an alley to the north. The property currently hosts a residential home with a footprint of 1,334 square feet. The site includes a stone walkway that enters the front of the home on the south side of the property. To the north of the residence is an asphalt parking space and a utility box. There are also existing trees and landscaping elements. Figure 1: Pitkin County GIS Vicinity View (Parcel ID 273512441010) There are no steep slopes (>30%) on the site. The site is not at risk for any potential geologic hazards, flood due to 100-year event, or mudflow based on the November 1, 2001, Surface Drainage Master Plan for the City of Aspen. The site is not located near or adjacent to any Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) special flood hazard areas. The site is relatively flat, with less than 2 feet of grade change across the site sloping generally to the east. There is no existing stormwater infrastructure on site other than roof gutters. There is also one large tree on the property that provides a tree canopy credit, this tree is located to the southwest of the property. Project location Page 84 of 128 101 The property will be accessed from a shared alley that exists in between W. Main St. and W. Bleeker St. The parking space for this property is currently asphalt. The current gutter infrastructure deposits storm water directly on the asphalt and flows east towards N. 2nd St. where it is collected by the City of Aspen’s stormwater infrastructure. This parking spot will be rebuilt with pervious pavers to collect storm water and mitigate excess flow to the stormwater infrastructure. 2.2 UTILITIES The existing building is currently served by the City of Aspen Water Department. A water service extends from the water main in Main St. to the east corner of the building. This water service will remain undisturbed unless it is required to be upgraded for fire suppression. The structure is also connected to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. The service extends from the northeast side of the structure to the sewer main located in the alley. This service will also remain in place. The structure is currently served by a City of Aspen transformer located within the enclosure to the north of the building. No new electrical upgrades are proposed currently. It is envisioned that this will be the source of power. A gas line and a meter are located at the northwest corner of the building. The existing gas service will remain in place to serve the structure. Existing telephone lines, internet, TV, and other communication pedestals and services are located at the north of the building. These communication lines are intended to stay intact. Page 85 of 128 102 3.0 PROPOSED CONDITIONS On the north side of the property the proposed site improvements include the replacement of the gravel driveway with pervious pavers on the alley or north side of the structure. This will be treated as a re-surfacing effort and add no impervious area to the site. On the south of the property some re-grading and a detention structure will be added to capture and infiltrate the Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) determined by the tributary basin. A tree canopy credit will be implemented for the large conifer tree southwest of the structure. Currently a Flo-Well is proposed for detention. Page 86 of 128 103 4.0 ONSITE DRAINAGE The site was split into two separate basins. The north Basin and the South Basin. 4.1 NORTH BASIN The north basin is made up of the north half of the structure and the parking area near the alley. This parking area is where the proposed pervious pavers are proposed to be implemented. This basin is 1933sf with 781sf of impervious area. This makes the basin about 40% impervious. The roof area and walkways all drain onto the pervious area, allowing infiltration. The impervious areas flowing onto the previous area is a 40/60 ratio, this shall meet the needs for water quality treatment. 4.2 SOUTH BASIN The South is 2553sf with 784sf of impervious area. This leads to a pervious percentage of 42%. The storm water that lands on the southern portion of the roof sheet flows off the roof into the lawn. The lawn is the sloped east to a low point where and Flo-Well detention structure is proposed. The WQCV calculation implemented the tree canopy credit to determine the detention volume required. 4.3 WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME Below the adjusted impervious areas were calculated to determine the percent effective imperviousness for each basin. Below are the calculations used for the detention volume required to be captured and infiltrated. Due to the historical nature of the structure and area, the implementation of re-grading and a detention structure may be undesirable. In this case a grass buffer scenario is preferred. To meet WQCV requirements for an impervious area the minimum grass buffer area (AG) shall be greater than or equal to the tributary area (AT). There shall be a 1:1 ratio of impervious area to grass buffer area. In this case the pervious area, AG, is 1500sf while the tributary area, AT, is 1054 sf. This satisfies the requirements for a Grass Buffer. Onsite Basin Data Entry Total Area Impervious Area Impervious Tree Canopy Area Tree Canopy Credit (Tree Canopyarea *0.3) Adjusted Impervious Area Adjusted Impervious (ft2)(ft2)%(ft2)(ft2)(ft2)% North 1 1933.00 781.00 40.40%0.00 0.00 781.00 40.40% South 2 2553.00 1054.00 41.28%899.00 269.70 784.30 30.72% Basin Water Quality Capture Volume Storage Total Area Impervious Area Impervious WQCV Table Value WQCV Storage F.O.S. Required Storage BMP (ft2)(ft2)(%)(in)(ft3)(ft3) North 1 1933.00 781.00 40.40% 0.080 12.89 1.5 19.3 PERVIOUS PAVERS South 2 2553.00 784.30 30.72% 0.062 13.19 1.5 19.8 Flo-Well Basin Page 87 of 128 104 5.0 APPENDIX 5.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS & DRAINAGE BASIN MAP Page 88 of 128 105 CHECKED BY:1 DESCRIPTION DATE DRAWN BYCONSTRUCTION DRAWN BY:JOB #:2024-76NOT FORROARING FORK ENGINEERING 592 HIGHWAY 133 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 RFENG.BIZ | (970) 340-4130RGMAC320 W. MAIN ST ASPEN, COOf 21 SUB BASIN MAP 11.29.24 MAC C1EXISTING CONDITIONSPage 89 of 128106 NORTH BASINSOUTH BASINCHECKED BY:1 DESCRIPTION DATE DRAWN BYCONSTRUCTION DRAWN BY:JOB #:2024-76NOT FORROARING FORK ENGINEERING 592 HIGHWAY 133 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 RFENG.BIZ | (970) 340-4130RGMAC320 W. MAIN ST ASPEN, COOf 21 SUB BASIN MAP 11.29.24 MAC C2DRAINAGEPage 90 of 128107 PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PRE-25-033 DATE: March 25, 2025 PLANNER: Gillian White | gillian.white@aspen.gov REPRESENTATIVE: Sara Adams, BendonAdams, sara@bendonadams.com PROJECT LOCATION: 320 W. Main St., Smith-Elisha House PARCEL ID: 2735-124-41-010 REQUEST: Boutique Lodge – Planned Development, Historic Preservation Review, Growth Management Quota System, Conditional Use DESCRIPTION: The property owner of 320 W. Main Street is interested in converting the space to a Boutique Lodge with a maximum of six (6) lodge keys. The property is a local Historic Landmark and is located in the Main Street Historic District, with an underlying Mixed Use Zone District. The property is commonly referred to as the Smith-Elisha House. The applicant wants to convert from office use (commercial) to a boutique lodge, a Conditional Use in the Mixed Use Zone District. This is a change between growth management use categories and requires change in use review as well as conditional use review. Affordable housing needs to be provided, as well as compliance with the allowable floor area per underlying zoning. The Change in Use triggers a review for compliance with GMQS, Transportation, and Parking. The proposal also requires a Certificate of Appropriateness granted by the Historic Preservation Commission. Given the proposed maximum of six (6) lodge keys, and the size of the lot, the applicant would like to establish a Planned Development as there exists an opportunity to advance a significant community goal through the Planned Development procedures. A Boutique Lodge is defined as a building or parcel with between 10 and 14 individual units used for overnight lodging by the general public. These units are required to have common reservation and cleaning services, combined utilities, and on-site management and reception services. Lock off units are permitted, and each rentable division is considered a “key” for the purposes of the land use review. Each unit is required to have 50% or more of its net livable area be at or above the higher of natural or finished grade. The applicant is proposing a maximum of six (6) lodge keys. BACKGROUND: In 2002, a Historic Landmark Lot Split was approved for the property, creating two 4,500 sq ft lots – one for a carriage house, and one for the main building (Ordinance 14, Series of 2002). In that approval, the allowed FAR was stated as based on the use of the buildings. The approval contemplated that potential changes in use could occur over time, subject to the regulations in place at the time of any future change. Additionally, a 500 sq ft FAR bonus was provided for the Smith- Elisha House to enable the existing structure, in residential use at the time, to be a conforming structure on the new lot size. Over the years, 320 W. Main St. has been used as a residence and commercial building, completing at least two Change in Use reviews. In 2003 the building was converted to office use. No subsequent Exhibit E.1 Page 91 of 128 108 official Change in Use approvals have been granted. The Community Development Department was previously in contact with the former property owner regarding the apparent use of the structure as a single-family residence, which is not allowed as underlying zoning prohibits free market residential and a change in use is required to change between GMQS use categories. Unapproved use of the 320 W. Main as a home remains subject to zoning enforcement. PROCESS: In order for the new owner to convert the property to a Boutique Lodge, Growth Management Reviews for Expansion or New Lodge Development and for Change in Use will be required. Development allotments for the lodge units will be required, and affordable housing mitigation equal to 65% of the FTE generation will be required. Mitigation may be provided on-site, off-site, through housing credits, or a cash-in-lieu payment; the applicant is proposing to mitigate off-site via credits and cash-in-lieu. In the Mixed Use Zone District, lodge units generate 0.6 FTEs per lodge bedroom. Conversion to a Boutique Lodge requires a review of parking and transportation management, pursuant to 26.515. For lodge development in the Aspen Infill Area, 0.5 parking spaces per Lodge Key is required. It should be noted that the 2002 Lot Split approval waived “any of the required parking that cannot be contained on the site in the form of legal sized spaces.” This condition was specific to the lot split approval and the status of the property as a single-family at that time and does not apply to this new development proposal, meaning an updated parking review is required. As an historic property, any exterior changes are reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission. This project will require a Minor or Major Certificate of Appropriateness Review by the HPC, pending additional information about the extent of the exterior changes. This pre-application conference summary letter has been written to anticipate minor exterior changes. An update to the letter will be needed if the proposal is more significant. There are some benefits available for historic properties, however, given previous approvals, these are limited. The property is not eligible for a Floor Area Bonus, as one was granted with the Lot Split in 2002. Other benefits like dimensional variations and on-site parking reduction may be applicable. (Note that HPC may not fully waive parking but may accept a cash-in-lieu payment of off-site mitigation instead of on-site parking provision.) Per 26.445.040(c)(4), Project Review or Detailed Review may be combined with applicable Historic Preservation reviews. Establishing a Planned Development requires three public hearings – Project Review before the Historic Preservation Commission, Project Review before City Council, Detailed Review before the Historic Preservation Commission. RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS: Section Number Section Title 26.104.100 Use Categories, Lodge, Boutique Uses 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.412 Commercial Design Review 26.415.070 Development Involving Designated Historic Property 26.425 Conditional Use 26.445 Planned Development 26.470 GMQS 26.515 Transportation and Parking Management 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements 26.710.180 Mixed-Use (MU) Zone District Page 92 of 128 109 HELPFUL LINKS: • Land Use Application (PDF) • Land Use Code (PDF) • Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Standards (PDF) • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines (PDF) REVIEW BY: • Staff for completeness and recommendations • Engineering, APCHA, Parks, and Development Review Committee for recommendations • HPC for review and approval, approval with conditions, or denial • City Council for review REQUIRED LAND USE REVIEW(S): • Planned Development • Commercial Design Review • Conditional Use • GMQS • Transportation and Parking • Historic Preservation - Certificate of Appropriateness PUBLIC HEARING: Yes, Project Review before the Historic Preservation Commission, Project Review before City Council, Detailed Review before the Historic Preservation Commission PLANNING FEES: $10,400 deposit (for 32 hours of staff time) with additional/lesser deposit hours to be billed/refunded at a rate of $325 per hour. REFERRAL FEES: $16,050 flat fee for Engineering PD Review $325 for 1 hour of APCHA review $1,625 flat fee for Parks PD Review TOTAL DEPOSIT: $28,400 APPLICATION CHECKLIST: Below is a list of submittal requirements for this review. Please email the entire application as one pdf to cdehadmins@aspen.gov. Include PRE- 25-033 in the subject line. If more than 18 months has lapsed since this letter was issued, please reach out to planneroftheday@gmail.com.  Completed Land Use Application, signed Fee Agreement, and signed HOA Compliance form  Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).  Contained within a letter signed by the applicant, the applicant's name, address and telephone number and the name, address and telephone number of any representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. Page 93 of 128 110  The street address, legal description and parcel identification number of the property proposed for development.  A disclosure of ownership of the parcel proposed for development, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company or attorney licensed to practice in the state, 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.  An eight and one-half (8½) inches by eleven (11) inches vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen.  Proposed and existing site plans depicting the proposed layout and the project's physical relationship to the land and its surroundings.  A site improvement survey (no older than a year from submittal) certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state, showing the current status of the parcel including the current topography and vegetation.  A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application.  Visual images, drawings, etc. that illustrate the existing and proposed development, sufficient to analyze and determine that review criteria are met.  Floor Plans detailing the existing and proposed internal configuration sufficient to analyze and determine that review criteria are met.  An accurate representation of all exterior building material, fixtures and finishes to be used in the development. Please include relevant cut-sheets for review.  Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the designated historic property including photographs and other exhibits, as needed, to accurately depict location and extent of proposed work.  A written description of the lodge function – to include a proposed operations plan that shows proposed compliance with the requirements of a Boutique Lodge use. Depending on further review of the case, additional items may be requested of the application. Once the application is deemed complete by staff, the applicant/applicant’s representative will receive an e-mail requesting submission of the deposit. Once the deposit is received, the case will be assigned to a planner and the land use review will begin. 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. Page 94 of 128 111 Page 95 of 128112 Page 96 of 128113 Page 97 of 128114 Customer Distribution Prevent fraud - Please call a member of our closing team for wire transfer instructions or to initiate a wire transfer. Note that our wiring instructions will never change. Order Number: QC62017560-3 Date: 04/02/2025 Property Address: 320 W MAIN ST # A, ASPEN, CO 81611 For Closing Assistance For Title Assistance Land Title Roaring Fork Valley Title Team 533 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE, SUITE 102 ASPEN, CO 81611 (970) 927-0405 (Work) (970) 925-0610 (Work Fax) valleyresponse@ltgc.com Seller/Owner WEST MAIN HOLDINGS LLC Delivered via: No Commitment Delivery BENDONADAMS LLC Attention: ERIN WACKERLE 300 S SPRING STREET SUITE 202 Aspen, CO 81611 (406) 531-0806 (Cell) (970) 925-2855 (Work) erin@bendonadams.com Delivered via: Electronic Mail Page 98 of 128 115 Estimate of Title Fees Order Number: QC62017560-3 Date: 04/02/2025 Property Address: 320 W MAIN ST # A, ASPEN, CO 81611 Seller(s): WEST MAIN HOLDINGS LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY Buyer(s): None Thank you for putting your trust in Land Title. Below is the estimate of title fees for the transaction. The final fees will be collected at closing. Visit ltgc.com to learn more about Land Title. Estimate of Title Insurance Fees "TBD" Commitment $279.00 TBD - TBD Income $-279.00 TOTAL $0.00 Note: The documents linked in this commitment should be reviewed carefully. These documents, such as covenants conditions and restrictions, may affect the title, ownership and use of the property. You may wish to engage legal assistance in order to fully understand and be aware of the implications of the documents on your property. Chain of Title Documents: Pitkin county recorded 11/15/2021 under reception no. 682583 Plat Map(s): Pitkin county recorded 09/03/2003 at book 66 page 32 Page 99 of 128 116 Copyright 2006-2025 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. Property Address: 320 W MAIN ST # A, ASPEN, CO 81611 1.Effective Date: 03/21/2025 at 5:00 P.M. 2.Policy to be Issued and Proposed Insured: "TBD" Commitment Proposed Insured: $0.00 3.The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is: FEE SIMPLE 4.Title to the estate or interest covered herein is at the effective date hereof vested in: WEST MAIN HOLDINGS LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 5.The Land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: LOT A, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT AT 320 W. MAIN STREET, ACCORDING TO THE FINAL PLAT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 3, 2003 IN PLAT BOOK 66 AT PAGE 32. COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO ALTA COMMITMENT Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Schedule A Order Number:QC62017560-3 Page 100 of 128 117 ALTA COMMITMENT Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Schedule B, Part I (Requirements) Order Number: QC62017560-3 All of the following Requirements must be met: This proposed Insured must notify the Company in writing of the name of any party not referred to in this Commitment who will obtain an interest in the Land or who will make a loan on the Land. The Company may then make additional Requirements or Exceptions. Pay the agreed amount for the estate or interest to be insured. Pay the premiums, fees, and charges for the Policy to the Company. Documents satisfactory to the Company that convey the Title or create the Mortgage to be insured, or both, must be properly authorized, executed, delivered, and recorded in the Public Records. THIS COMMITMENT IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY, AND NO POLICY WILL BE ISSUED PURSUANT HERETO. Page 101 of 128 118 This commitment does not republish any covenants, condition, restriction, or limitation contained in any document referred to in this commitment to the extent that the specific covenant, conditions, restriction, or limitation violates state or federal law based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, handicap, familial status, or national origin. 1.Any facts, rights, interests, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records but that could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land. 2.Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records. 3.Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public Records. 4.Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the Public Records. 5.Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date of the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6.(a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records. 7.(a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water. 8.RESERVATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS AS SET FORTH IN DEED FROM THE CITY OF ASPEN RECORDED DECEMBER 6, 1887 IN BOOK 59 AT PAGE 129 PROVIDING AS FOLLOWS: "THAT NO TITLE SHALL BE HEREBY ACQUIRED TO ANY MINE OF GOLD, SILVER, CINNABAR OR COPPER OR TO ANY VALID MINING CLAIM OR POSSESSION HELD UNDER EXISTING LAWS". 9.EXCEPTIONS AND RESERVATIONS AS SET FORTH IN THE ACT AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF THE PATENT FOR THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN RECORDED MARCH 1, 1897 IN BOOK 139 AT PAGE 216. 10.TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS AS SET FORTH IN EASEMENT AGREEMENT RECORDED DECEMBER 11, 1986 IN BOOK 524 AT PAGE 964. 11.TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS OF RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL RECORDED DECEMBER 18, 1992 IN BOOK 698 AT PAGE 213 AS RESOLUTION NO. 56. 12.TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS AS SET FORTH IN QUIT CLAIM DEED RECORDED SEPTEMBER 2, 1999 AS RECEPTION NO. 435152 AND RE-RECORDED MARCH 26, 2004 AS RECEPTION NO. 495845 AND RE-RECORDED DECEMBER 28, 2004 AS RECEPTION NO. 505486 AND CORRECTION QUIT CLAIM DEED RECORDED NOVEMBER 7, 2005 AS RECEPTION NO. 517193. 13.TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECORDED JUNE 19, 2002 AS RECEPTION NO. 468870. 14.TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS AS SET FORTH IN RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECORDED JULY 5, 2002 AS RECEPTION NO. 469507. ALTA COMMITMENT Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Schedule B, Part II (Exceptions) Order Number: QC62017560-3 Page 102 of 128 119 15.TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS AS SET FORTH IN ORDINANCE NO. 14, SERIES OF 2002 BY THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL RECORDED SEPTEMBER 8, 2002 AS RECEPTION NO. 471904. 16.TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS AS SET FORTH IN SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 3, 2003 AS RECEPTION NO. 487833. 17.EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY AND ALL MATTERS AS DISCLOSED ON PLAT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY RECORDED SEPTEMBER 3, 2003 IN PLAT BOOK 66 AT PAGE 32. 18.TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS AS SET FORTH IN RESOLUTION NO. 96, SERIES OF 2019 OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL RECORDED SEPTEMBER 27, 2019 AS RECEPTION NO. 659063. 19.DEED OF TRUST DATED NOVEMBER 15, 2021 FROM WEST MAIN HOLDINGS LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF PITKIN COUNTY FOR THE USE OF ANB BANK TO SECURE THE SUM OF $2,940,000.00 RECORDED NOVEMBER 15, 2021 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 682585. SAID DEED OF TRUST WAS FURTHER SECURED IN ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS RECORDED NOVEMBER 15, 2021, UNDER RECEPTION NO. 682586. ALTA COMMITMENT Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Schedule B, Part II (Exceptions) Order Number: QC62017560-3 Page 103 of 128 120 Land Title Guarantee Company Disclosure Statements Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-122, notice is hereby given that: Note: Effective September 1, 1997, CRS 30-10-406 requires that all documents received for recording or filing in the clerk and recorder's office shall contain a top margin of at least one inch and a left, right and bottom margin of at least one half of an inch. The clerk and recorder may refuse to record or file any document that does not conform, except that, the requirement for the top margin shall not apply to documents using forms on which space is provided for recording or filing information at the top margin of the document. Note: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-2 requires that "Every title entity shall be responsible for all matters which appear of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title entity conducts the closing and is responsible for recording or filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction which was closed". Provided that Land Title Guarantee Company conducts the closing of the insured transaction and is responsible for recording the legal documents from the transaction, exception number 5 will not appear on the Owner's Title Policy and the Lenders Policy when issued. Note: Affirmative mechanic's lien protection for the Owner may be available (typically by deletion of Exception no. 4 of Schedule B, Section 2 of the Commitment from the Owner's Policy to be issued) upon compliance with the following conditions: No coverage will be given under any circumstances for labor or material for which the insured has contracted for or agreed to pay. Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-123, notice is hereby given: The Subject real property may be located in a special taxing district.(A) A certificate of taxes due listing each taxing jurisdiction will be obtained from the county treasurer of the county in which the real property is located or that county treasurer's authorized agent unless the proposed insured provides written instructions to the contrary. (for an Owner's Policy of Title Insurance pertaining to a sale of residential real property). (B) The information regarding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board of County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor. (C) The land described in Schedule A of this commitment must be a single family residence which includes a condominium or townhouse unit. (A) No labor or materials have been furnished by mechanics or material-men for purposes of construction on the land described in Schedule A of this Commitment within the past 6 months. (B) The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against un-filed mechanic's and material-men's liens. (C) The Company must receive payment of the appropriate premium.(D) If there has been construction, improvements or major repairs undertaken on the property to be purchased within six months prior to the Date of Commitment, the requirements to obtain coverage for unrecorded liens will include: disclosure of certain construction information; financial information as to the seller, the builder and or the contractor; payment of the appropriate premium fully executed Indemnity Agreements satisfactory to the company, and, any additional requirements as may be necessary after an examination of the aforesaid information by the Company. (E) Page 104 of 128 121 This notice applies to owner's policy commitments disclosing that a mineral estate has been severed from the surface estate, in Schedule B-2. Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-1-128(6)(a), It is unlawful to knowingly provide false, incomplete, or misleading facts or information to an insurance company for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the company. Penalties may include imprisonment, fines, denial of insurance, and civil damages. Any insurance company or agent of an insurance company who knowingly provides false, incomplete, or misleading facts or information to a policyholder or claimant for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the policyholder or claimant with regard to a settlement or award payable from insurance proceeds shall be reported to the Colorado Division of Insurance within the Department of Regulatory Agencies. Note: Pursuant to Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-3, notice is hereby given of the availability of a closing protection letter for the lender, purchaser, lessee or seller in connection with this transaction. Note: Pursuant to CRS 24-21-514.5, Colorado notaries may remotely notarize real estate deeds and other documents using real-time audio-video communication technology. You may choose not to use remote notarization for any document. That there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased, or otherwise conveyed from the surface estate and that there is substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas, other minerals, or geothermal energy in the property; and (A) That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owner's permission. (B) Page 105 of 128 122 Joint Notice of Privacy Policy of Land Title Guarantee Company Land Title Insurance Corporation and Old Republic National Title Insurancy Company This Statement is provided to you as a customer of Land Title Guarantee Company as agent for Land Title Insurance Corporation and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company. We want you to know that we recognize and respect your privacy expectations and the requirements of federal and state privacy laws. Information security is one of our highest priorities. We recognize that maintaining your trust and confidence is the bedrock of our business. We maintain and regularly review internal and external safeguards against unauthorized access to your non-public personal information ("Personal Information"). In the course of our business, we may collect Personal Information about you from: applications or other forms we receive from you, including communications sent through TMX, our web-based transaction management system; your transactions with, or from the services being performed by us, our affiliates, or others; a consumer reporting agency, if such information is provided to us in connection with your transaction; and The public records maintained by governmental entities that we obtain either directly from those entities, or from our affiliates and non-affiliates. Our policies regarding the protection of the confidentiality and security of your Personal Information are as follows: We restrict access to all Personal Information about you to those employees who need to know that information in order to provide products and services to you. We may share your Personal Information with affiliated contractors or service providers who provide services in the course of our business, but only to the extent necessary for these providers to perform their services and to provide these services to you as may be required by your transaction. We maintain physical, electronic and procedural safeguards that comply with federal standards to protect your Personal Information from unauthorized access or intrusion. Employees who violate our strict policies and procedures regarding privacy are subject to disciplinary action. We regularly assess security standards and procedures to protect against unauthorized access to Personal Information. WE DO NOT DISCLOSE ANY PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOU WITH ANYONE FOR ANY PURPOSE THAT IS NOT STATED ABOVE OR PERMITTED BY LAW. Consistent with applicable privacy laws, there are some situations in which Personal Information may be disclosed. We may disclose your Personal Information when you direct or give us permission; when we are required by law to do so, for example, if we are served a subpoena; or when we suspect fraudulent or criminal activities. We also may disclose your Personal Information when otherwise permitted by applicable privacy laws such as, for example, when disclosure is needed to enforce our rights arising out of any agreement, transaction or relationship with you. Our policy regarding dispute resolution is as follows: Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to our privacy policy, or the breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Page 106 of 128 123 Association, and judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. Page 107 of 128 124 Commitment For Title Insurance Issued by Old Republic National Title Insurance Company NOTICE IMPORTANT—READ CAREFULLY: THIS COMMITMENT IS AN OFFER TO ISSUE ONE OR MORE TITLE INSURANCE POLICIES. ALL CLAIMS OR REMEDIES SOUGHT AGAINST THE COMPANY INVOLVING THE CONTENT OF THIS COMMITMENT OR THE POLICY MUST BE BASED SOLELY IN CONTRACT. THIS COMMITMENT IS NOT AN ABSTRACT OF TITLE, REPORT OF THE CONDITION OF TITLE, LEGAL OPINION, OPINION OF TITLE, OR OTHER REPRESENTATION OF THE STATUS OF TITLE. THE PROCEDURES USED BY THE COMPANY TO DETERMINE INSURABILITY OF THE TITLE, INCLUDING ANY SEARCH AND EXAMINATION, ARE PROPRIETARY TO THE COMPANY, WERE PERFORMED SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMPANY, AND CREATE NO EXTRACONTRACTUAL LIABILITY TO ANY PERSON, INCLUDING A PROPOSED INSURED. THE COMPANY’S OBLIGATION UNDER THIS COMMITMENT IS TO ISSUE A POLICY TO A PROPOSED INSURED IDENTIFIED IN SCHEDULE A IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS COMMITMENT. THE COMPANY HAS NO LIABILITY OR OBLIGATION INVOLVING THE CONTENT OF THIS COMMITMENT TO ANY OTHER PERSON. . COMMITMENT TO ISSUE POLICY Subject to the Notice; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and the Commitment Conditions, Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, a Minnesota corporation (the “Company”), commits to issue the Policy according to the terms and provisions of this Commitment. This Commitment is effective as of the Commitment Date shown in Schedule A for each Policy described in Schedule A, only when the Company has entered in Schedule A both the specified dollar amount as the Proposed Policy Amount and the name of the Proposed Insured. If all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have not been met within 6 months after the Commitment Date, this Commitment terminates and the Company’s liability and obligation end. COMMITMENT CONDITIONS 1. DEFINITIONS 2. If all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have not been met within the time period specified in the Commitment to Issue Policy, Commitment terminates and the Company’s liability and obligation end. 3. The Company’s liability and obligation is limited by and this Commitment is not valid without: 4. COMPANY’S RIGHT TO AMEND The Company may amend this Commitment at any time. If the Company amends this Commitment to add a defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim, or other matter recorded in the Public Records prior to the Commitment Date, any liability of the Company is limited by Commitment Condition 5. The Company shall not be liable for any other amendment to this Commitment. 5. LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY i. comply with the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; ii. eliminate, with the Company’s written consent, any Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; or iii. acquire the Title or create the Mortgage covered by this Commitment. 6. LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY MUST BE BASED ON THIS COMMITMENT “Knowledge” or “Known”: Actual or imputed knowledge, but not constructive notice imparted by the Public Records.(a) “Land”: The land described in Schedule A and affixed improvements that by law constitute real property. The term “Land” does not include any property beyond the lines of the area described in Schedule A, nor any right, title, interest, estate, or easement in abutting streets, roads, avenues, alleys, lanes, ways, or waterways, but this does not modify or limit the extent that a right of access to and from the Land is to be insured by the Policy. (b) “Mortgage”: A mortgage, deed of trust, or other security instrument, including one evidenced by electronic means authorized by law.(c) “Policy”: Each contract of title insurance, in a form adopted by the American Land Title Association, issued or to be issued by the Company pursuant to this Commitment. (d) “Proposed Insured”: Each person identified in Schedule A as the Proposed Insured of each Policy to be issued pursuant to this Commitment.(e) “Proposed Policy Amount”: Each dollar amount specified in Schedule A as the Proposed Policy Amount of each Policy to be issued pursuant to this Commitment. (f) “Public Records”: Records established under state statutes at the Commitment Date for the purpose of imparting constructive notice of matters relating to real property to purchasers for value and without Knowledge. (g) “Title”: The estate or interest described in Schedule A.(h) the Notice;(a) the Commitment to Issue Policy;(b) the Commitment Conditions;(c) Schedule A;(d) Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; and(e) Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and(f) a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.(g) The Company’s liability under Commitment Condition 4 is limited to the Proposed Insured’s actual expense incurred in the interval between the Company’s delivery to the Proposed Insured of the Commitment and the delivery of the amended Commitment, resulting from the Proposed Insured’s good faith reliance to: (a) The Company shall not be liable under Commitment Condition 5(a) if the Proposed Insured requested the amendment or had Knowledge of the matter and did not notify the Company about it in writing. (b) The Company will only have liability under Commitment Condition 4 if the Proposed Insured would not have incurred the expense had the Commitment included the added matter when the Commitment was first delivered to the Proposed Insured. (c) The Company’s liability shall not exceed the lesser of the Proposed Insured’s actual expense incurred in good faith and described in Commitment Conditions 5(a)(i) through 5(a)(iii) or the Proposed Policy Amount. (d) The Company shall not be liable for the content of the Transaction Identification Data, if any.(e) In no event shall the Company be obligated to issue the Policy referred to in this Commitment unless all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have been met to the satisfaction of the Company. (f) In any event, the Company’s liability is limited by the terms and provisions of the Policy.(g) Only a Proposed Insured identified in Schedule A, and no other person, may make a claim under this Commitment.(a) Any claim must be based in contract and must be restricted solely to the terms and provisions of this Commitment.(b) Until the Policy is issued, this Commitment, as last revised, is the exclusive and entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Commitment and supersedes all prior commitment negotiations, representations, and proposals of any kind, whether written or oral, express or implied, relating to the subject matter of this Commitment. (c) Page 108 of 128 125 7. IF THIS COMMITMENT HAS BEEN ISSUED BY AN ISSUING AGENT The issuing agent is the Company’s agent only for the limited purpose of issuing title insurance commitments and policies. The issuing agent is not the Company’s agent for the purpose of providing closing or settlement services. 8. PRO-FORMA POLICY The Company may provide, at the request of a Proposed Insured, a pro-forma policy illustrating the coverage that the Company may provide. A pro-forma policy neither reflects the status of Title at the time that the pro-forma policy is delivered to a Proposed Insured, nor is it a commitment to insure. 9. ARBITRATION The Policy contains an arbitration clause. All arbitrable matters when the Proposed Policy Amount is $2,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Proposed Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. A Proposed Insured may review a copy of the arbitration rules at http://www.alta.org/arbitration. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Land Title Insurance Corporation has caused its corporate name and seal to be affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown in Schedule A to be valid when countersigned by a validating officer or other authorized signatory. Issued by: Land Title Guarantee Company 3033 East First Avenue Suite 600 Denver, Colorado 80206 303-321-1880 Craig B. Rants, Senior Vice President This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Old Republic National Title Insurance Company. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II —Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form. Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. The deletion or modification of any Schedule B, Part II—Exception does not constitute an agreement or obligation to provide coverage beyond the terms and provisions of this Commitment or the Policy. (d) Any amendment or endorsement to this Commitment must be in writing and authenticated by a person authorized by the Company.(e) When the Policy is issued, all liability and obligation under this Commitment will end and the Company’s only liability will be under the Policy.(f) Page 109 of 128 126 Page 110 of 128 127 Page 111 of 128128 Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. The information maintained by the County may not be complete as to mineral estate ownership and that information should be determined by separate legal and property analysis. Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or data obtained on this web site. This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the margins such that they no longer line up on the labels sheet. Print actual size. From Parcel: 273512441010 on 05/05/2025 Instructions: Disclaimer: http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com Exhibit E6 Page 112 of 128 129 212 N SECOND ST LLC TAMPA, FL 33613 509 GUISANDO DE AVILA #201 233 W BLEEKER LOTS ABC LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 501 RIO GRANDE PL #204 314 WEST MAIN LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 314 W MAIN ST 330 WEST BLEEKER ST LLC WASHINGTON, DC 20007 1000 POTOMAC ST NW #102 332 WEST MAIN HOLDINGS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 730 E DURANT AVE, 2ND FLR 3RD & MAIN CONDO ASSOCIATION ASPEN, CO 81611 332 W MAIN ST 401 WEST BLEEKER LLC MIAMI, FL 33131 777 BRICKELL AVE 10TH FLR 420 W MAIN LLC BASALT, CO 81621 C/O JACK SCHUR 100 EVANS RD #104 433 W BLEEKER LLC HIGHLAND PARK, IL 60035 344 RAVINE DR 437 W SMUGGLER LLC NEW YORK, NY 10022 510 MADISON AVE 18TH FL 761719 LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 327 W BLEEKER ST AGLEY ALISON FOTO ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 7911 ALLAN ANDREW S DENVER, CO 80218 154 MARION ST AML 103 LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 605 W MAIN ST #2 AML 309 LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 605 W MAIN ST #2 ANCALA SHADOWVIEW RETREAT LLC DUBLIN, OH 43017 10277 MACKENZIE WY ASPEN A CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 308 W HOPKINS AVE ASPEN CONDOS ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 311 W MAIN ST ASPEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ASPEN, CO 81611 311 W MAIN ST ASPEN HOUSE LLC CHICAGO, IL 60611 900 N MICHIGAN AVE #930 ASPEN MEDICAL CENTER CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA W MAIN ST ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE UNIT 301 LLC CONSHOHOCKEN, PA 19428 PO BOX 401 BLEEKER & 3RD LLC DALLAS, TX 75209 4919 W LOVERS LN #200 BLEVINS PHYLLIS ASPEN, CO 81611 310 W BLEEKER ST BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC BOCA RATON, FL 33431 4960 CONFERENCE WY N #100 BRAFMAN FAMILY TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 334 W HOPKINS BRAFMAN STUART REV TRUST CHEVY CHASE, MD 20815 5630 WISCONSIN AVE #401 BRAHMAN MARITAL TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 334 W HOPKINS BROWDE KRISTEN PRATA MIAMI, FL 33132 888 BISCAYNE BLVD #2401 CARINTHIA CORP DENVER, CO 80211 3396 W 31ST AVE Page 113 of 128 130 CARLING LORI & PAUL JOHNS CREEK, GA 30022 10550 BELLADRUM CHARY REV TRUST PNTE VEDRA , FL 320821822 334 PNTE BEDRA BLVD CHOOKASZIAN JEFFREY H 2020 DESCENDANT TRUST WILMETTE, IL 60091 1100 MICHIGAN AVE CHOOKASZIAN MICHAEL J 2020 DESCENDANT TRUST WILMETTE, IL 60091 1100 MICHIGAN AVE CITY OF ASPEN ASPEN, CO 81611 427 RIO GRANDE PL CLICK MARY JANE LIV TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 333 W MAIN #2A DENBY SAMUEL ROBERT ASPEN, CO 81611 331 W MAIN ST #B DH ASE LLC WILMINGTON, DE 19808 2711 CENTERVILLE RD # 400 DOUBLE D CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 300 W BLEEKER ST EDGEWATER PROPERTIES LLC OMAHA, NE 68022 18081 BURT ST ELKINS LESLIE KEITH TRUST HOUSTON, TX 77098 3737 BUFFALO SPEEDWAY #200 ELKMAX LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 605 W MAIN ST #2 ELSORY REV TRUST SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 301 MISSION ST #38E FINIGAN SC REAL ESTATE LLC BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 4851 BONITA BAY BLVD #2002 FOOTHILLS CHAPEL LLC DENVER, CO 80235 6226 W JEFFERSON AVE GILDENHORN MICHAEL S CHEVY CHASE, MD 20815 5630 WISCONSIN AVE #1205 GUNNING JANINE L SNOWMASS , CO 81654 420 CHATEAU WY GUNNING RALPH SNOWMASS , CO 81654 420 CHATEAU WY HERRON APARTMENTS CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 333 W MAIN ST INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 233 W MAIN ST JACOBY FAMILY LP VERO BEACH, FL 32963 3383 OCEAN DR JEWISH RESOURCE CENTER CHABAD OF ASPEN ASPEN, CO 81612 435 W MAIN ST JOSEPH RUSSELL C & ELISE E HOUSTON, TX 77019 3682 WILLOWICK RD KOSTER RYAN & SUANNE ASPEN, CO 81611 400 W HOPKINS AVE #5 LITTLE CHRISTOPHER DENVER, CO 80210 2435 S MILWAUKEE ST MAIORCA KERRY L 2020 DESCENDANT TRUST WILMETTE, IL 60091 1100 MICHIGAN AVE MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 605 W MAIN ST #2 NORTHWAY CONDO OWNERS ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 420 W MAIN ST OOBASPEN LLC NEW YORK, NY 10022 320 PARK AVE 18TH FL OOBASPEN LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 715 W MAIN ST Page 114 of 128 131 PB&J COLORADO LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 730 E DURANT AVE #200 PIONEER PARTNERS LTD ASPEN, CO 81611 617 W MAIN ST #1B PORTOFINO LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 333 W MAIN ST #2B QUAKING ASPEN HOLDINGS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 210 E HYMAN AVE #202 RAINBOW CONNECTION PROPERTIES LLC MORRISON, CO 80465 151 SUMMER ST #771 ROSENTHAL DIANNE ASPEN, CO 816127311 PO BOX 10043 SCHULTZ YVETTE K DENVER, CO 80210 2435 S WILWAUKEE ST SCOTT BUILDING CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 400 W HOPKINS AVE SEVEN SEAS INVESTMENT LLC WILMETTE, IL 60091 1120 MICHIGAN AVE SHADOWVIEW CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 320 W HOPKINS AVE SHC ASPEN 2021 LLC TIOGA, TX 76271 PO BOX 373 TAD PROPERTIES LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 9978 TAUBER LAURA & BENJAMIN B ASPEN, CO 81611 331 W BLEEKER ST TEMPKINS HARRY & VIVIAN MIAMI, FL 33179 21310 NE 20 CT TWIN COASTS LTD BOCA RATON, FL 33432 433 PLAZA REAL #275 WINER CAROL G BETHESDA , MD 20817 6740 SELKIRK DR Page 115 of 128 132 Page 116 of 128133 Page 117 of 128 134 Page 118 of 128 135 Page 119 of 128 136 Page 120 of 128 137 Page 121 of 128 138 Page 122 of 128 139 Page 123 of 128 140 Page 124 of 128 141 Page 125 of 128 142 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM Referral Response Building Department Glad I was able to see the site with you last week, what a great historic property! Here are my initial comments on what would need to be modified for code compliance to convert the building to a lodge. Please note that these comments are not exhaustive and building may have further comments once a full application is submitted to HPC and/or at building permit review. All code sections are from the 2021 International Existing Building Code unless otherwise noted. 1. Accessibility a. An accessible parking space will be required 306.7.16.1 b. An accessible exterior route 36” wide from the arrival point to an accessible entrance will be required 306.7.16.1 c. An accessible entrance is required, there is an exception for historic buildings that it does not have to be the main entrance as long as there is signage and there is a notification system with remote monitoring 306.7.15.3 d. One accessible toilet/bathing facility is required 306.7.15.4-5 e. Accessible route to the public spaces on the round floor is required 306.7.16.2 f. A lift would be required to the public facilities in the basement 306.7.9 2. Accessibility is met on the site plan and main floor. 2. Fire sprinklers will be required, AFPD will determine if the piping can be exposed 1011.2.1 Aspen Fire conducted a site visit and determined that fire sprinklers are not required. 3. Head height will need to comply in any reconfigured areas (ie: basement, new bedrooms and bathrooms on the 3rd floor). The code allows for sloped ceilings as long as the required height is available for 50% of the room and at all plumbing fixtures IBC 1208.2 Head height is addressed on Sheet A-105. 4. Existing walls can be used as dwelling separations, any new walls constructed as dwelling separations will need to a 1-hour fire-rating. 1203.7 5. Adding lodge units will trigger environmental health’s waste storage requirements Aspen Municipal Code 12.10 We met with Environmental Health Department officials on April 15, 2025 to confirm we need 3 toters for the project – 1 trash, 1 recycle, and 1 compost. Sheet A-402 includes an elevation and details for the trash area. For land use review please provide dimensioned existing and proposed drawings so that we can confirm clearance requirements for plumbing fixtures etc. as well as sections showing ceiling heights. Can you also confirm the existing occupancy classification? There are slightly different requirements for converting retail to lodge vs. office to lodge. Dimensioned and proposed drawings are included in the drawing set. The conversion is from office to lodge. The new bathroom facility the clearances will need to be modified to the dimensions for new in the ICC A117.1-2017. Page 126 of 128 143 Engineering Department These comments are not intended to be exhaustive, but an initial response to the project conceptual packet submitted for the purpose of the Historical Preservation Committee meeting. Other requirements may be requested at time of permit. 1. This project has proposed Flo Wells. Flo Wells is not a permitted WQCV method. A variance will need to be applied for at the time of permit. An alternate method or a variance will be included in the building permit for review and approval. 2. Fire suppression will probably be required. All domestic service lines and fire suppression lines must be one combined tap. The service line must be Type K Copper. Calculations will be required if fire suppression requires an upsize of the service line. The water service meter must be located at the point of entry of the water service line into the building. A site visit with Aspen Fire resulted in the determination that fire sprinklers are not required. 3. The easement around the transformer should be updated to meet current standards. The easement will be revised upon completion of the project to reflect the new location and required easement as shown on Sheet A-006. Zoning Department To be resolved prior to conceptual hearing: 1. Please add dimensioned existing parking spaces to the existing site plan. Note 3 on the lot split plat (Book 66, Page 32) states that “The HPC has waived any of the required parking that cannot be contained on the site in the form of legal sized spaces.” We need to confirm that the number of legal sized spaces is not decreasing. Two existing parking spaces are delineated on Sheet A-006. 2. Please add reception desk to floor plans. The reception desk is shown on Sheet A-103 near the lodge entrance. To be resolved prior to final or conceptual hearing: 1. Change in use triggers properties into compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Code, per 26.512.030.b.2.d. Provide a compliant outdoor lighting submission package. New lighting is not proposed on the structure. Only five pathway lights are proposed to illuminate the walkway. Locations are shown in drawing 1 on sheet A-006. Sheet A-404 includes details for the proposed path lighting per the prescriptive method requirements in Section 26.512.040.b. The fully shielded hanging light on the front porch and the wall sconce on the rear porch are to remain as-is. 2. Provide sections for spaces shown as exempt attic area. Please refer to revised floor area calculations on Sheets A-004x and A-004. 3. Include chimneys in floor area calculations and add labels. Please refer to revised floor area calculations on Sheets A-004x and A-004. 4. Add note to floor area calculations regarding floor area bonus from lot split. Sheets A-004X and A-004 are revised to include the 500 sf FAR bonus granted in Ordinance 14-2002, Section 2.1 for the pursue of allowing the existing structure to remain in place. Exhibit B is revised. Page 127 of 128 144 Notes: • Thank you for providing designated areas outside of the setback for exterior mechanical equipment. • Per 26.575.020.d.5.c, decks on lodge buildings in the Mixed Use Zone District are exempt from floor area calculations. Exterior stairways are not accurately shown on the floor area sheets. • Per 26.575.020.e.5.t, Wildlife-resistant trash and recycling enclosure located in Mixed-Use zone districts are not exempt from setback requirements and shall comply with zone district requirements for utility/trash/recycle areas. The minimum side yard setback is five feet. The proposal is currently shown as a fenced area. A fenced area will not count as Floor Area and may be located within setback. If the trash enclosure area has a roof, it will count as Floor Area and must meet setback standards. The utility trash area is not enclosed and is only fenced which is exempt from setback requirements and floor area. A variety of other requirements may be necessary for building permit submittal and zoning review. APCHA Recommendation: APCHA would recommend the applicant satisfy their mitigation with a buy-down, approved by APCHA, which would require a two-bedroom unit (mitigates at 2.25 FTE’s) plus an additional payment of 0.09 X $811,530 = $73,078. If an acceptable unit cannot be provided, APCHA would recommend the payment of the cash-in-lieu payment in effect at the time of the building permit. The owners have been looking for an appropriate buy-down unit without success. Page 128 of 128 145 320 West Main Street, 1975. Photograph is from the National Register application in the City’s files. 146 Attachment B HP Design Guidelines Staff Finding Page 1 of 4 26.415.070(c) Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development For approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development, the HPC must determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. **Criteria found as “Not Applicable” has been removed Chapter 1: Site Planning and Landscape 1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood or district. 1.2 Preserve the system and character of historic streets, alleys, and ditches. Staff Finding: There are no proposed changes to the siting of the resource or the alley. Staff find the above review criteria to be met. 1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on residential projects. Staff Finding: The existing walkway is proposed to remain. The existing side yard walkway is proposed to be relocated from the east side yard to the west side yard to better direct guests to the rear entry. Staff find this review criteria to be met. 1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process. Staff Finding: The applicant has provided a civil engineering report and civil drawings which speak to the projects needs. The proposal includes pervious pavers for the existing parking area. Staff find this review criteria to be met. 1.14 Minimize the visual impacts of landscape lighting. Staff Finding: The proposal includes 5 pathway lights that are downcast, of simple design, and placed appropriately as a safety measure. Staff find this review criteria to be met. 1.21 Preserve original retaining walls. Staff Finding: There are no changes proposed regarding the existing historic retaining wall. Staff find this review criteria to be met. 1.27 Preserve and maintain significant landscaping on site. Staff Finding: There are no changes proposed related to significant landscaping. Staff find this review criteria to be met. Chapter 2: Building Materials 147 Attachment B HP Design Guidelines Staff Finding Page 2 of 4 2.1 Preserve original building materials. 2.2 The finish of materials should be as it would have existed historically. 2.3 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary surfaces. 2.4 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for original building materials. 2.5 Covering original building materials with new materials is inappropriate. 2.6 Remove layers that cover the original material. Staff Finding: Alterations proposed that impact historic building materials are limited to the new kitchen vent proposed and the rear porch reconfiguration. The applicant is proposing to preserve the existing deck and stairs by building the new deck and stairs over top of the existing. The new porch material is proposed to be wood to match existing. No synthetic materials are proposed. Staff find the above review criteria to be met. Chapter 4: Doors 4.1 Preserve historically significant doors. 4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening. 4.4 When replacing a door or screen door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original door or a door associated with the style of the building. 4.5 Adding new doors on a historic building is generally not allowed. Staff Finding: The front door is proposed to remain. The rear porch door is proposed to be replaced with a wider door to meet ADA requirements. The new door uses a design that is compatible with the style of the resource. Staff find the above review criteria to be met. Chapter 5: Porches and Balconies 5.1 Preserve an original porch or balcony. 5.2 Avoid removing or covering historic materials and details. 5.4 If reconstruction is necessary, match the original in form, character and detail. 5.5 If new steps are to be added, construct them out of the same primary materials used on the original, and design them to be in scale with the porch or balcony. 5.6 Avoid adding handrails or guardrails where they did not exist historically, particularly where visible from the street. Staff Finding: The front porch is to remain as is existing, with the applicant noting that minimal repairs will be made as required. The rear porch is proposed to be altered to provide an accessible entrance that meets ADA requirements. The existing porch columns are proposed to be shortened and reused to maintain the integrity and design of the porch. The existing deck and stairs are proposed to remain with the new assembly being build over top of them to allow for reversibility. An ADA lift is proposed along the east side of the stairs. The HPC may determine that a recreation of the column design is preferred so the original columns can be 148 Attachment B HP Design Guidelines Staff Finding Page 3 of 4 re-installed should the porch be returned to its original condition in the future Staff find the above review criteria to be met. Chapter 6: Architectural Details 6.1 Preserve significant architectural features. 6.2 When disassembly of a historic element is necessary for its restoration, use methods that minimize damage to the original material. Staff Finding: The proposal includes alterations to architectural features on the rear porch, specifically the shortening of the columns and the removal of the door. The HPC may determine that a recreation of the column design is preferred so the original columns can be re-installed should the porch be returned to its original condition in the future. Staff find the above review criteria to be met. Chapter 12: Accessibility, Architectural lighting, Mechanical Equipment, Service Areas, and Signage 12.1 Address accessibility compliance requirements while preserving character defining features of historic buildings and districts. Staff Finding: The proposal includes alterations to the rear porch to meet ADA requirements, including removal of the existing door and shortening of the existing columns. The existing deck and stairs will be preserved beneath the new porch assembly. The proposed lift allows for ADA compliance while also preserving the character defining features of the resource. Staff find this review criteria to be met. 12.2 Original light fixtures must be maintained. When there is evidence as to the appearance of original fixtures that are no longer present, a replication is appropriate. 12.3 Exterior light fixtures should be simple in character. Staff Finding: The proposal does not request the removal of original light fixtures. The proposed pathway lights are simple and appropriate. No additional exterior lighting is proposed. Staff find the above review criteria to be met. 12.4 Minimize the visual impacts of utilitarian areas, such as mechanical equipment and trash storage. Staff Finding: The applicant proposes to move existing mechanical to the rear of the property. The new location includes appropriate screening. Staff find this review criteria to be met. 12.6 Signs should not obscure or damage historic building fabric. 12.7 Sign lighting must be subtle and concealed. 12.8 Locate signs to be subordinate to the building design. 149 Attachment B HP Design Guidelines Staff Finding Page 4 of 4 Staff Finding: The applicant proposes to reuse the existing sign on site, once they would like to update the sign and add lighting, a sign permit will be required. Staff find this review criteria to be met. 150 Attachment C Planned Development Project Review Criteria Staff Findings Page | 1 26.445.050. Project Review Standards. **Criteria found as “Not Applicable” has been removed The Project Review shall focus on the general concept for the development and shall outline any dimensional requirements that vary from those allowed in the underlying zone district. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. The underlying zone district designation shall be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the dimensions which may be considered during the development review process. Any dimensional variations allowed shall be specified in the ordinance granting Project Approval. In the review of a development application for a Project Review, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, and City Council shall consider the following: a) Compliance with Adopted Regulatory Plans. The proposed development complies with applicable adopted regulatory plans. Staff Finding: Though not regulatory, the proposal aligns with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) which encourages minimizing the loss of lodging inventory, allowing interaction between lodging visitors and residents, and encourages zoning and land use processes to result in lodging development that is compatible with the context of the neighborhood in which it is located. The AACP also speaks to affordable housing mitigation, which the applicant is providing via cash-in-lieu. The AACP speaks to the importance of historic preservation and encourages that land mark properties maintain their architectural integrity, which the applicant is doing by proposing minimal alterations to the exterior. Staff find this review criterion to be met. b) Development Suitability. The proposed Planned Development prohibits development on land unsuitable for development because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the property, including flooding, mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep, rock falls, rock slides, mining activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snow slide areas, slopes in excess of 30%, and any other natural or man-made hazard or condition that could harm the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Affected areas may be accepted as suitable for development if adequate mitigation techniques acceptable to the City Engineer are proposed in compliance with Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards. Conceptual plans for mitigation techniques may be accepted for this standard. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Finding: The proposal includes minimal alterations to the historic resource and site including relocation of mechanical, relocation of an existing pathway, and the addition of an ADA lift at the rear entry. The applicant has included an 151 Attachment C Planned Development Project Review Criteria Staff Findings Page | 2 engineering report that has been reviewed by the city’s Engineering Department and comments have been provided informing the applicant of any necessary updates required for the property. Staff find this review criteria to be met. c) Site Planning. The site plan is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: 1. The site plan responds to the site’s natural characteristics and physical constraints such as steep slopes, vegetation, waterways, and any natural or man-made hazards and allows development to blend in with or enhance said features. 2. The project preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation, and structures or features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological importance or contribute to the identity of the town. 3. Buildings are oriented to public streets and are sited to reflect the neighborhood context. Buildings and access ways are arranged to allow effective emergency, maintenance, and service vehicle access. Staff Finding: There are no changes proposed regarding the site’s natural characteristics, geologic features, or elements of the site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological importance. The building is remaining in place and oriented to the street. Emergency and service vehicle access will not be altered. Staff find the review criterion 1-3 to be met. d) Dimensions. All dimensions, including density, mass, and height shall be established during the Project Review. A development application may request variations to any dimensional requirement of this Title. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to the following criteria: 1. There exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such variations. 2. The proposed dimensions represent a character suitable for and indicative of the primary uses of the project. 3. The project is compatible with or enhances the cohesiveness or distinctive identity of the neighborhood and surrounding development patterns, including the scale and massing of nearby historical or cultural resources. 4. The number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the probable number of cars to be operated by those using the proposed development and the nature of the proposed uses. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the 152 Attachment C Planned Development Project Review Criteria Staff Findings Page | 3 proposed development, and the potential for joint use of common parking may be considered when establishing a parking requirement. 5. The Project Review approval, at City Council’s discretion, may include specific allowances for dimensional flexibility between Project Review and Detailed Review. Changes shall be subject to the amendment procedures of Section 26.445.110 – Amendments. Staff Finding: There are no dimensional variances requested in this proposal. The existing historic resource exceeds the maximum allowable height of 28’, however, this is an historic condition that was in place well before the height limit was created. Per a previous HPC approval that resulted in a recorded plat note, the project is not subject to parking requirements. Staff find the review criterion 1-5 to be met. e) Design Standards. The design of the proposed development is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: 1. The design complies with applicable design standards, including those outlined in Chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards, Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Standards, and Chapter 26.415, Historic Preservation. 2. The proposed materials are compatible with those called for in any applicable design standards, as well as those typically seen in the immediate vicinity. Exterior materials are finalized during Detailed Review, but review boards may set forth certain expectations or conditions related to architectural character and exterior materials during Project Review. Staff Finding: The proposal meets applicable design standards, specifically Commercial Design Standards and Historic Preservation Design Guidelines as noted in the associated attachments. Staff find the review criterion 1-2 to be met. f) Pedestrian, bicycle & transit facilities. The development improves pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. These facilities and improvements shall be prioritized over vehicular facilities and improvements. Any vehicular access points, or curb cuts, minimize impacts on existing or proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The City may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Finding: There is no proposed change to pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities. Staff find this review criteria to be met. 153 Attachment C Planned Development Project Review Criteria Staff Findings Page | 4 g) Engineering Design Standards. There has been accurate identification of engineering design and mitigation techniques necessary for development of the project to comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Finding: At this point in the review, the Engineering Department has not identified any preliminary concerns with the proposal. Staff find this review criteria to be met. h) Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed Planned Development shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at the sole costs of the developer. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Finding: Per the application, the property owner is taking responsibility for upgrading all infrastructure and related facilities needed to serve the project. Staff find this review criteria to be met. i) Access and Circulation. The proposed development shall have perpetual unobstructed legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed Planned Development shall not eliminate or obstruct legal access from a public way to an adjacent property. All streets in a Planned Development retained under private ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure adequate public and emergency access. Security/privacy gates across access points and driveways are prohibited. Staff Finding: The proposal does not impact access or circulation. Staff find this review criteria to be met. 26.445.060. Use Variation Standards. **Criteria found as “Not Applicable” has been removed A development application may request variations in the allowed uses permitted in the zone district. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the request and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. The permitted and conditional uses allowed on the property according to its zoning 154 Attachment C Planned Development Project Review Criteria Staff Findings Page | 5 shall be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the land uses which may be considered during the review. Any use variation allowed shall be specified in the ordinance granting Project Review approval. In the review of a development application for a Project Review, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, and City Council shall consider the following standards related to Use Variations: a) The proposed use variation is compatible with the character of existing and planned land uses in the project and surrounding area. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to the existence of similar uses in the immediate vicinity, as well as how the proposed uses may enhance the project or immediate vicinity. b) The proposed use variation is effectively incorporated into the project's overall mix of uses. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to how the proposed uses within a project will interact and support one another. c) The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use variation minimizes adverse effects on the neighborhood and surrounding properties. d) The proposed use variation complies with applicable adopted regulatory plans. Staff Finding: The proposal includes a request to vary the minimum number of rooms required for a Boutique Lodge Use from 10 keys (rooms) to 6 keys. This request would be compatible with the existing character of land uses in the area, as other lodges exist in the vicinity. The size and design of the proposed use does not change what is existing on site apart from the ADA lift. There are a couple public comments submitted in opposition of the request that are included in the packet. The proposed use variation complies with applicable regulatory plans. The conversion to a Boutique Lodge use also allows for additional preservation of interior elements that further aligns with the City’s historic preservation goals. Staff find review criterion a-d to be met. 155 Attachment D Growth Management Criteria Staff Findings 26.470.080. General Review Standards. All Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council applications for growth management review shall comply with the following standards. **Criteria found as “Not Applicable” has been removed a) Sufficient Allotments: Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.040(b). Applications for multi-year development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.110(a) shall be required to meet this standard for the growth management years from which the allotments are requested. Staff Finding: The Growth Management Quota System allows for 112 lodge pillow allotments each year; pillows remain available for the 12 pillows requested. Staff find this review criteria to be met. b) Development Conformance: The proposed development conforms to the requirements and limitations of this Title, of the zone district or a site-specific development plan, any adopted regulatory master plan, as well as any previous approvals, including the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the Planned Development – Project Review approval, as applicable. Staff Finding: The proposal conforms to the limitations of this title apart from the request to vary the minimum number of lodge keys required for a Boutique Lodge use. Staff find this review criteria to be met. c) Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed development shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at the sole costs of the developer. 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. Staff Finding: The property is already being adequately served by public infrastructure and facilities; no upgrades are required at this time. Staff find this review criteria to be met. d) Affordable Housing Mitigation. 2) For lodge development, sixty-five percent (65%) of the employees generated by the additional lodge pillows, according to Section 26.470.050(b), Employee generation rates, shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. For the redevelopment or expansion of existing lodge uses, see section 26.470.100(g). 156 Attachment D Growth Management Criteria Staff Findings Staff Finding: Per the LUC, a lodge in the Mixed Use zone district generates 0.6 FTE’s per lodging bedroom. The applicant is proposing 6 lodging bedrooms (keys) which generates 3.6 FTE’s. Once the 65% generation rate is included, the result is 2.34 FTEs. The applicant has proposed to pay fee-in-lieu for the 2.34 FTEs, equaling $811,540.72. Staff find this review criteria to be met. 4) Unless otherwise exempted in this chapter, when a change in use between development categories is proposed, the employee mitigation shall be based on the use the development is converting to. For instance, if a commercial space is being converted to lodge units, the mitigation shall be based on the requirements for lodge space, outlined in subsection 2, above. Conversely, if lodge units are being converted to commercial space, the mitigation shall be based on the requirements for commercial space, outlined in subsections 1 and 3, above. Staff Finding: The proposed mitigation takes the change in use into account. Staff find this review criteria to be met. 11) For all affordable housing units that are being provided as mitigation pursuant to this chapter or for the creation of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540, or for any other reason: I. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. II. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of methods outlined in this chapter, including newly built units, buy down units, certificates of affordable housing credit, or cash-in- lieu. III. Affordable housing that is in the form of newly built units or buy- down units shall be located on the same parcel as the proposed development or located off-site within the City limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to Section 26.470.110(b). When off-site units within City limits are proposed, all requisite approvals shall be obtained prior to approval of the growth management application. IV. Affordable housing mitigation in the form of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, shall be extinguished pursuant to Section 26.540.120, Extinguishment and Re-Issuance of a Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.050(f), Employee/Square Footage Conversion. V. If the total mitigation requirement for a project is less than 0.1 FTEs, a cash-in-lieu payment may be made by right. If the total mitigation requirement for a project is 0.1 or more FTEs, a cash- in-lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Section 26.470.110(c). 157 Attachment D Growth Management Criteria Staff Findings VI. Affordable housing units shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.100(d), 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. VII. 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. Staff Finding: The proposed mitigation method is via fee-in-lieu. Because the total mitigation requirement is more than 0.1 FTEs, Council will need to approve the request during their review of the Planned Development Project Review. The HPC is asked to provide a recommendation to Council at this time. Sec. 26.470.100. - Planning and zoning commission applications a) Change in use. A change in use of an existing property, structure or portions of an existing structure between the development categories identified in Section 26.470.020 (irrespective of direction), for which a certificate of occupancy has been issued and which is intended to be reused, shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the general requirements outlined in Section 26.470.080. No more than one (1) free-market residential unit may be created through the change-in-use. Staff Finding: The applicant is requesting a change in use and the staff analysis of the general review criteria is noted above. g) Expansion or new lodge development. The expansion of an existing lodge, the redevelopment of existing lodge which meets the definition of demolition, or the development of a new lodge shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: 1) Sixty-five (65) percent of the employees generated by the lodge, timeshare lodge, exempt timeshare units, and associated commercial development, according to Section 26.470.050(b), Employee Generation, shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. 2) Free-market residential units included in a lodge development and which may be rented to the general public as a lodge unit shall be considered 158 Attachment D Growth Management Criteria Staff Findings lodge units and mitigated through the provision of affordable housing in accordance with this Section. 3) Affordable housing units provided shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.100(c), Affordable Housing. 4) New or redeveloped Boutique Lodges, or the conversion of lodge, residential or commercial uses to boutique lodge is subject to the mitigation standards for commercial uses as provided for in Section 26.470.080(d)(1) and (3). Staff Finding: The proposal includes a change in use request to a Boutique Lodge. The applicant has requested to mitigate via cash-in-lieu as noted above. Staff find the review criteria to be met. Sec. 26.470.110. - City Council Applications c) Provision of required affordable housing via a fee-in-lieu payment. The provision of affordable housing in excess of 0.10 Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) via a fee-in-lieu payment, upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the City Council based on the following criteria: 1. The provision of affordable housing on site (on the same site as the project requiring such affordable housing) is impractical given the physical or legal parameters of the development or site or would be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood in which the project is being developed. 2. The applicant has made a reasonably good-faith effort in pursuit of providing the required affordable housing off site through construction of new dwelling units, the deed restriction of existing dwelling units to affordable housing status, or through the purchase of affordable housing certificates. 3. The applicant has made a reasonably good-faith effort in pursuit of providing the required affordable housing through the purchase and extinguishment of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. 4. The proposal furthers affordable housing goals, and the fee-in-lieu payment will result in the near-term production of affordable housing units. The City Council may accept any percentage of a project's total affordable housing mitigation to be provided through a fee-in-lieu payment, including all or none. 159 Attachment D Growth Management Criteria Staff Findings Staff Finding: The proposal states that the size and configuration of the landmark prohibits the addition of a separate employee unit onsite without significant changes to the historic building, staff agree with this assessment and note that the preservation of the resource aligns with preservation goals. Cash in lieu is requested, rather than housing credits, for the required mitigation. At this time, due to challenges in the market for Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, staff is supportive of this request. Staff find the review criteria to be met. 160 Attachment E Commercial Design Review Criteria Staff Findings Sec. 26.412.060. – Commercial Design Review, Review Criteria. An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: **Criteria found as “Not Applicable” has been removed (a) Guidelines and Standards. (1) The Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines are met as determined by the appropriate Commission. The Standards and Guidelines include design review criteria that are to be used to determine whether the application is appropriate. (2) All applicable standards in the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines shall be met unless granted a Variation pursuant to Section 26.412.040(d), Variations. (3) Not every guideline will apply to each project, and some balancing of the guidelines must occur on a case-by-case basis. The applicable Commission must: a. Determine that a sufficient number of the relevant guidelines are adequately met in order to approve a project proposal; b. Weigh the applicable guidelines with the practicality of the measure. Applicable Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines General - Remodel Standard 1.22 Complete and accurate identification of materials is required. • Provide drawings that identify the palette of materials, specifications for the materials, and location on the proposed building as part of the application. • Physical material samples shall be presented to the review body. An onsite mock-up prior to installation may be required. Staff Finding: The alterations proposed are minimal with new materials being of a similar style and made of wood. The applicant has provided the required information. Staff find this review criteria to be met. Standard 1.23 Building materials shall have these features: 161 Attachment E Commercial Design Review Criteria Staff Findings • Convey the quality and range of materials found in the current block context or seen historically in the Character Area. • Convey pedestrian scale. • Enhance visual interest through texture, application, and/or dimension. • Be non-reflective. Shiny or glossy materials are not appropriate as a primary material. • Have proven durability and weathering characteristics within Aspen’s climate. • A material with an integral color shall be a neutral color. Some variation is allowed for secondary materials. Staff Finding: The alterations proposed are minimal with new materials being of a similar style and made of wood. The applicant has provided the required information. Staff find this review criteria to be met. Standard 1.33 All remodel projects shall meet Standards 1.22 and 1.23. Staff Finding: Refer to Standards 1.22 and 1.23 above. Staff find the criterion met. Guideline 1.34 Consider updating windows, doors, and/or primary entrances to better relate to the Character Area and pedestrian experience. Staff Finding: Alterations to the rear exterior door is proposed to meet accessibility requirements. Staff find the criterion met. Guideline 1.35 Design alterations to relate to the existing building style and form that may remain. Staff Finding: Alterations proposed maintain the architectural character and building style that currently exists. Staff find the criterion met. Guideline 1.37 Creative solutions that incorporate ADA compliance into the architecture are encouraged. • Minimize the appearance of ramps by exploring other on-site options such as altering interior floor levels or exterior grade. Staff Finding: The applicant is proposing an ADA lift at the rear entrance. The proposed design maintains the existing porch configuration underneath the new decking. Staff find the criterion met. 162 Attachment E Commercial Design Review Criteria Staff Findings Main Street Historic District Guideline 3.10 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the Victorian-era residences seen traditionally on Main Street. • These include windows, doors, and porches. • Overall, details should be modest in character. Staff Finding: The alterations proposed are minimal with new building materials for the rear porch being of a similar style and made of wood. Staff find this review criteria to be met. Guideline 3.11 Architectural details should reinforce the historic context of the block. • Consider how detailing can be used to create relationships between new and old buildings while still allowing for current architectural expression. • Consider scale, location, and purpose of historic detailing to inform new designs. • It is inappropriate to imitate historic details. Staff Finding: The alterations proposed are minimal and details reinforce the historic context of the block while also allowing for ADA compliance. Staff find this review criteria to be met. Guideline 3.12 Primary materials should be wood or brick. • Alternate primary materials may be considered on a case-by-case basis depending on the historic context of the block. Staff Finding: The alterations proposed are minimal with new materials being of a similar style and made of wood for the rear porch and the relocated pathway uses sandstone to match existing. Staff find this review criteria to be met. 163 MEMORANDUM TO: Gillian White, Historic Preservation Officer FROM: Sophie Varga, Zoning Administrator DATE: 09/10/2025 RE: Zoning Referral Comments – LPA-25-071, 320 West Main Street To be resolved prior to conceptual hearing: 1. Please add dimensioned existing parking spaces to the existing site plan. Note 3 on the lot split plat (Book 66, Page 32) states that “The HPC has waived any of the required parking that cannot be contained on the site in the form of legal sized spaces.” We need to confirm that the number of legal sized spaces is not decreasing. 2. Please add reception desk to floor plans. To be resolved prior to final or conceptual hearing: 1. Change in use triggers properties into compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Code, per 26.512.030.b.2.d. Provide a compliant outdoor lighting submission package. 2. Provide sections for spaces shown as exempt attic area. 3. Include chimneys in floor area calculations and add labels. 4. Add note to floor area calculations regarding floor area bonus from lot split. Notes: • Thank you for providing designated areas outside of the setback for exterior mechanical equipment. • Per 26.575.020.d.5.c, decks on lodge buildings in the Mixed Use Zone District are exempt from floor area calculations. Exterior stairways are not accurately shown on the floor area sheets. • Per 26.575.020.e.5.t, Wildlife-resistant trash and recycling enclosure located in Mixed-Use zone districts are not exempt from setback requirements and shall comply with zone district requirements for utility/trash/recycle areas. The minimum side yard setback is five feet. The proposal is currently shown as a fenced area. A fenced area will not count as Floor Area and may be located within setback. If the trash enclosure area has a roof, it will count as Floor Area and must meet setback standards. A variety of other requirements may be necessary for building permit submittal and zoning review. 164 Memorandum TO: Gillian White, gillian.white@aspen.gov Community Development Department FROM: Kyla Smits, kyla.smits@aspen.gov Engineering Department DATE: August 8, 2024 SUBJECT: Engineering Department Referral Comments PROJECT: LPA-25-071, 320 W Main Street COMMENTS: These comments are not intended to be exhaustive, but an initial response to the project conceptual packet submitted for the purpose of the Historical Preservation Committee meeting. Other requirements may be requested at time of permit. 1. This project has proposed Flo Wells. Flo Wells is not a permitted WQCV method. A variance will need to be applied for at the time of permit. 2. Fire suppression will probably be required. All domestic service lines and fire suppression lines must be one combined tap. The service line must be Type K Copper. Calculations will be required if fire suppression requires an upsize of the service line. The water service meter must be located at the point of entry of the water service line into the building. 3. The easement around the transformer should be updated to meet current standards. 165 320 W. Main Street Redevelopment Land Use Review Page 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Gillian White, gillian.white@aspen.gov FROM: Cindy Christensen, cindy.christensen@aspen.gov DATE: August 18, 2025 RE: LPA-25-071, 320 West Main Street Land Use Review PROPOSAL: The applicant for the 320 Main Street Redevelopment is requesting a change in use from office space use to a boutique lodge. A boutique lodge is defined as between 10 – 14 keys. The request is for a maximum of 6 lodge keys. Every lodge key is required to have a full bathroom. An accessible room will also be provided on the main level. APCHA’s concern is with employee housing mitigation. For lodge development, 65% of employees generated by the additional lodge pillows shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. The employee generation rates for a lodge in the Mixed-Use Zone District are 0.6 FTEs/key. Six keys are proposed which generates 3.6 FTE’s. Applying the 65% mitigation rate requires 2.34 FTE’s required mitigation at Category 4. MITIGATION: Mitigation can be provided in different ways. The preferred method is to provide mitigation on site, which includes newly built units or providing existing units as mitigation. Other methods are to provide buy-down units, use of affordable housing credits, or cash-in-lieu. Cash-in- lieu is the last option recommended by APCHA. If the total mitigation for a project is less than 0.1 FTE, a cash-in-lieu payment may be made by right. This is not the case with the redevelopment of the property. The applicant is requesting that mitigation be satisfied through payment of the cash-in-lieu fee. Currently, that amount is $346,808 X 2.34 $811,530. The applicant is requesting the use of the cash- in-lieu method as adding units or any other method would create significant changes to the historic building and the loss of lodge keys. Cash in lieu is requested versus the housing credits since the housing credit market is almost dry and no projects are in the pipeline that can mitigate these units. RECOMMENDATION: APCHA would recommend the applicant satisfy their mitigation with a buy-down, approved by APCHA, which would require a two-bedroom unit (mitigates at 2.25 FTE’s) plus an additional payment of 0.09 X $811,530 = $73,078. If an acceptable unit cannot be provided, APCHA would recommend the payment of the cash-in-lieu payment in effect at the time of the building permit. 166 Outlook FW: 320 W Main St Initial Comments // LPA 25-071 From Denis Murray <denis.murray@aspen.gov> Date Thu 9/4/2025 2:22 PM To Gillian White <gillian.white@aspen.gov> These are comments shared by Bonnie a while ago. Want to add one more comment about the new bathroom facility the clearances will need to be modified to the dimensions for new in the ICC A117.1- 2017. Denis Murray (He/Him/His) Plan Examination Manager | Community Development Department OFFICE 970.429-2761 CELL 970-309-6283 FAX 970-920-5440 www.cityofaspen.com Please note that my email address has changed. The City of Aspen is moving to a more secure and identifiable .GOV address for public communications. Please update your email contacts. Our Values: Stewardship | Partnership | Service | Innovation Notice and Disclaimer: This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt from disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Further, the information or opinions contained in this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If applicable, the information and opinions contained in the email are based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and information contained herein do not create a legal or vested right or any claim of detrimental reliance. From: Bonnie Muhigirwa <bonnie.muhigirwa@aspen.gov> Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2025 9:57 AM 167 To: Denis Murray <denis.murray@aspen.gov> Subject: Fw: 320 W Main St Initial Comments From: Bonnie Muhigirwa Sent: Friday, October 4, 2024 6:57 AM To: Sara Adams <sara@bendonadams.com> Cc: Justin Hahn <justin.hahn@aspen.gov> Subject: 320 W Main St Initial Comments Hi Sara, Glad I was able to see the site with you last week, what a great historic property! Here are my initial comments on what would need to be modified for code compliance to convert the building to a lodge. Please note that these comments are not exhaustive and building may have further comments once a full application is submitted to HPC and/or at building permit review. All code sections are from the 2021 International Existing Building Code unless otherwise noted. 1. Accessibility a. An accessible parking space will be required 306.7.16.1 b. An accessible exterior route 36” wide from the arrival point to an accessible entrance will be required 306.7.16.1 c. An accessible entrance is required, there is an exception for historic buildings that it does not have to be the main entrance as long as there is signage and there is a notification system with remote monitoring 306.7.15.3 d. One accessible toilet/bathing facility is required 306.7.15.4-5 e. Accessible route to the public spaces on the round floor is required 306.7.16.2 f. A lift would be required to the public facilities in the basement 306.7.9 2. Fire sprinklers will be required, AFPD will determine if the piping can be exposed 1011.2.1 3. Head height will need to comply in any reconfigured areas (ie: basement, new bedrooms and bathrooms on the 3rd floor). The code allows for sloped ceilings as long as the required height is available for 50% of the room and at all plumbing fixtures IBC 1208.2 4. Existing walls can be used as dwelling separations, any new walls constructed as dwelling separations will need to a 1-hour fire-rating. 1203.7 5. Adding lodge units will trigger environmental health’s waste storage requirements Aspen Municipal Code 12.10 For land use review please provide dimensioned existing and proposed drawings so that we can confirm clearance requirements for plumbing fixtures etc. as well as sections showing ceiling heights. Can you also confirm the existing occupancy classification? There are slightly different requirements for converting retail to lodge vs. office to lodge. Let me know if you have any questions or would like to discuss further, Bonnie Bonnie Muhigirwa, CBO Chief Building Official City of Aspen Office: 970.429.2787 Cell: 970.309.5119 427 Rio Grande Place, First Floor, Aspen, CO 81611 www.aspen.gov 168 Notice and Disclaimer: This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt from disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Further, the information or opinions contained in this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If applicable, the information and opinions contained in the email are based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and information contained herein do not create a legal or vested right or any claim of detrimental reliance. 169 Dear Ms. Gillian White, The purpose of this letter is to voice our strong opposition to and concerns regarding the proposed change in use of 320 W. Main Street from commercial to a boutique lodge prior to a public hearing before the Historic Preservation Commission on January 14, 2026 at 4:30pm. We are the owners of 327 W. Bleeker Street which is located directly across the alley from 320 W. Main Street. We, along with the owners of 314 W. Main Street adjacent to 320 W. Main, are the most negatively impacted neighbors if this proposed change in use was to be approved. Our concerns and justification for opposing this application for change in use are not theoretical but are based on actual experiences that have occurred since the current owners of 320 W. Main have occupied this clearly designated commercial property as a residence for themselves, their guests and members of ThirdHome.com. The owners never complied with the commercial land use in eRect when they purchased the property in November 2021. At the time we purchased our property in 2010, 320 W. Main was designated commercial, just as it is today. The historic building was leased by an investment management firm and law oRices prior to its sale on 10/15/2018. This situation was ideal and operated as intended by City StaR and Council – no parking issues, no blocked alley, businesses operated 8:30am – 5pm Monday through Friday and clients accessed the building primarily on foot from the front door facing Main Street. This is not the situation today where guests unfamiliar with Aspen and its customs and rules disrespect other people’s property, park vehicles partially in the alley so as to prevent us from exiting or entering our garage, improperly secure bear-proof trash cans with subsequent trash strewn across the alley and into other people’s yards, and delivery, housekeeping and service vehicles such as landscaping and repair companies parking large vehicles in the alley behind 320 W Main and thereby blocking alley access to garbage trucks and other vehicles needing to use the alley to access their property or garages. Based on information online and provided to us by City StaR, the Boutique Lodge land use was created in 2017 with considerable thought devoted to its codes and criteria by City employees and City Council. We further understand that this will be the first application for a Boutique Lodge made to the City of Aspen. The applicants are requesting precedent setting exceptions such as: • a significant reduction in the number of keys (6 versus 10-14 by current code; -40% below minimum) 170 • a substantial reduction in amount of on-site parking (2 spaces versus 3 by current code; -33% below minimum) • no designated space for delivery or service vehicles (applicant indicates “Deliveries will occur along the alleyway, ideally in one of the parking spaces onsite). This has proven to not be a viable solution based on actual experience by nearby property owners over the past 4 or more years. • a mid-block location when all other lodges, condo lodges, and hotels located along Main Street are located on corner lots allowing side street access which accommodates guest pick-up and drop-oR and ample access for delivery and service vehicles as well as access to on-site parking. These are major deviations from the established requirements for Boutique Lodge and since it is the first application in the history of this land use designation, we feel a very dangerous precedent could be set with many unintended negative consequences for the City of Aspen and its Community Development master planning. If 6 keys is deemed adequate, a future applicant with only 4 keys could justifiably argue that they are only requesting a 33% reduction from what the City has previously approved. Same goes for on-site parking spaces, which we all know is a critical issue for Aspen and lodges specifically. To be clear, we very much support HPC’s stated mission of promoting and preserving properties which represent distinctive elements of Aspen’s architectural history. The change in use application submitted by 320 W. Main Street is not the right solution for preserving this historic property. The property is simply too small and not located where it can achieve the spirit and codes adopted by the City of Aspen for Boutique Lodges. The current land use designation of commercial (oRice or retail) or returning the property to residential designation would do the most to preserve this piece of Aspen’s great history and preserve a very collegial neighborhood on both sides of the Block 44 alley. The FAR requirements changed after the lot split occurred, current HPC and City Council members have the authority to grant a variance to allow the historic structure to return to residential designation, or keep it commercial and enforce that land use designation. Very respectfully, Melanie Toler Bill Toler 327 W. Bleeker Street 513-602-7629 171 Rear of 320 W Main Garage of 327 W Bleeker Service Vehicles Blocking Access to Alley and Residents’ Garages Trash Improperly Secured – Bears Service Vehicle Blocking 314 W Main Parking 172 January 6, 2026 Dear Ms. White, We are writing to you to state our opposition to the 320 West Main Street proposal for conversion to boutique lodging. We are the owners of 314 W Main St, the historic carriage house next door to the east of 320 W Main St. When we purchased our property in the fall of 2018, we were fully aware that the Annabelle Inn Cabin next door to our east (at the time undergoing renovations) at 109 N 2nd St, would be an operational lodge. We also knew that 320 W Main St was zoned as a commercial office use property that could potentially be used as law , medical, or real estate offices, or other like businesses. We were comfortable with this situation and had no issue with it. However, when the previous owner of 320 W Main St (before Mr. Kay) began illegally short- term renting the property, we began to get a sense what it would be like to have a lodge on the west side of our house. Guests would use the non-historic pathway that is mostly on our property situated between the houses to access the house from the rear parking area and use the pathway in the front lawn of our house to access the sidewalk on Main Street. Guests would also frequently walk down to our front patio thinking the properties were one and the same as there is no barrier (fence) between 320 W Main and 314 W Main like there is to our east between 109 N 2nd St and 314 W Main St. The guests at that time at 320 W Main St would also ride bikes on our lawn when renting in the summer and sleigh ride down the hill between our houses and hit the fence between our property and Annabelle Cabin in the winter. They would also allow their dogs to defecate on our lawn and flower beds multiple times, and I had to knock on the door and tell the guests to clean it up. Their response was always “I thought your lawn was part of this house we are renting”. Additionally, we arrived home several times to discover that guests had parked in our sole parking space next to our house, forcing me to ask the guests to move their cars out of our space. While pages 10, 11, and 33 of the 320 W Main Boutique Lodging proposal notes relocating the non-historic pathway to the west side of the property for guest access from the rear parking area, we still fear that if this conversion is approved guests will continue to use and trespass on our property both day and night, and use our parking space next to our house as there is no physical separation between the houses that would prevent them from doing so. Because the 320 W Main St property would have only two parking spaces onsite for the six guest rooms and staff, cash in lieu does not create adequate parking for the property 173 and we are certain that guests would continually park in our space when our car isn’t there despite any signage that our parking is for 314 W Main St only. We also do not want taxis and Ubers dropping off guests on our parking pad twenty-four hours a day, which is a real possibility. While these concerns are specific to us, we also are concerned that the alley behind our house that we share with several neighbors, the way we all access our indi vidual parking, would be blocked constantly with deliveries and drop offs at a lodge. We have experienced the alley being blocked quite a bit due to the construction ongoing at 333 W Bleeker St and it has been a nuisance, to say the least. We feel a far better solution would be for City Council to make an exception and allow Mr. Kay to convert his property at 320 W Main St to a residential property. We are fully aware that the property was granted a Change In Use in 2004 to convert it from residential to office use. And that the amendment to the Mixed Use Zone District in 2005 which reduced the allowable floor area prevented the house from being converted back to residential as it is “too large” for the land it sits on. But we are sure all our neighbors would agree that rezoning the lovely historic property to residential would be the best outcome for the whole block and the city. Please don’t hesitate to contact us with any questions you may have. Unfortunately, we will not be able to attend the public hearing next Wednesday, January 14, 2026 due to travel and the short notice received in advance of the hearing. We very much hope that our serious concerns will be taken into consideration in any decision-making process. Sincerely, Wendi Sturgis & Alex Yong 314 West Main St Wendi mobile: (917) 698-3006 Alex mobile: (917) 698-3005 174 175 .O C ,N C C4000 ,G 'aC �- «O L. O :� 0 C to N C +d U Qa .St ro C O to �amilsoll E Q) � =3 CF' 60 0 V Y �1 co Q a) �y Q r*4 O , '- Q� U �dy" C O � c/1 fq '.� = � � Co +-+ C �.. v U �j U � O Op O 01",cn ° O G1 ° Q) E 4=J CL on"y-. O IQ O iN Q3 Z3 �maw_ Q) "' .� t7 Y _ 'C _ ..�' J Qa Co ii� O/ ►"" tU 66 C •U tli O O ,C U (D 0 O O i� �p C O O 4mJt� C ._ + 0"4 �., c '^ • Q C .o,r t� W Qi -•�q O :.r W = ( .SY�. O s� «y 0 +kA O U '^ Y+«7 ie'74- /� 4' ify U .r /N, W Iq O �/y gPg4 V /�y /i�_, VJ p=� qVy y � yO� FMJ `TCM '� rO� !m/ • Y g \V �/ a •� 4wJ pC� a .ate '/� v� Q �y. O Omni Q . W.L. �+%/ m ^ Y. Nr kw /'W C Eii! 4� Y. F. jj�� Wei. • 0, � V/ A+ �++ � � e�� W M � . �N4/ a>w� /7 yry�...` C /+ZZ 4— C) ai., /x •ip^}'�Y p� �V _W 'Lr, /�� ((� yC W � v �j.J p QI •�. N'� A°- 4ftlO O �f�i , � %A 66°„ � �, u) ' �6.. sr � ��q V ® U C 1r L. t� 1s q� O O �" / W ca Q � /�� V_ /W� V/ `i- C� 6� �L/ U v '� (� 00 ''' 'ra0 I� .. *5 .0 �, ,._ / q Ws � C► C �ryq ..� C y ® r 4=40�9 �., cci Y Y N yip WdLo Q = 0 0 Q� O E � � � p _ tN � � M ,- I O' t4mJ 0 0 � C) � 7 �� S d' O � Co � � M C E d 0 bOiQ � � i .0 = d� ` C Q) i '� ,(L O U. O N C C N O� ,C 0 vC 0 Q) 3 ;C E ROM '� .l�1 O (�S U `o �r 47 O cci G c �-+ . . > c c Q) � 0 U m C� � Q) -C c6 CQ 5 O N � 0 , . � � GZ U .O 0 u' .� c � to O (*� m N O O m ca '� O nuo > .�. m O c w wo � O_ Q C7 .O C � � O Q. :� co � 0 � CL 'N O .O "� �.o . , , o tANININ CU Fw UO PL ' �O $z c 0000mOO, cry bq ran • '� bQ 4 � Ukvmmmm cai ' to , Cn ,� ply (U TOM CLO Q, `,�Iz , ,� ti O cu v R, Q Q) "t va Ct7 N t/1 E U '� r„ O C'9 �, G ,� r., Q N , 4> €a C� r., o� �,, O eC; '� 45 Q co Qu O CD O Q) cu co ft^ co • C a) >, `O � � a)®p CD c-- c0 C 0 M O to C U ... ca 0. � ° ° ° U v C C o D°C� t a m °v ° c6 _.« : o� • a>° N c O U CD E � CD coOO cnO •c O —+ x ® ® L E E VOOOOOO C 7E 0 cn LL, 0 2 N m Fb+ Ism 4 CL 06 C 0 CLAct � p�U� E Um UJ U f^ > y{ Q •ra o Y. q �p yJ Ids 0 c ui Attachment H Boutique Lodge Use Standards Staff Findings 26.425.035. Standards for Boutique Lodge uses. When considering a development or change of use application to create a Boutique Lodge use, in addition to the standards in Section 26.425.050, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether all of the following standards are met, as applicable. (a) General Requirements. The proposed use meets the requirements of Boutique Lodge as provided in Section 26.100.104; and (b) Bed-base diversification. The proposed use will support the lodging sector by contributing to and diversifying the bed base in the City of Aspen; and (c) On-site amenities. The development contains a sufficient level of on- or off-site recreational facilities (such as exercise equipment, a pool or spa or similar facilities) and other amenities (such as a lobby, meeting spaces and similar facilities) to serve the lodge occupants. The extent of the facilities provided should be proportional to the size of the development. The types of facilities should be consistent with the planned method and style of operating the development. (d) Management plan. A property management plan shall be submitted for any Boutique Lodge that is part of a mixed-use parcel (i.e. there are more uses than the Boutique Lodge use on the parcel). (e) Décor. The Boutique Lodge units should use a standard palate of décor that has been established for the property. (f) Signage. A Boutique Lodge shall have a wayfinding or other identification sign so the general public can find the Boutique Lodge. A signage plan, meeting the requirements of Chapter 26.510, Signs, shall be included in the application. (g) No-residential uses. Based on floor plans and room configurations, the development or individual units therein will not function as a residential use. (h) Development Documents. The project shall be required to enter a development agreement, pursuant to Chapter 26.490, Approval Documents, that addresses the ongoing operation as a Boutique Lodge. (i) Unit Reduction. For applications which propose to reduce the number of units/keys on the property, the applicant shall demonstrate that the reduction is needed to improve or expand on-site amenities, meet market demand, or otherwise ensure the ongoing successful operation of the lodge. 176