HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20160727
AGENDA
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
July 27, 2016
4:30 PM City Council Meeting Room
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
I. 12:00 SITE VISITS
A. MEET AT 232 E. MAIN
II. 4:30 INTRODUCTION (15 MIN.)
A. Roll call
B. Approval of minutes
July 13, 2016 minutes
C. Public Comments
D. Commissioner member comments
E. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
F. Project Monitoring
G. Staff comments
H. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
I. Submit public notice for agenda items
J. Call-up reports
K. HPC typical proceedings
III. 4:45 OLD BUSINESS
A. A. 627 W. Main- Substantial Amendment to Major Development Approval,
PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM JUNE 22ND
IV. 5:45 NEW BUSINESS
A. A. 232 E. Main- Demolition, Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual
Commercial Design Review, Special Review and Variations, PUBLIC HEARING
V. 7:00 ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: Resolution #22, 2016
TYPICAL PROCEEDING- 1 HOUR, 10 MINUTES FOR MAJOR AGENDA ITEM, NEW
BUSINESS
Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)
Staff presentation (5 minutes)
Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes)
Applicant presentation (20 minutes)
Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes)
Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) (5 minutes)
Applicant Rebuttal
Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed (5 minutes)
HPC discussion (15 minutes)
Motion (5 minutes)
*Make sure the motion includes what criteria are met or not met.
No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting of at least four (4)
members being present. No meeting at which less than a quorum shall be present shall conduct
any business other than to continue the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require
the concurring vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes of
the members of the commission then present and voting.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 13, 2016
1
Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance were Nora Berko, Gretchen Greenwood, Jim
DeFrancia, Michael Brown and Bob Blaich. John Whipple was absent.
Jeffrey Halferty was seated at 5:00 p.m.
Staff present:
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
Amy Simon, Preservation Planner
Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
Suzannah Reid
MOTION: Jim moved to approve the minutes of June 8, 2016 as amended;
second by Bob. All in favor, motion carried.
MOTION: Willis moved to approve the minutes of June 22, 2016 as
amended; second by Jim. All in favor, motion carried.
Jim will recuse himself on the Holden Marolt item.
Holden Marolt Mining and Ranching Museum Planned Development –
Minor Amendment, Major Development – Consolidated Review, Public
Hearing
Debbie commented that the public notices are in order – Exhibit I
Amy said HPC determined that it would be appropriate to move three
structures that are currently at 540 E. Main out to the Holden Marolt site for
interpretative museum pieces. The structures are the Zupancis house which
is the Victorian era home which is partially a log cabin and partially a frame
structure. There is also a shed and a barn. HPC is asked to make findings
that their landing locations on that property are appropriate and the
techniques to get them there are appropriate. The restoration work should
also meet HPC’s standards.
Relocation: Amy said the applicant has provided detail information from
Shaw construction how they are continuing to investigate the best way to
move these buildings. The Victorian home does not have one continuous
floor level and that will be a challenge. The applicant will be doing some
P1
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 13, 2016
2
investigative work inside and remove some door jams and look at the
framing. It is still up in the air whether it will be moved all in one piece or
multiple pieces. Certain features will be protected, doors, windows, porches,
roofing and the best plan will be ironed out. When the plan is finalized staff
and monitor will look at it. When the buildings land at Holden Marolt which
is an historic landmark we want to make sure that where they are placed they
don’t destroy something that is important out there in the process. The
applicant has done an archeological survey and it was determined that
nothing of the Victorian era would be disturbed. There is a ranching
irrigation pond nearby but nothing detrimental to the historic significance of
that property. The site plan shows where the three buildings will be set.
Staff has asked that the Victorian house be squared to the road that accesses
it which is normal on Victorian houses. We also ask that the shed be placed
to the rear of the house.
Amendment to the Planned Development: Amy said at one time the Holden
Marolt was planned for free market housing and instead we got the Marolt
affordable housing project and the Historical Society Museum which is a
much better community outcome. There were approvals in 1991 for the
museum site which indicated the various activities. We feel this is a minor
amendment to the plan to add these buildings to the functions at the Marolt
site.
Restoration: Amy said when the buildings get to the site we need to know
how they will be treated in terms of restoration efforts. Right now the
Zupancis house has vertical board and batten siding around a substantial part
of the structure which doesn’t appear to be original. The applicant will
restore the building back to the original state. The building will also be re-
roofed and go back to wood shingles as it was originally. Staff and monitor
will approve the lighting etc. There is also a letter of intent from the City to
the Historical Society in terms of financing. The City will pay for all of the
relocation costs and foundation preparation. The City will also pay $30,000
for a preservation consultant who is a specialist in historic interior finishes.
Jeffrey was seated at 5:00 p.m.
Applicant: Alan Richman, Planning Services; Richard Pryor, Police Chief,
Jeff Pendarvis and Jack Wheeler, Asset, Rob Taylor, Darla Calaway, Design
Workshop, Charles Cunniffe, Cunniffe architects, Rich Keller, Shaw
Construction, Lisa Hancock, Aspen Historical Society
P2
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 13, 2016
3
Alan described the adopted PUD for the Marolt property. In 1981 this
property was proposed for a significant development, 100 unit project with
affordable housing and free market development. Since the 1940’s the
property was operated by the Marolt family as a ranch and as the Holden
Lixiviation work in the 1890’s. In 1983 a deal was struck and the property
came into public ownership. In 1989 the city took ownership and entered
into a long term lease with the Historical Society for the central portion of
the ranch which is 1.84 acre parcel. It covers where the barn is located but
also goes to the pedestrian trail and the area north of it. A few years later the
Historical Society submitted an application for the construction and
maintenance of the museum building, a PUD plan. 25 years ago there was a
thought that this would be a good location for additional exhibits to occur.
Staff has concerns about archeological sites at the location and we had a
Mountain States Historical and Archeological consultant visit the site and
analyze whether any such features were present. There is a foundation
where the barn is to be located and it was determined that it is a 1940’s era
agriculture barn that no longer exists. We feel comfortable that the location
is not part of the Lixiviation works. The other area is where a pond existed
for the Marolt ranch site. We feel comfortable there were no archeological
resources that were identified to be preserved.
Relocation Plan: Shaw construction, Rich Keller
Rich said he is leading the effort on the relocation and working with Amy
and her staff to make sure all the bases are covered. The structure was built
in three different pods and if they are moved in three different pods we need
to make sure they are intact. The initial idea is to remove doors and frames
after they have been initially documented by the preservation specialist. The
building has been shored on the interior to keep the roof structures from
collapsing. We will probably have to do some structural upgrades and we
will look to see whether that is done before or after the move. As we move
forward we will be able to determine the different layers that are on the
structure.
Charles said working with the specialist we will develop the final
preservation plan onsite. Bill Baily house movers will be involved in
moving the structures. With the relocation plan we will return it back to a
ranching environment and how ranchers lived in the 1890’s. Over time the
house has had additions and we desire to bring it back to what was original
in materials. The end result is to be authentic as possible.
P3
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 13, 2016
4
Lisa Hancock, Aspen Historical Society
Lisa said with the addition of these assets it will be like a campus that tells
the story of Aspen. This grouping will be a great interpretative opportunity
for us and for the community.
Alan said we are very excited about the opportunity to bring these structures
back to an environment where they will be at home.
Jeffrey said typically a diagonal bracing is done around the interior and
exterior and the shoring up of the windows. A bond is also needed.
Charles said it will all be done professionally by that standard. We will also
record the existing conditions as they are should anything crack or move.
Amy said Derek Skalko will on the site taking photographs of the interior of
the building for a documentary so that they can be used to show the before
and after the character of the house.
Gretchen asked what parts of the building are requiring new materials.
Charles said they are removing added materials that were done over time.
We will try to find what the original was.
Rich Keller said the vertical siding is not original. The original was a
horizontal clapboard. We believe what is on the existing front where the
porch is we believe is original.
Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no
public comments. The public hearing was closed.
Willis identified the issues: Relocation, restoration, PUD amendment
Willis said this is a great outcome and a great asset that synergize the Marolt
and Aspen Historical Societies function to reach the public with a great story
to tell.
Michael said he is prepared to support the resolution as proposed and it is
great that the City and Jack have been working with the Historical Society
and they reached a resolution to move the structures and restore them.
P4
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 13, 2016
5
Bob said this is a great project and I am totally in support and the resolution
as drafted by staff meets all the requirements as necessary.
Gretchen said she was initially in favor and there is a lot of erosion of
historic buildings in downtown Aspen and through the excellent presentation
and research and work with the Historical Society this will be a good asset at
the Marolt property.
Jeffrey said he has been paying attention to this project a lot and it is a
fantastic project. On the original proposal having the historic building
sandwiched between two other buildings made them not visible. My
concern is about the mobilization of the historic buildings to make sure they
are rigid and diagonally braced.
MOTION: Willis made the motion to approve resolution #20 as proposed;
second by Bob. Roll call vote: Jeffrey, yes; Gretchen, yes; Bob, yes; Nora,
yes; Michael, yes, Willis, yes. Motion carried 6-0.
540 E. Main Street, Planned Development, Detailed Review, Major
Development-Final Review, Final Commercial Design Review and
Growth Management Review for the development of Affordable
Housing, Public Hearing
Jim was seated.
Debbie said the affidavits of the public notice have been provided, Exhibit I
Jennifer said the property has been conceptually approved to demolish two
existing structures on the site and formally approved to relocate the three
historic resources to the Holden Marolt property. The property will be
redeveloped with a new police station with a subgrade garage and a new
building at the rear of the property that will contain 8 affordable housing
units. Part of the project is a relocated trail connection from Main Street to
Obermeyer Place. Tonight’s review focuses on the final details of the
project such as materials, landscaping and lighting. Some of the design
objective for the commercial core are to promote creative contemporary
design that respects the historic context; maintain the traditional scale of the
buildings in the area and reflect the variety of building heights seen
historically and accommodate outdoor public spaces where they respect the
P5
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 13, 2016
6
historic context. With regard to materials the police station contains brick,
sandstone, wood and glass. The affordable housing is located behind the
police state is proposed to be brick, metal panel, wood and glass. Staff feels
these materials provide a contemporary composition. The police station
along Main Street promotes a contemporary design while maintaining a
traditional scale of building from the downtown. With regard to landscape
the site includes a public courtyard in front of the police station which is
intended for public gatherings. There is a walkway ramp to tie the Main
Street to Obermeyer Place as well as taking people through the site. The
front or Main Street property provides a lawn like setting. There are heavier
tree plantings toward the rear of the property indicating a more privatized
housing portion of the project. Overall the landscape is a mix of trees
shrubs, perennials and grasses. During the conceptual reviews the previous
conditions were to review the garage elevation along Rio Grande Place and
to work on the alley elevation to make sure it is softened as much as
possible. Some planting is provided around the short term parking for the
employee housing. Two designs are being proposed for the Hunter Street
trail connection. The ramping portion is the same in both proposals but
there are two options for a stair connection between the police station
property and Obermeyer Place. One of the stairs is located on the police
station property while the other one would be located both on the police
station property and Obermeyer Place. Those designs will be finalized at the
Building Permit stage.
Jennifer said with regard to the housing APCHA reviewed the application
and there are 8 units proposed onsite. They are all above grade. Each unit
provides a private deck or balcony and there are exterior storage units for
each unit. Overall staff feels the review criteria are met and recommends
approval of the project with either of the stair designs.
Alan Richman, Planning Services
Alan said we are here to review materials, lighting plan, landscaping plan
and the conditions of conceptual. There was a work session with city
council on July 5th and at that point council was supportive of the basic
design and having the project move forward into the construction process.
We are seeking HPC approval so that it can be implemented. The elevations
on the Rio Grande side of the property have been modified to reduce the
height which was recommended by council and HPC.
Richard Pryor, Police Chief
P6
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 13, 2016
7
Richard thanked the public for coming to the meeting. We have had solid
community support. This is an essential public facility and it is about
improving our ability to provide professional and respectful police services
to the members of our community. This building will enable us to do that
more effectively. We would like to parallel the county building and have
completion in 2018.
Charles said the mass and fenestration of the building were previously
approved. Regarding the stair connection we have two options. One stair is
entirely on our property and the other one in hoping we have cooperation
with Obermeyer is to replace the one that exists now with something that
works better for the site. Regardless of that outcome we are prepared to
move forward. Regarding materials the building is sheathed in brick,
glazing, sandstone and wood. The police station and affordable housing are
compatible but not identical. The police station has brick and stone and
some wood siding and metal flashing details. There will also be wood
columns and the benches would be a concrete with a wood top. The
landscaping will create a real community gathering. The affordable housing
has the same materials but with different variations. The brick from the
police station would be mildly incorporated on the affordable housing units.
There are raised planting beds and there is a green roof over the parking
garage. The exposed garage level at the bottom was minimized with
additional landscaping and trees were added. We were asked to soften the
elevator and we did so by a detailed element of glass.
Charles said there was one change made which is a stair that comes down
from the second story meeting room. There was security concerns about
exiting through the police station in the event of an emergency. There is an
open brick wall that extends out from the stair which is more like a trellis
rather than a solid wall.
Darla Calaway, Design Workshop
There will be a flush mount light integrated into the wall completely
shielded to direct people to the employee housing area. One street light will
need to be reconfigured as part of the improvements. There will be can
down lights at the front of the police building on Main Street and at the rear
of the building. They will also be in the soffit of the walkway and at the
entry to the elevator below where the parking is. There will also be lighting
near the bench. The public courtyard will facilitate interaction between the
public and the police. We will also be doing right-of-way improvements on
P7
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 13, 2016
8
Main Street. There is also an employee courtyard. The Hunter Street trail
connection will also be realigned. We will also have employee housing
internal circulation and some outdoor employee housing spaces. The site
materials include brick veneer for the sight walls and linear paves in the
front entry courtyard. Scored concrete sidewalks and retaining walls start to
make the transition into the design language of the Obermeyer development.
The landscape of the streetscape includes narrow cottonwoods and
ornamental grass. Some elements of steel are brought into the landscaping
including the thin perforated steel panel that wraps around the police station
outdoor courtyard.
Darla said there has been some question brought to us about what it feels
like from out site to the Obermeyer Crescent building. There is a site wall
and a fence that separates the Obermeyer sidewalk to an asphalt parking lot
that exists there today. To create a uniform grade across our site there is
about 5 feet of grade change that we need to accommodate. We will have to
raise the back of the site to create a level pad over the parking structure and
a level grade change between the police station and the employee housing
building. What that means is a raised landscape that would be less than the
height of the fence that exists there today. Two site plans are being
considered. One is a wider stair connection which makes a clear urban
design gesture to the lower north end of the Obermeyer Crescent
development. These improvements are on Obermeyer property and at this
time are not approved.
The second option includes a staircase directly to the ramp that exists today.
Carla said there were questions about the height of the retaining wall and the
garage doors as you exit the police station garage. We have made design
changes to mitigate the impact. The police garage doors have been
narrowed from 20 feet to 16 feet in width and that allowed for planting
pockets and trees at the highest point of the retaining walls. The treatment
of the retaining walls will be a finer gesture of the Obermeyer walls which
include scored concrete caps and vertical joints to break up the mass of the
vertical panels and a sand blasted texture to improve aesthetics so it won’t
feel like raw concrete. The railings and handrails are designed to be open
and transparent to create a visible connection.
Jeff Pendarvis said they are continually in negotiations with Obermeyer to
come to a resolution that is satisfactory to both entities.
P8
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 13, 2016
9
Willis said it looks like the police parking garage would create a lot of
conflicts with one vehicle going into a police bay while a sheriff’s car is
going in the opposite direction.
Charles said they worked with the sheriff’s office in coordinating both
buildings. In the event that the Rio Grande is blocked off then the sheriff’s
vehicle could egress through our garage out to the alley. It is an emergency
backup.
Michael asked the applicant to explore “quiet” garage door openers which
will be nicer for the employees living above.
Jeffrey also mentioned the tight turning radius in an emergency when you
have vehicles coming from two different departments.
Jack Wheeler pointed out that the garage area width is two lanes wide. It is
48 feet wide.
Charles pointed out that the turning radius is inside the garage.
Bob asked about maintenance of the space and will it be heated for snow
removal?
Jack Wheeler said we are working on a maintenance plan and the snow melt
will be addressed in that plan.
Michael asked if the applicant had easements to access the garage?
Jack said currently we have easements to access the road that is behind the
jail and we are working together with the county on just about everything.
Willis said in the rendering the windows are bricked in on the west façade of
the police station.
Charles said there is no glazing and we were asked at a previous meeting to
put punches into the building to break up the mass.
Willis pointed out that the signage is facing eastward and there should be
signage presenting to the west also.
P9
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 13, 2016
10
Jeff Pendarvis said the addition of the exterior stair is only for emergency
purposes. We were faced with someone pulling the fire alarm and gaining
access to the secure area and it wasn’t acceptable from a security standpoint.
Charles said the screen wall in front of the steps reduces the mass.
Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing.
Jerome Simecek, Obermeyer Place Condominium Association
We feel this is a good project and we have been working with everyone.
There are concerns and one of the big concerns is the stair. Residential and
commercial owners support the stairway into the property and we haven’t
committed until all the issues are addressed at one time. The stairway
connection was part of the overall Hunter Creek trail access design as
Obermeyer went through its approval. We believe this is a key component
to the Hunter Creek trail component as well as the adjoining properties.
Michael said it seems like there is a lot of benefit in 3A.2 for Obermeyer
Place.
Jerome said 3A.2 is the open stairway. That is the existing condition right
now. The ramp comes down from Main Street and exits onto the stairwell.
We concur that the stairway does add value. Now the trail has to stay high
above the garage door where currently its slopes down where the garage
door is. We would like to keep a similar condition as existing.
Charles said they worked in cooperation with Concept 600 to reconfigure the
ramp to avoid conflict with Obermeyer Place and to keep it entirely off their
property.
Jerome said another concern is the maintenance of the ramp. Another
concern is the garage use for the residential parking spaces which the full
burden for maintenance falls on the Obermeyer place association. This goes
back to a lease for a land swap and the association wants this resolved prior
to signing agreements on this component whether the city necessarily agrees
or not remains to be seen.
Bridget Bielinski, practice administrator for Aspen Medical Care located in
the Crescent building in Obermeyer place. We are supportive of the
majority of this project. Our prime concern is the stair. We function as the
P10
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 13, 2016
11
only urgent care clinic in town. We see a large number of visitors every day.
Our location currently is very challenging to guide people in. 3A.2 is our
preference. 3A.1 will make what is already a difficult job to get people into
the office more difficult because the entrance will be more hidden than it
already is from Main Street.
Susan Welsch said the design is beautiful and it will probably enhance
Obermeyer place. I live at Obermeyer place. My only complaint living at
Obermeyer place is that there is absolutely no guest parking. Parking is
important in this town. Possibly guest parking could be incorporated in the
project.
Steve Seifert, board member of Obermeyer Place
We have been trying to initiate dialogue with the applicant. We are not
opposed to the police department proposal. Richard Pryor has been
absolutely great. The wrap around is a poor design. We were told that the
grand stair will not be approved until we agree to the terms and conditions.
There are other items that need addressed and are ignored. The access off
Rio Grande is not shown. That access is shared with Obermeyer and a
handful of parking spaces. It is also shared with the jail and county building.
That access will have a significant impact and needs addressed. Right now
the Hunter Creek trail connection doesn’t flow well when it comes out of
Obermeyer Place and between the Crescent building and the other building.
Once it hits Rio Grande it has to jog out toward the skate board park. I
really believe there needs to be better flow in this design. A lot of people
use the skateboard park and the recycle center. Traffic in that area does not
flow and it is a poor pedestrian interflow. There are a lot of issues
unresolved and council directed the applicant to work with the neighbor.
Steve said there are 5 parking spaces for Obermeyer and a handicapped
ramp that flows along that area as well and it is not illustrated.
Jim commented that the parking spaces and ramp are on Obermeyer property
and not part of this project.
Steve said that driveway does share with Obermeyer and there is no
discussion how that will impact Obermeyer so we can’t respond.
Jim said the parking and driveway is on your property so therefore there is
nothing they can do to impact you.
P11
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 13, 2016
12
Steve said the driveway is shared with the jail and county building. I see a
flat drop into the parking garages of the county and police department. That
area ramps up to the existing parking spaces.
Jim said there will probably be a grade change.
Steve asked how that will impact the existing parking spaces that currently
ramp up into the jail and county building and Obermeyer.
Chairperson, Willis Pember closed the public comment portion of the public
hearing.
Rebuttal
Jack said we have been in a process for the last two years that included
public open houses and outreach meetings. We presented to Obermeyer
specifically on a lot of these issues. We have been available and if they call
we respond. That broke down about four months ago. There are lease
negotiations between Obermeyer and the City of Aspen that have made it
tenuous at best. The City Attorney can deal with those issues. We have 12
parking spaces in Obermeyer that we have a current 30 year lease. There
will be no additional parking other than the two spaces for short term and
ADA use. We have not addressed the parking at Obermeyer because we are
not impacting that in any way. The civil engineers have devised a plan. The
5 spaces that they are referring to are not Obermeyer property, it is City of
Aspen lease holdings that are reciprocal to the parking in the garage that we
have with the agreement with Obermeyer. We are not touching the parking.
The stair is an existing stair that may need some modification. We are not
touching anything north of those two parking spaces. We are happy to build
the grand staircase and in order to do this we need a letter form the property
owner to build on their property. We have not been successful in getting
that. We went to the design team to get an alternative so that we could
submit a land use application that doesn’t require their approval. We have
ADA access and have worked with the Parks Dept. to make sure the biking
connection and pedestrian connection is maintained in a well manner. We
have submitted both site plans in this application for approval and we would
like HPC’s support.
Jeff Pendarvis said there are 20 spaces in Obermeyer and 8 parking spaces
will be allocated for the affordable housing. The lease goes for another 30
P12
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 13, 2016
13
years. We have a commitment through the City Manager’s office that the
affordable housing parking will at the Obermeyer or Rio Grande parking
garage.
Willis identified the issues: Fenestration, materials, landscape, planned
development and GMQS.
Jim said this is a good project and makes good use of a difficult site. All the
needs have been addressed. It is attractive to the public and has good public
space. I would like to see the grand stair case but if the property owner in
question doesn’t agree we can do the alternative proposal. Signage is also
needed on Main Street. The material selections are compatible and I can
support the project. I would encourage the applicant to pursue 3A.2
regarding the stair but it is out of our control and theirs.
Gretchen said 3A.2 strengthens the relationship of the density of all the
buildings. To go through this amount of building and not create a strong
link among Obermeyer and the police department to Main Street would be
amiss. I’m a little disappointed in the material selection that is hiding the
stairs that are being required to put in. It just feels like an afterthought.
Maybe there could be another solution such as a sandstone material. This is
a great project and I am in favor of everything you are asking for.
Bob said the applicant has listened to our concerns from the previous
meeting and resolved most of those questions. 3A.2 is a better solution of
the two and hopefully that can be resolved. I have no issue with the
proposed screen.
Jeffrey said he feels the applicant has done a good job responding to staff’s
direction. It is a very important civic building. All of the conditions of
approval have been met. The landscape and lighting plans are thoughtfully
done. The affordable housing components are excellent. The Green
certification is nicely done and the material plate is good with the mixture of
sandstone, brick and metal. I do prefer the staircase 3A.2 and it would be a
good improvement getting to the doctor’s office at that location etc. The
applicant should continue working with the neighbor to work out the stair.
Nora thanked the public for coming to the meeting and adding onto the
conversation which was helpful. For the community and everybody 3A.2 is
P13
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 13, 2016
14
a better solution. I would concur with Gretchen that the screening of the
staircase is a concern and it should be looked at.
Michael said overall I am supportive of the project and like the material
choices. I also have the same reservations concerning the stair. It looks like
an afterthought. There are a few things that should be developed more for a
building that is going to be there a long time. The west wall above the
garage doors could be addressed. The fake brick windows do not work. I
also support 3A.2 for the grand staircase.
Willis said he has no concern with the stair and likes the screen. The
signage is not well thought out and it is facing the wrong direction.
Incoming traffic needs addressed coming from Main and Mill. The signage
should be legible from both directions. The bricked in windows are a blind
window and I would suggest that you look at different materials to tone
down the contrast. The concept is workable and maybe the use of the same
materials would work. The elevator tower could also be addressed.
Regarding the driveway you currently drive up to get to the garage bays and
the jail and something seems off a little. Maybe a site survey that brings all
the contours into proper alignment.
Gretchen said the civil engineer should address that street elevation and
explain it to Obermeyer place. The material infilling the blind windows
should be looked at. Perhaps bringing in wood one story above the garage to
break it up and have a strong linear line.
Willis also said the elevator tower needs simplified.
MOTION: Jim moved to approve resolution #21, 2016 granting final
approval for 540 E. Main subject to the conditions and designation of a
monitor to address the issues raised by the commission,
Simplification of the north elevation flashing of the elevator tower and
restudy the material infilling the blind windows on the west façade.
Additional signage on Main Street. HPC recommends 3A.2 for the grand
stair case. Restudy the screened wall for materials.
Motion second by Jeffrey. Roll call vote: Michael, yes; Nora, yes; Willis,
yes; Jim, yes; Bob, yes; Gretchen, yes; Jeffrey, yes. Motion carried 7-0.
Jeffrey is the monitor.
P14
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 13, 2016
15
533 W. Hallam Street – Conceptual Major Development, Relocation and
Variations, Public Hearing
Michael recused himself.
Debbie said the public notice has been appropriately provided – Exhibit I
Suzannah Reid presented
Suzannah said conceptual is height, scale and massing. This is a small
historic house with a lot of rambling piece meal additions on the back. The
applicant is proposing to remove all of those and leaving a T shape of the
historic house plus a gable that extends off the back that is presumable part
of the original house. The removal of the additions will greatly improve the
distinction of the historic house. During demolition any evidence that shows
what was historic on the south side of the house that those areas be respected
during demolition. The relocation is moving the historic resource forward 7
feet on the lot. On that block there isn’t a specific development pattern so
moving the house forward doesn’t affect anything else that is happening on
the block historically and will improve the ability to separate the historic
house from the proposed new addition. They are including a one-story
connector that complies with the 10 foot requirement of the guidelines. The
variances requested are related to the rear yard on the alley. The garage is
allowed to be at the five foot setback but the basement under the garage and
the space above the garage would require a variance to occupy that space.
This encroachment reduces on the setback on the rear yard from what is
currently existing.
Suzannah said the new addition is separated from the historic house by a one
story linking element and there is a two story addition proposed with an
increase of 711 square feet including the historic house. The area of the
footprint is similar to what exists. The bulk of the addition is being moved
to the back of the site creating more open space between the addition and the
historic house that would be visible along the side, 5th Street. The main
concern with the addition is the overall height and the wall that faces the 5th
Street side. It appears to be an 8 foot plate height on the second floor and a
10.6 floor to floor on the main level. Overall the proposal complies with the
majority of the design guidelines. The concern is the height and the tall
vertical wall on the 5th Street side. They propose to reopen the porch on the
north east corner of the historic house which is totally appropriate. There is
a small garden shed that is currently on the side yard of the 5th Street side
P15
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 13, 2016
16
and the applicant is proposing to move it to the east side. Staff is
recommend that it would be more appropriately located on the alley which
would require a setback variance.
Suzannah pointed out that the application is under the old guidelines and it is
on a corner lot.
Patrick Leeds, architect presented
Patrick said the minor cottage has two front porches. Our plan is to extract
the additions and move it to the north which will bring it into better view on
the street. We will take the pitched porch roofs off and restore them to flat
roofs which is visible in the historic photograph. We will relocate the
entrance that is currently on the west side to face Hallam. There is a lot of
vegetation and it is difficult to see the front of the house. The historic asset
will move forward with a one story linking element to link the two story
structure at the back. The bulk of the two story structure is to the south east.
Pulling the historic asset forward reveals it on the street. There are matching
proportions in the gable ends and the fenestration matches. Volumetrically it
is sympathetic to the Victorian cottage and others found in the West End.
Materials will differentiate the different volumes.
Gretchen is the lot is 60 x 100 and the historic house is 640 square feet.
Patrick said in the design the second floor plate height is 7’6” and the
ground floor is 10’6”. Patrick agreed that the shed is better on the alley.
The verticality is well under the height limit by two to three feet. The
connector has a 9 foot plate height and it tucks under the eave.
Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing.
Kristin Henry said she lives at 525 W. Hallam Street, the adjoining property
owner. This project greatly impacts my property. Visually the height has an
impact. The addition is much higher than my two story garage. In the staff
memorandum my concerns are the same as staff’s. The north south ridge
line is 4 feet higher than the existing ridge of the historic house. The east
façade is a concern as it creates a very tall vertical wall. The addition dwarfs
the historic structure. Maybe the scale and mass needs reduced to be more
compatible with the neighborhood. The addition is very imposing and will
impact my property. The out building is better on the alley. Kristin asked if
there were plans for the fence line between my property and this property.
P16
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 13, 2016
17
Kristin said she would support the project if a few changes could occur.
Kristin also mentioned that her house is a landmark.
Willis pointed out the fences and landscaping will be addressed at final.
Patrick said a one story addition is not the programmatic interest of the
client. The proposal fits pretty well on the site.
Jim said staff is recommending an overall height reduction which is
commensory with the neighbor’s comments.
Willis identified the issues: variance request; location of the shed.
Gretchen said she agrees with staff’s recommendation about the overall
height. The whole building needs restudied as it doesn’t meet guideline
10.8. The roof forms need restudied to bring the building height down
because it competes entirely with the historic resource. I do commend you
on the restoration of the Victorian and the link is very important. It is nice to
see that old building emerge in the plans. The height of the building with
the narrow forms overwhelms the historic structure. I also feel we should
not be giving variances when it is the new part of the building. This addition
doesn’t have any kind of hardship and we should be scrutinizing variances
that we give. I would not support the variance on the deck or the basement.
The shed should be moved to the back of the property or removed
altogether.
Nora said the staff memo was very thorough and helpful. You look at the
house coming down from Hallam to 5th Street. The addition is massive and I
understand it fits within what is allowed but I am not sure that is the best
solution for all the restoration work that is going into the house. The entire
block is “low”. The design needs to feel more compatible and it is totally
imposing as you move down Hallam Street toward the east. I concur with
staff’s recommendations and am glad the porches are coming back.
Jeffrey said this was an excellent presentation. The restoration effort on the
Victorian is extremely well thought out. The link is extremely effective.
The materials are a good selection. The shed seems like it just blocks the
area and the better location would be in the rear. Because of the landscape
the height doesn’t bother me that much. Maybe you could get six inches out
of the plate height on the lower level. There is a great separation and the
P17
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 13, 2016
18
forms are small and thin. It is commendable that the applicant has asked for
any addition FAR bonuses. The decks are screened from the vegetation.
Moving it closer to the street will only help the historic resource. The
variance over the deck with the garage should be an accessible use. The
architecture is very well defined. Maybe on the west there could be a
material change. I could support this project with a couple minor tweaks.
Bob said he agrees with Jeffrey’s analysis of the project. Bob said when you
talk about scale immediately across the street to the west is a pretty big
house. We aren’t imposing anything in the neighborhood. I do not have that
big of a problem with the context.
Jim concurred with Bob’s statements.
Willis said he would prefer the outbuilding in the south west corner off the
alley. The dialogue is based on the width of the bays and volume. With the
decrease in height the relationship of the width to the historic structure
wouldn’t be lost. How much reduction is up to the applicant. With the
reduction in height you wouldn’t lose the handling of the volumes.
Jim said he feels the height should be pulled down a little.
Nora suggested stepping the height down.
Gretchen said there needs a tweak of the breakdown of scale.
Bob said he supports staff’s recommendation.
MOTION: Gretchen moved to continue 533 W. Hallam Street to August
24th based on staff’s recommendations one and two. Jim second the motion.
Willis added that the outbuilding should go to the south west corner.
Amended motion: Gretchen accepted the amendment, second by Jim.
Roll call vote: Jeffrey, no; Gretchen, yes; Jim, yes; Bob, yes; Nora, yes;
Willis, no. Motion carried 4-2.
MOTION: Jim moved to adjourn, second by Jeffrey. Adjourn 8:00
, Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy
Clerk
P18
II.B.
C:\Program Files (x86)\Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\9487.doc
7/21/2016
HPC PROJECT MONITORS- projects in bold are under construction
Nora Berko 332 W. Main
1102 Waters
100 E. Main
417/421 W. Hallam
602 E. Hyman
61 Meadows Road
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Bob Blaich Lot 2, 202 Monarch Subdivision
232 E. Bleeker
609 W. Smuggler
209 E. Bleeker
212 Lake
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jim DeFrancia 435 W. Main, AJCC
420 E. Cooper
420 E. Hyman
407 E. Hyman
540 E. Main
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Gretchen Greenwood 28 Smuggler Grove
135 E. Cooper
1280 Ute
211 E. Hallam
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Willis Pember Aspen Core
101 E. Hallam
229 W. Smuggler
407 E. Hyman
John Whipple Aspen Core
201 E. Hyman
549 Race
420 E. Cooper
602 E. Hyman
Hotel Aspen
610 E. Hyman
301 Lake
Michael Brown 223 E. Hallam
1102 Waters Avenue
Jeff Halferty 540 E. Main and Holden Marolt
Need: 530 W. Hallam, 333 W. Bleeker, 980 Gibson
P19
II.F.
TYPICAL PROCEEDING
Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)
Staff presentation (5 minutes)
Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes)
Applicant presentation (20 minutes)
Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes)
Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) (5 minutes)
Applicant rebuttal (5 minutes)
Chairperson identifies the issues to be discussed (5 minutes)
HPC discussion (15 minutes)
Motion (5 minutes)
*Make sure the motion includes what criteria are met or not met.
No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting of at least
four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a quorum shall be present
shall conduct any business other than to continue the agenda items to a date certain. All
actions shall require the concurring vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than
three (3) concurring votes of the members of the commission then present and voting.
Procedure for amending motions:
A “friendly amendment” to a Motion is a request by a commissioner to the commissioner
who made the Motion and to the commissioner who seconded it, to amend their Motion.
If either of these two do not accept the “friendly” amendment request, the requesting
commissioner may make a formal motion to amend the Motion along the lines he/she
previously requested. If there is no second to the motion to amend the Motion, there is
no further discussion on the motion to amend, it dies for a lack of a second; discussion
and voting on the Motion may then proceed.
If there is a second to the motion to amend the Motion, it can be discussed and must be
voted upon before any further discussion and voting on the Motion for which the
amendment was requested. If the vote is in favor of amending the Motion, discussion and
voting then proceeds on the Amended Motion. If the vote on the motion to amend fails,
discussion and voting on the Motion as originally proposed may then proceed.
P20
II.K.
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 627 W. Main Street- Substantial Amendment to Major Development, Public
Hearing continued from June 22nd
DATE: July 27, 2016
______________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY: 627 W. Main is a one and a half story
brick home, constructed in 1892. The property is
landmark designated and located in the Main Street
Historic District.
In 2008, HPC granted approval for a new addition
behind this home, along with a 500 square foot floor
area bonus as incentive to remove the paint that had
been applied to the historic brick. The owner
undertook construction of the project, including the
paint removal, but did not build the second floor of
the addition. The building permit remains valid due
to continued construction progress and periodic
inspections. The owner’s priorities for the design
of the upper floor have changed and a Substantial
Amendment approval is requested.
HPC reviewed three options for the a revised second
floor design on June 22nd. At staff’s
recommendation, the Commission continued the
application for restudy, finding that the design lacked a dialogue with the form, fenestration and
materials of the historic structure. The June 22nd drawings are attached for HPC’s reference.
A new option has been submitted. Staff finds it has not resolved the concerns. Continuation is
recommended in order to provide another opportunity to meet the design guidelines.
APPLICANT: Douglas Kelso, represented Forum Phi.
PARCEL ID: 2735-1224-48-010 .
ADDRESS: 627 W. Main Street, Lot B, Block 25, City and Townsite of Aspen.
ZONING: MU, Mixed Use.
P21
III.A.
2
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT- SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT
Land Use Code Section 26.415.070.E.2: Substantial Amendment: All changes to approved
plans that materially modify the location, size, shape, materials, design, detailing or appearance
of the building elements as originally depicted must be approved by the HPC as a substantial
amendment. Substantial Amendment review combines Conceptual and Final design into one
discussion, so HPC is considering height, scale, massing, proportions, lighting, fenestration and
materials.
The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the
hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines. 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.
Staff Response: The attached drawings provide a comparison of the approved vs. proposed
design. The project involves only a small change to building footprint, in the form of a larger
garage stall to accommodate mechanical equipment. The approved garage was 10’ wide; the
proposal is 13’4”. The plan meets setback requirements and is within the floor area allowance.
HPC’s primary focus is review of the second floor addition. As discussed at the previous
meeting, the revised design may be seen as an improvement over the approved plan because in
the approved version, a second floor closet/hallway was allowed to attach to the south facing
gable end of the Victorian so that one could walk through to the new second floor master
bedroom. The applicant is removing that space. There is no enclosed connection between the
new second floor master and the rest of the home. No historic fabric is touched.
In response to feedback on June 22nd, a new alternative has been provided. Previously, HPC saw
three possible additions differentiated by whether they had a shed or gable roof. For this
meeting, the applicant has submitted a design with a cross gable. The dialogue between the new
and old has been strengthened by the selection of a gable roof and the decision to primarily install
simple vertically oriented double hung windows. The ridge height of the addition is only slightly
taller than that of the historic house.
Staff finds the roof design of the addition is still lacking compatibility to the Victorian due to it
having a less steep roof pitch (8:12 vs. 12:12), creating a more squatty character to the form
rather than the vertical proportions of the Victorian. In addition, staff finds the cross gable
placed close behind the rear of the Victorian makes the addition seem wide from the street,
taking attention away from the historic resource. The images on the following page depict the
addition as approved at the top, and the proposed condition on the bottom, as viewed from Main
Street.
P22
III.A.
3
P23
III.A.
4
This home is in a historic district, with another Victorian located to the west, as seen below.
Staff recommends continuation of the project for additional study to meet guidelines 10.3 and
10.14. Staff does not currently have any concerns with the proposed materials or exterior
lighting, however the architect has not called out the material for the windows or doors, or
provided cut sheets for light fixtures. An approval resolution is attached, should HPC make that
determination.
The HPC may:
• approve the application,
• approve the application with conditions,
• disapprove the application, or
• continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
______________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC continue this Substantial Amendment
application.
Exhibits:
Resolution #__, Series of 2016.
A. Relevant HPC Guidelines
B. HPC minutes, June 22, 2016
C. June 22nd drawings
D. Application text
E. July 27th drawing
P24
III.A.
5
Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Design Guidelines, Substantial Amendment
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the
primary building is maintained.
A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the
primary building is inappropriate.
An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is
inappropriate.
An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic
style should be avoided.
An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also
remaining visually compatible with these earlier features.
A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material
or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be
considered to help define a change from old to new construction.
10.5 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic
alignments that may exist on the street.
Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings in the area may align at
approximately the same height. An addition should not be placed in a location where these
relationships would be altered or obscured.
10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred.
10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back
substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic
building.
A 1-story connector is preferred.
The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary
building.
The connector also should be proportional to the primary building.
10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the
visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character
to remain prominent.
Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not
alter the exterior mass of a building.
Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is
recommended.
P25
III.A.
6
10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building.
Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate.
Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped
roofs.
10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic
materials of the primary building.
The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials.
10.14 The roof form and slope of a new addition should be in character with the historic
building.
If the roof of the historic building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition
should be similar.
Eave lines on the addition should be similar to those of the historic building or structure.
7.16 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the
Victorian era residences seen traditionally on Main Street.
T h e s e i n c l u d e w i n d o w s , d o o r s a n d porches.
Overall, details should be modest in character.
7.17 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen’s
history are especially discouraged.
7.20 Use building materials that are similar to those used historically.
When selecting materials, reflect the simple and modest character of historic materials and
their placement.
7.21 Use roofing materials that are similar in appearance to those seen historically.
14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that
used traditionally.
The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be
approved by the HPC.
All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence.
14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting.
Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upward will not be
permitted.
Shield lighting associated with service areas, parking lots and parking structures.
Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by
controlling the length of time that exterior lights are in use late at night.
Do not wash an entire building facade in light.
Avoid placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper walls
of buildings.
Avoid duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that light the same area.
P26
III.A.
627 W. Main Street
HPC Resolution #_, Series of 2016
Page 1 of 1
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
GRANTING A SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO MAJOR DEVELOPMENT FOR
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 627 W. MAIN STREET, LOT B, BLOCK 25, CITY
AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2016
PARCEL ID: 2735-1224-48-010
WHEREAS, the applicant, Douglas Kelso, represented by Forum Phi, has requested a
Substantial Amendment to Major Development for the property located at 627 W. Main Street,
Lot B, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, for approval of a Substantial Amendment, the HPC must review the application, a
staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine that Section
26.415.070.E.2 of the Municipal Code, is met; and
WHEREAS, Amy Simon, in her staff reports dated June 22, 2016 and July 27, 2016, performed
an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards were not
met, and recommended restudy; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on July 27, 2016, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and
approved the application with conditions by a vote of __ to __.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby grants a Substantial Amendment to Major Development for the property
located at 627 W. Main, Lot B, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado as proposed.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 27th day of July, 2016.
______________________
Willis Pember, Chair
Approved as to Form:
___________________________________
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
___________________________
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
P27
III.A.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2016
1
Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance were Patrick Sagal, Bob Blaich, John
Whipple, Gretchen Greenwood and Jim DeFrancia. Absent were Nora
Berko and Michael Brown.
Staff present:
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner
Justin Barker, Senior Planner
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
MOTION: Bob made the motion to approve the minutes of May 25, 2016,
second by Jim. All in favor, motion carried.
John will recuse himself on 627 W. Main. John said he discussed 834 W.
Hopkins with the assistant attorney and at one point years ago we looked at
possibly purchasing it. John said he can be fair and impartial.
Amy said Michael was noticed on both items and cannot participate.
627 W. Main Street
Debbie said one affidavit was appropriately provided and the second one
will be submitted to the clerk’s office tomorrow. A few members of the
public contacted Amy regarding the second notice - Exhibit I
Amy said the proposal is for a substantial amendment to a previously
approval that was granted in 2008. This is a Victorian Era brick house that
is on the far west end of Main Street. In 2008 HPC approved an addition
behind the building and two TDR’s were sold off the site and they received a
FAR bonus and had a total of 2,400 square feet that could be developed.
The owner went ahead a built the ground floor and they also did some
restoration work that they represented primarily removing paint to expose
the brick. The upper floor addition was never built. Now you are being
asked to review three possible versions for the upper floor. In the approval
one could walk from the upper floor of the Victorian into the new addition.
In this project the connector piece is gone so the south façade will remain
exposed to view and there won’t be anything destroying that. The second
floor addition is more free standing. There is only one change to the ground
P28
III.A.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2016
2
floor which is a mechanical room on the east side of the one story addition
that exists now. Staff has concerns with all three versions mostly because
the addition that was approved was discrete and it would be hard to see from
the street. The pitch of the roof followed the shape of the historic resource
and there were advantages to the design that got HPC approval. All three
designs are more visible from the front of the property which is a concern.
We are excited about the elimination of the link to the back of the Victorian
house. Options 2 and 3 have the best merits and with some alternations
could be approved. Staff recommends continuation until all the issues are
ironed out. The project is within the allowed square footage. This is mostly
about roof shapes on the upper floor of the addition.
Stev Wilson, Forum Phi
We are looking at three options for the upper floor, primarily the roof forms.
We are looking at the corner of 6th Street and Main Street. On the previous
approval we used to have a basement that went down underneath the project
but that has since been eliminated. We are adding a small wall for the
mechanical room totally hidden behind the historic resource. Other than that
the main floor level will remain the same.
Stev said on the previous design there was a deck and we had a den which is
now a bedroom and a connector through another bedroom with a sitting
room. There was a roof form that tucked in and you couldn’t see it from the
street and then hit the larger roof form at the back and then a wrap-around
deck.
Steve said looking at the revision the mechanical room is accessed from the
exterior and the garage being the only change on the lower level. As you
come up there is a segregated bedroom and Mother in law suite. It has a
connecting deck to the main house and the historic resource would be
exposed and then limiting the deck to a smaller space and have stairs come
up to access the bedroom and bathroom.
Stev said regarding the roof options it is a single shed roof and the low side
being toward the historic property and then letting the roof rise as it goes
toward the alley which faces south toward Aspen Mountain. One of the
perks for the first roof option is that the shed roof stays below the peak of
the historic resource. We are looking at stucco for the base and a vertical
wood siding above.
P29
III.A.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2016
3
Stev said the next option the floor plan remains the same. We are chasing a
sloping ridge which creates a lower roof height between the historic resource
and what we are proposing. We have a little higher roof than the existing.
Because the roof isn’t flat it doesn’t read quite as massively.
Stev said we are looking at a shed roof that goes from the low side up across
and it is a simple roof form with a little more coverage on the entry area.
We are still lower than the ridge of the historic structure. Any of these
options are a good direction for us to proceed with.
Amy said nothing on the ground floor changes except the mechanical room.
The connector is the same.
Gretchen asked what is not built.
Stev said the entire first floor is constructed. The upper floor is not
constructed.
Willis asked what the width of the mechanical room is.
Stev said 2 x 6 wide.
Willis said we are looking at fenestration, materials etc.
Stev said we have a 4 inch horizontal wood siding that is intended to be
painted. Above would be an increased width wood done vertical also
painted. Standing seam roof. Rather than emulating the double hung
windows from the historic house we have gone to casement windows with
awning windows below. We will have a fixed panel on either side of the
operable door with a wedge shaped window above. The soffit material
would match the siding material which would be a painted six inch wood.
The lighting is minimal at the exit doors.
Chairperson, Willis opened the public hearing. There were no public
comments. The public hearing was closed.
Willis identified the issues:
Mass and scale
Materials
Fenestration
P30
III.A.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2016
4
Lighting
Landscape plan
Jim said he would favor staff’s recommendation and study options #2 and #3
more closely.
Willis also agreed. The applicant needs to submit a lighting plan, material
samples and lighting cut sheets.
Gretchen said the clean simple building looks like there is a 70’s addition on
the back with all different kinds of windows. There is no sensitivity to this
clean pristine building and to me it doesn’t meet the guidelines. The roof
lines detract from the historic building. I also have a problem with all the
different kind of windows from vertical to horizontal, to sloping, to square,
to punched out openings. I would agree with staff that it needs a lot more
study. I could not in good conscience vote for any of the designs.
Jim commented that he feels the addition is scattered and busy.
Patrick said the windows should be more of a Victorian style and more
vertical to fit in and more uniform to continue the flow of the historic
resource. All three roof designs do not fit. We also need material samples
and a lighting plan.
Willis and Bob said everything has been stated.
MOTION: Jim moved to continue 627 W. Main to July 27th; secondo by
Gretchen.
Will said he sees a lack of a dialogue between the new and existing.
Gretchen said when you walk down the street and see a Victorian you are
looking up at these buildings and I don’t have a problem with the addition
being taller if it a sensitive addition to the Victorian and doesn’t overwhelm
it. The roof line needs to be more sympathetic to the Victorian.
Willis said he doesn’t mind the exploration of a roof form of a gable. I
wouldn’t ask the applicant to come back with a gable the same as the
historic resource but to come back with a better dialogue between the two if
they are going to depart from the gable.
P31
III.A.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2016
5
Roll call vote: Patrick, yes; Gretchen, yes; Bob, yes; Jim, yes; Willis, yes.
834 W. Hallam – Major Development, Conceptual Demolition,
Relocation, Residential Design Standard Review, Setback Variances,
Public Hearing
John was seated.
Debbie said the public notice has been appropriately provided – Exhibit I
Stan Clausen, Clausen and Associates
Matt Brown, owner
Justin stated that the property is at the northeast corner of the intersection of
Hallam and 8th Street. This is a landmark lot, 6,000 square feet in size and is
zoned as Mixed Use. The underlying zoning for a normal property for
Mixed Use outside of the Main Street historic district would be 12,000
square feet. For this particular property there is an allowable FAR of 4,000
square feet. That was set by an ordinance in 1994 in which the property was
rezoned from R-6 to the office zone district which was later turned into
Mixed Use. The purpose for that was to legalize the restaurant use that was
in the building at the time as well as to obtain additional FAR for a proposed
residential addition on the building. HPC said the project was reviewed by
HPC in March of 2015 and that project included 11 affordable housing units
and two detached structures similar to this proposal and 7,180 square feet of
FAR with 7 parking spaces. At that meeting direction was given to reduce
the mass and scale of the project as well as to restudy the parking and try to
accommodate the parking onsite. Several designs were submitted to the
Community development to relate the architecture to the historic landmark.
The proposed project is to remove the non-historic additions on the existing
building, relocate the historic structure from the middle of the lot toward the
southwest corner and construct two new buildings. It is entirely an
affordable housing project. We are down to 9 affordable housing units
which would house 18.75 FTE’s and there approximately 5,300 square feet
of FAR proposed and six parking spaces. There are two variances being
requested one for the east side yard setback, 5 feet is required and 3 feet are
being proposed. This is to accommodate a large setback for the large
cottonwood trees along 8th street and their root structure. The other variance
is for the distance between buildings. There is a ten foot required by the
zone district and 7 feet proposed. The applicant is also requesting special
P32
III.A.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
HPC COVER
CVR
001
002
003
004
005
006
007
008
009
010
011
012
013
014
015
016
017
018
019
020
021
022
023
024
025
026
027
028
029
030
031
032
033
034
035
036
037
038
SITE PLAN
FAR CALCS
EXISTING MAIN LEVEL
EXISTING UPPER LEVEL
EXISTING ROOF PLAN
MAIN LEVEL OPT 1
UPPER LEVEL OPT 1
ROOF PLAN OPT 1
ELEVATIONS OPT 1
ELEVATIONS OPT 1
ELEVATIONS OPT 1
SECTIONS OPT 1
3D VIEW OPT 1
3D VIEW OPT 1
3D VIEW OPT 1
3D VIEW OPT 1
MAIN LEVEL OPT 2
UPPER LEVEL OPT 2
ROOF PLAN OPT 2
ELEVATIONS OPT 2
ELEVATIONS OPT 2
ELEVATIONS OPT 2
SECTIONS OPT 2
3D VIEW OPT 2
3D VIEW OPT 2
3D VIEW OPT 2
3D VIEW OPT 2
MAIN LEVEL OPT 3
UPPER LEVEL OPT 3
ROOF PLAN OPT 3
ELEVATIONS OPT 3
ELEVATIONS OPT 3
ELEVATIONS OPT 3
SECTIONS OPT 3
3D VIEW OPT 3
3D VIEW OPT 3
3D VIEW OPT 3
3D VIEW OPT 3
LAND USE APPROVALS
LAND USE APPROVALS
SURVEY
627 W MAIN ST ASPEN CO 81611 USA
627 W MAIN ST.
SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION #9, SERIES 2008
FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM: NFPA 13D (EXISTING TO BE REVISED PER PLANS)
CODE EDITIONS: 2009 IRC, 2009 IMC, 2009 IECC, 2009 IPC, 2009 IFGC, 2011 NEC, CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 8
MASTER BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER 0085.2008.ARBK
SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDES:
RECONFIGURATION OF UPPER LEVEL BEDROOM/BATH ADDITION, DECKS AND ROOF LAYOUTS
HPC PRESENTATION SHEET INDEX
P
3
3
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
LAND USE
APPROVALS
ORDINANCE N0 2
SERIES OF 2008
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING ONE 1
250 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA HISTORIC TRANSERABLE
DEVELOPMENT RIGHT CERTIFICATE FOR THE SENDING SITE OF 627 W
MAIN STREET LOT B BLOCK 25 CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO
PARCEL NO 273512448010
WHEREAS the Community Development Department received an application
from Douglas Kelso owner hereinafter the Applicant represented by Steev Wilson
Forum Phi requesting the establishment of one 1 Historic Transferable Development
Right Certificate for the property located at 627 W Main Street Lot B Block 25 City
And Townsite Of Aspen Pitkin County Colorado and
WHEREAS the subject property is zoned MU Mixed Use and contains asingle
family home and
WHEREAS 627 W Main Street Lot B Block 25 City And Townsite Of Aspen
Pitkin County Colorado is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures
and
WHEREAS in order to establish a Historic Transferable Development Right
Certificate the applicant shall meet the following requirements of Aspen Municipal
Code Section 26535070which is as follows
26535070 Review Criteria for the Establishment of Historic Transferable
Development Right
A Historic TDR Certificate for 250 square feet of Floor Area may be established by the
Mayor of the City of Aspen if the City Council pursuant to adoption of an ordinance
finding all the following standards met
A The Sending Site is a Historic Landmark on which the development of a
single family or duplex residence is a permitted use pursuant to Chapter
26710 Properties on which such development is a conditional use shall not
be eligible
B It is demonstrated that the Sending Site has permitted unbuilt development
rights for either a singlefamily or duplex home equaling or exceeding two
hundred and fifty 250 square feet of Floor Area multiplied by the number
ofHistoric TDR Certificates requested
C It is demonstrated that the establishment of TDR Certificates will not create
a nonconformity In cases where nonconformity already exists the action
shall not increase the specific nonconformity
D The analysis of unbuilt development right shall not only include the actual
built development any approved development order the allowable
development right prescribed by zoning and shall not include the potential
of the Sending Site to gain Floor Area bonuses exemptions or similar
potential development incentives
E Any development order to develop Floor Area beyond that remaining
legally connected to the property after establishment of TDR Certificates
shall be considered null and void
F The proposed deed restriction permanently restricts the development of the
property the Sending Site to an allowable Floor Area not exceeding the
allowance for a singlefamily or duplex residence minus two hundred and
fifty 250 square feet of Floor Area multiplied by the number of Historic
TDR Certificates established The deed restriction shall not stipulate an
absolute Floor Area but shall stipulate a square footage reduction from the
allowable Floor Area as may be amended from time to time The Sending
Site shall remain eligible far certain Floor Area incentives andor
exemptions as may be authorized by the Ciry of Aspen Land Use Code as
maybe amendedfrom time to time Theform of the deed restriction shall be
acceptable to the City Attorney
G A real estate closing has been scheduled at which upon satisfaction of all
relevant requirements the Ciry shall execute and deliver the applicable
number ofHistoric TDR Certificates to the Sending Siteproperty owner and
that property owner shall execute and deliver a deed restriction lessening
the available development right of the subject property together with the
appropriate fee for recording the deed restriction with the Pitkin County
Clerk and Recorders Office
H It shall be the responsibility of the Sending Site property owner to provide
building plans and a zoning analysis of the Sending Site to the satisfaction
of the Community Development Director Certain review fees may be
requiredfor the confirmation of bullt Floor Area and
WHEREAS upon review of the application and the applicable code standards
the Community Development Deparhnent recommended approval with conditions of the
proposed establishment of one 1 Historic Transferable Development Right and
WHEREAS the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the proposal
under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein has reviewed
and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director and has
taken and considered public comment at a public hearing and
WHEREAS the City Council finds that the request to establish one 1 Historic
Transferable Development Rights meets the intent of the Aspen Historic Preservation
Program and is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan and
WHEREAS the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health safety and welfare
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS
Section 1
The City Council finds that the application meets all required standards and eligibility as
stated in Section 26535030 and Section 26535070 and applicants submission is
complete and sufficient to afford review and evaluation for approval and
Section 2
The City Council does hereby establish one 1 Historic Transferable Development Right
of 250 square feet of Floor Area to the sending site located at 627 W Main Street Lot B
Block 25 City And Townsite Of Aspen Pitkin County Colorado with the following
conditions
1 Upon satisfaction of all requirements the city and the applicant shall establish
a date on which the Historic TDR Certificate shall be validated and issued by
the City and a deed restriction on the property shall be accepted by the City
and Filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder
2 On the mutually agreed upon date the Mayor of the City of Aspen shall
execute and deliver the Historic TDR Certificate to the property owner and the
property owner shall execute and deliver a deed restriction lessening the
available development rights of the Sending Site 627 W Main Street Lot B
Block 25 City And Townsite Of Aspen Pitkin County Colorado by 250
square feet together with the appropriate fee for recording the deed restriction
with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office
Section 3
This Ordinance 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 construed and concluded under such
prior ordinances
Section 4
If any section subsection sentence clause phrase or portion of this Ordinance 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 ofthe remaining portions thereof
Section 5
A public hearing on the ordinance will be held on the 10h day of March 2008 in the City
Council Chambers Aspen City Hall Aspen Colorado
Section 7
This ordinance shall become effective thirty 30 days following final passage
INTRODUCED READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City
Council of the City ofAspen on the 11 February 2008
Michael C Ireland Mayor
Attes
C
thryn S K City Jerk
FINALLY adopted passed and approved this 10hday ofMarch 2008
Michael C Ireland Mayor
Approved as to form
3z n orcester City Attorney
cc.ord.002-08 cc.ord.002-08
cc.ord.002-08 cc.ord.002-08
P
3
4
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
LAND USE
APPROVALS
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION HPC
APPROVING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUAL AND AN FAR BONUS FOR
627 W MAIN STREET LOT B BLOCK 25 CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO
RESOLUTION N09SERIES OF 2008
PARCEL ID 273707330010
WHEREAS the applicant Doug Kelso represented by Steev Wilson Forum Phi has requested
approval for Major Development Conceptual and an FAR bonus in order to make an addition to
his residence at 627 W Main Street Lot B Block 25 City and Townsite of Aspen Pitkin
County Colorado and
WHEREAS Section 26415070of the Municipal Code states that no building or structure
shall be erected constructed enlazged altered repaired relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review and
WHEREAS for Conceptual Major Development Review the HPC must review the application
a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the projects
conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section
26415070D3b2and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections The HPC
may approve disapprove approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain
additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny and
WHEREAS for approval of an FAR bonus the HPC must review the application a staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at ahearing to determine per Section 264151100of
the Municipal Code that
a The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines and
b The historic building is the key element ofthe property and the
addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building
andor
c The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appeazance andor
d The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic buildings
form materials or openings andor
e The construction materials are of the highest quality andor
An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions ofthe building andor
g The project retains a historic outbuilding andor
h Notable historic site and landscape features aze retained and
WHEREAS Amy Guthrie in her staff report dated May 14 2008 performed an analysis of the
application based on the review standazds and the City of Asnen Historic Preservation Design
Guidelines and recommended HPC approve the project an RECEPTION 550529 061262008 at
092529AM
1 OF 2 R 1100Doc Code RESOLUTION
Janice K Vos Caudill Pitkin County CO
WHEREAS at their regulaz meeting on May 14 2008 the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application found that it was consistent with the review standards and City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and granted approval by a vote of 4 to 2
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED That HPC grants Major Development
Conceptual and a 500 squaze foot FAR bonus for the property located at 627 W Main Street
Lot B Block 25 City and Townsite of Aspen Colorado as proposed
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION on the 14th day ofMay 2008
Approved as to Form
Jim True Assistty AtAttorney
Approved as to content
HISTORIC PRESERVA ION COMMISSION
Michael Hoffman Chair
ATTEST
Kathy Strickland Chief Deputy Clerk
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION HPC
APPROVING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT FINAL FOR 627 W MAIN STREET LOT B
BLOCK 25 CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO 16 SERIES OF 2008
PARCEL ID 273707330010
WHEREAS the applicant Doug Kelso represented by Steev Wilson Forum Phi has requested
approval for Major Development Final in order to make an addition to his residence at 627 W
Main Street Lot B Block 25 City and Townsite of Aspen Pitkin County Colorado and
WHEREAS Section 26415070of 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 Final Major Development Review the HPC must review the application a staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the projects conformance
with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26415070D3b2
and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections The HPC may approve
disapprove approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information
necessary to make a decision to approve or deny and
WHEREAS Amy Guthrie in her staff report dated July 9 2008 performed an analysis of the
application based on the review standards and the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design
Guidelines and recommended HPC approve the project and
WHEREAS at their regular meeting on July 9 2008 the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application found that it was consistent with the review standards and City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and granted approval by a vote of 4 to 1
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED That HPC grants Major Development Final for
the property located at 627 W Main Street Lot B Block 25 City and Townsite of Aspen
Colorado with the following conditions
1 HPC granted a 500 square foot FAR bonus as part of the Conceptual review of the
project
2 Staff will review and approve test patches of the brick restoration to ensure proper
preservation ofthe masonry
3 HPC staff and monitor must approve any changes with regard to the type and location of
exterior lighting fixtures by reviewing a plan prior to wiring purchasing or installing the
fixtures
4 Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved
drawings shall be provided for review and annroval by staff and monitor when the
information is available RECEPTION 553881 10302008at
091841AM
t OF 3 R 1600Doc Code RESOLUTION
Janice K Vos Caudill Pitkin County CO
5 There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being
reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor or the full board
6 The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the
building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction
7 The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC
resolution applicable to this project The contractor must submit a letter addressed to
HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of
approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer
prior to applying for the building permit
8 The development approvals granted herein shall constitute asitespecific 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 26104050 Void permits
Zoning that is not part of the approved sitespecific 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 adevelopment 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 yeazs
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 604 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
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 26304070AThe rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the
Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION on the 9th day ofJuly 2008
Approved as to Form ATTEST
im True Assistant City Attorney Kathy Stric and Chief Deputy Clerk
Approved as to content
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Michael Hoffman air
5 There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being
reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor or the full board
6 The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the
building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction
7 The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC
resolution applicable to this project The contractor must submit a letter addressed to
HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of
approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer
prior to applying for the building permit
8 The development approvals granted herein shall constitute asitespecific 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 26104050 Void permits
Zoning that is not part of the approved sitespecific 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 adevelopment 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 yeazs
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 604 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
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 26304070AThe rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the
Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter
coa.hpc.res.009-08 coa.hpc.res.016-08
coa.hpc.res.016-08
ASPEN HISTORICAL DISTRICT - VICINITY PLAN
SITE: 627 WEST MAIN STREET
P
3
5
I
I
I
.
A
.
P
3
6
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
SITE PLAN
001
8"
ASPEN
10"
ASPEN
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
EXISTING STRUCTURE
1
2
3
A1.1
SHEET TITLE
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
MECHANICAL
SURVEYOR
GEOTECH
COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI
PROJECT NO:0608
DRAWN BY:SMW
CIVIL
CONTRACTOR
DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
CONCEPTUAL
APPROVAL
HPC 5/1/08
CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS
HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL
10/23/08 REVISIONS
5/7/09 REVISIONS
08/18/10 REVISIONS
SITE PLAN
627 W. MAIN ST
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
FORUM PHI
174 Midland Ave, Suite 201
P.O. Box 1606
Basalt, Colorado 81621
PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585
DOUGLAS KELSO
####
KELSO ADDITION
Rocky Mountain Surveying
4133 Crystal Springs Rd.
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: (970) 379-1919
Fax: (970) 963-5873
Yeh and Associates, Inc.
170 Mel Ray Road
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Phone: (970) 384-1500
Fax: (970) 384-1501
Efficiency In Mind, LLC
P.O. Box 1481
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: (970) 274-6336
Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.
P.O. Box 978
Avon, CO 81620
Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221
Fax: (970) 949-9339
Mozer-Renn Structural Service
8573 E. Napa Place
Denver, CO 80237
Phone: (720) 212-0727
Fax: (303) 484-8958
DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/2010
SD SD
1
9
R
@
7
"
=
1
1
'
-
1
"
1
8
T
@
1
1
3
/
8
"
=
1
7
'
-
0
5
/
8
"
U
P
12345678910111213141516171819
3
5
'
-
3
1
/
8
"
5
'
-
6
1
/
1
6
"
1
1
5
/
1
6
"
10'
5'
5'
5'
3'
-
2
"
RADON MITIGATION VENT LOCATION
FINAL LOCATION T.B.D.
AREA TO BE DEMOLISHED
EXTERIOR WALLS TO BE COMPLETELY REMOVED
STONE WALK
28.08'13.82'
x
x x x
952.29'
N09°03'13"E
P
.
O
.
B
.
D
8
"
D
L
1
1
'
D
5
"
D
L
5
'
D
1
0
"
D
L
7
'
D
8
"
D
L
1
3
'
D
7
"
D
L
8
'
L
O
T
B
0
.
0
6
8
A
C
±
3
0
.
0
0
'
N
7
5
°
0
9
'
1
1
"
W
100.00'S14°50'49"W
3
0
.
0
0
'
S
7
5
°
0
9
'
1
1
"
E
100.00'N14°50'49"E
WM
S
T
O
N
E
W
A
L
L
C
O
N
C
.
.
P
A
T
I
O
CONC.. WALK
P
A
T
I
O
S
T
O
N
E
S
H
E
D
W
O
O
D
CONC.. WALK
O.H. T
Y
P
.
CONC.. WALK
C
U
R
B
D
I
T
C
H
REBAR AN
D
Y
P
C
LS# 1
6
1
2
9
ELEV=79
2
4
.
5
8
R
E
B
A
R
A
N
D
R
P
C
L
S
#
2
5
9
4
7
REBA
R
A
N
D
RPC L
S
#
2
5
9
4
7
9
1
8
4
E
L
E
V
=
7
9
2
6
.
8
4
S
I
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
2
2
.
3
25.0
1
.
4
1.61
.
4
31.5
2
2
.
3
58.1
x
x x x x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
x
xxx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x x
EM
G
M
792
5
7925
7
9
2
6
SETBACK
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SETBACK
SE
T
B
A
C
K
KITCHEN
02
BEDROOM
05
CLOSET
07
GARAGE
08
PDR
19
BATHROOM
06
ENTRY
04
LIVING ROOM
01
EXISTING - 1,276 SF
256.30 sq ft
EXISTING - 640.5 SF
DECK - 270.98 sq ft
DECK - 85.36 sq ft
476.5 SF
2
3
3
A SITE PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0"
0 BASEMENT FAR 1" = 10'1 MAIN FLOOR FAR 1" = 10'2 UPPER FLOOR FAR 1" = 10'
0 SF
0 SF
TOTAL FAR
TOTAL UPPER FLOOR FAR
F.A.R. CALCULATION - TOTAL
MAIN FLOOR AREA - EXISTING
BASEMENT FLOOR AREA - EXISTING
TOTAL MAIN FLOOR FAR
0 SF
UPPER FLOOR AREA - EXISTING
TOTAL EXISTING FAR
UPPER FLOOR AREA - EXISTING
MAIN FLOOR AREA - EXISTING
ALLOWABLE DECKS (15%)360 SF
2,150 SF
F.A.R. CALCULATION - EXISTING
ALLOWABLE FAR (2,400 - 250 = 2,150)
0 SF
% EXPOSED (0%)
0 SF
0 SF
0%
3.15 SF
3.15 SF
3.15 SF
F.A.R. CALCULATION - APPROVED
MAIN FLOOR AREA - APPROVED
GARAGE AREA - APPROVED (256.30 - 250 = 6.30/2 = 3.15)
TOTAL MAIN FLOOR FAR - APPROVED
UPPER FLOOR AREA - APPROVED
TOTAL UPPER FLOOR FAR - APPROVED
BASEMENT FLOOR AREA - APPROVED
TOTAL BASEMENT FAR - APPROVED
MAIN FLOOR AREA - APPROVED
UPPER FLOOR AREA - APPROVED
BASEMENT FLOOR AREA - APPROVED
TOTAL BASEMENT FAR - APPROVED
1,276 SF
640.5 SF
1,916.5 SF
1916.5
DECK AREA - APPROVED (271+85.5 - 360)
493.45
1,276 SF
1279.15 SF
640.5 SF
TOTAL FAR AFTER DEMO ( 1916.5 - 370 = 1546.5)1,546.5 SF 1117 SF
2,396.15 SF
2,396.15
476.5 SF
476.5 SF
476.5 SF
0 SF
N
PROPOSED SITE PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0"
CHANGE ORDER 3 APPROVED SITE PLAN
P
3
7
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
FAR CALCS
002
1
2
3
A1.1
SHEET TITLE
STRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECH
COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI
PROJECT NO:0608
DRAWN BY:SMW
CIVIL
CONTRACTOR
DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
CONCEPTUAL
APPROVAL
HPC 5/1/08
CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS
HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL
10/23/08 REVISIONS
5/7/09 REVISIONS
08/18/10 REVISIONS
SITE PLAN
627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO
####
KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501Efficiency In Mind, LLCP.O. Box 1481Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 274-6336
Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.
P.O. Box 978
Avon, CO 81620
Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221
Fax: (970) 949-9339
Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958
DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/2010
SD SD 19 R @ 7" = 1 1'-1"18 T @ 1 1 3/8" = 17'-0 5/8"UP12345678910111213141516171819 35'-3 1/8"5'-6 1/16"11 5/16"10'5'5'5'3'-2"RADON MITIGATION VENT LOCATIONFINAL LOCATION T.B.D.AREA TO BE DEMOLISHEDEXTERIOR WALLS TO BE COMPLETELY REMOVEDSTONE WALK 28.08'13.82'xxxx952.29'N09°03'13"E P.O.B.D8"DL11'D5"DL5'D10"DL7'D8"DL13'D7"DL8'LOT B0.068 AC±30.00'N75°09'11"W100.00'S14°50'49"W30.00'S75°09'11"E 100.00'N14°50'49"E WM STONE WALLCONC.. PATIOCONC.. WALKPATIOSTONE
S
H
E
D
W
O
O
D
CONC.. WALKO.H. TYP.CONC.. WALKCURBDITCH REBAR AND YPCLS# 16129ELEV=7924.58REBAR
A
N
D
RPC LS#
2
5
9
4
7
REBAR ANDRPC LS# 25947 9
1
8
4
ELEV=
7
9
2
6
.
8
4
SINGLE FAMILYRESIDENCE 22.325.01.41.61.431.522.3 58.1 x x x x x x x x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxEMGM792579257926SETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKKITCHEN02BEDROOM05CLOSET07GARAGE08PDR19BATHROOM06ENTRY04LIVING ROOM01
EXISTING - 1,276 SF
256.30 sq ft
EXISTING - 640.5 SF
DECK - 270.98 sq ft
DECK - 85.36 sq ft
476.5 SF
2
3
3
A SITE PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0"
0 BASEMENT FAR 1" = 10'1 MAIN FLOOR FAR 1" = 10'2 UPPER FLOOR FAR 1" = 10'
0 SF
0 SF
TOTAL FAR
TOTAL UPPER FLOOR FAR
F.A.R. CALCULATION - TOTAL
MAIN FLOOR AREA - EXISTING
BASEMENT FLOOR AREA - EXISTING
TOTAL MAIN FLOOR FAR
0 SF
UPPER FLOOR AREA - EXISTING
TOTAL EXISTING FAR
UPPER FLOOR AREA - EXISTING
MAIN FLOOR AREA - EXISTING
ALLOWABLE DECKS (15%)360 SF
2,150 SF
F.A.R. CALCULATION - EXISTING
ALLOWABLE FAR (2,400 - 250 = 2,150)
0 SF
% EXPOSED (0%)
0 SF
0 SF
0%
3.15 SF
3.15 SF
3.15 SF
F.A.R. CALCULATION - APPROVED
MAIN FLOOR AREA - APPROVED
GARAGE AREA - APPROVED (256.30 - 250 = 6.30/2 = 3.15)
TOTAL MAIN FLOOR FAR - APPROVED
UPPER FLOOR AREA - APPROVED
TOTAL UPPER FLOOR FAR - APPROVED
BASEMENT FLOOR AREA - APPROVED
TOTAL BASEMENT FAR - APPROVED
MAIN FLOOR AREA - APPROVED
UPPER FLOOR AREA - APPROVED
BASEMENT FLOOR AREA - APPROVED
TOTAL BASEMENT FAR - APPROVED
1,276 SF
640.5 SF
1,916.5 SF
1916.5
DECK AREA - APPROVED (271+85.5 - 360)
493.45
1,276 SF
1279.15 SF
640.5 SF
TOTAL FAR AFTER DEMO ( 1916.5 - 370 = 1546.5)1,546.5 SF 1117 SF
2,396.15 SF
2,396.15
476.5 SF
476.5 SF
476.5 SF
0 SF
126.75 sq ft
1,307.00 sq ft
41.75 sq ft
2.00 sq ft @ 50% = 1 SF
250.00 sq ft
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
148.25 sq ft 112.00 sq ft
104.50 sq ft
CDW
445.00 sq ft
33'-0"9'-73/4"28'-43/4"
4 '-1 1 1 /2 "
1 '-5 "
1 4 '-1 1 1 /2 "
24'-111/2"5'-8"9'-11"9'-6"
2 '-1 1 1 /2 "
8 '-2 1 /4 "
8 '-0
3 /8 "
3 '-1 3 /8 "
1 2 '-3 "
15'-33/4"
640.00 sq ft
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
SETBACK LINE
18.00 sq ft
18.00 sq ft
18.00 sq ft
18.00 sq ft
COUNTABLE
FAR FILLS
GARAGE
DECK
EXEMPT
Lower Level Floor Area Calculations
627 W Main St.
Proposed Lower Level Floor Area Calculations
Lower Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)126.75
Lower Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00
Total Lower Level Countable Area (Sq Ft)0.00
Total Proposed Floor Area Calculations
Lower Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00
Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1308.00
Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1085.00
Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)4.75
Total Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft)2,397.75
Main Level Floor Area Calculations
627 W Main St.
Proposed Main Level Floor Area Calculations
Main Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)1307.00
Garage Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)252.00
Main Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)1307.00
Garage Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)1.00 Exemption (0-250 @ 0% 250-500 @ 50%
Total Main Level Countable Area (Sq Ft)1308.00
Proposed Deck/Porch Floor Area Calculations
Front Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)41.75
Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00
Exempt Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00
Deck/Porch Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00
Total Proposed Floor Area Calculations
Lower Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00
Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1308.00
Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1085.00
Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)4.75
Total Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft)2,397.75
Upper Level Floor Area Calculations
627 W Main St.
Proposed Upper Level Floor Area Calculations
Upper Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)1085.00
Upper Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)1085.00
Total Upper Level Countable Area (Sq Ft)1085.00
Proposed Deck/Porch Floor Area Calculations
Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)364.75 148.25 + 104.50 + 112
Exempt Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)360.00 360 Sq Ft Exempt (15% of 2,400)
Deck/Porch Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)4.75
Total Proposed Floor Area Calculations
Lower Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00
Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1308.00
Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1085.00
Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)4.75
Total Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft)2,397.75
CHANGE ORDER 3 FAR CALCULATIONS 1' = 1'-0"
PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL FAR 1" = 10'PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL FAR 1" = 10'PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FAR 1" = 10'
P
3
8
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
EXISTING
MAIN LEVEL
003
1
2
3
A2.2
SHEET TITLE
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
MECHANICAL
SURVEYOR
GEOTECH
COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI
PROJECT NO:0608
DRAWN BY:SMW
CIVIL
CONTRACTOR
DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
CONCEPTUAL
APPROVAL
HPC 5/1/08
CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS
HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL
10/23/08 REVISIONS
5/7/09 REVISIONS
08/18/10 REVISIONS
MAIN FLOOR PLAN
627 W. MAIN ST
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
FORUM PHI
174 Midland Ave, Suite 201
P.O. Box 1606
Basalt, Colorado 81621
PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585
DOUGLAS KELSO
####
KELSO ADDITION
Rocky Mountain Surveying
4133 Crystal Springs Rd.
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: (970) 379-1919
Fax: (970) 963-5873
Yeh and Associates, Inc.
170 Mel Ray Road
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Phone: (970) 384-1500
Fax: (970) 384-1501
Efficiency In Mind, LLC
P.O. Box 1481
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: (970) 274-6336
Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.
P.O. Box 978
Avon, CO 81620
Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221
Fax: (970) 949-9339
Mozer-Renn Structural Service
8573 E. Napa Place
Denver, CO 80237
Phone: (720) 212-0727
Fax: (303) 484-8958
DATE OF PUBLICATION1/5/2016
01
D106
W101 W102 W105W104W103
D101
D104
D105
D102
SD SD
1
9
R
@
7
"
=
1
1
'
-
1
"
1
8
T
@
1
1
3
/
8
"
=
1
7
'
-
0
5
/
8
"
U
P
12345678910111213141516171819
3
3
3
22
'
-
3
1/
2
"
ORIGINAL 1888 ADDITION 2000 PROPOSED ADDITION
33'-1 1/2"24'-11 1/2"22'-6 1/2"
1'
-
9
"
80'-7 1/2"
80'-7 1/2"
10
'
22'-1"
33'-1 1/2"24'-11 1/2"22'-6 1/2"
33'-1 1/2"24'-11 1/2"1'-11"20'-7 1/2"
6'-7"5 1/2"
7'-1/2"
6'
-
1
"
5
1/
2
"
6'
-
6
1/
2
"
33'-1 1/2"1'-7 1/2"1'-3 1/2"2'-10 1/2"2'-10 1/2"2'-10"3'-6"3'-6"3'-6"2'-11 1/2"1'-11"20'-7 1/2"
33'-1 1/2"24'-11 1/2"22'-6 1/2"
10
'
-
1
1
"
6'
-
5
1/
2
"
5'
-
5
1/
2
"
5'
-
5
1/
2
"
6'
-
5
1/
2
"
1
A3.1
4
A3.2
2
A3.2
RADON MITIGATION VENT LOCATION
FINAL LOCATION T.B.D.
EXISTING CLOSET TO REMAIN
EXISTING WINDOW
TO BE REMOVED
FILL TO MATCH EXISTING
KITCHEN
02
BEDROOM
05
CLOSET
07
GARAGE
08
PDR
19
BATHROOM
06
ENTRY
04
LIVING ROOM
01
3
A3.1
SD
3
1)
3)
2)
SURFACE MOUNTED
SCONCE LIGHTING AS
REQUIRED AT EXITS.
FINAL LOCATIONS T.B.D.
4)
SMOKE DETECTOR
EXTERIOR CAN LIGHT
HANDRAILS AND
GUARDRAILS PER CODE.
5)
BUILDING REFERENCE
ELEVATION : 100'-0" = 7,926.38'
SURVEYED ELEV. V.I.F. TO
CONFIRM EXISTING
BASEMENT OMITTED
SLAB ON GRADE
6)
1 MAIN FLOOR PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0"
GENERAL NOTES
NCHANGE ORDER 3 MAIN LEVEL PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0"
P
3
9
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
EXISTING
UPPER LEVEL
004
1
2
3
A2.3
SHEET TITLE
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
MECHANICAL
SURVEYOR
GEOTECH
COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI
PROJECT NO:0608
DRAWN BY:SMW
CIVIL
CONTRACTOR
DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
CONCEPTUAL
APPROVAL
HPC 5/1/08
CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS
HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL
10/23/08 REVISIONS
5/7/09 REVISIONS
08/18/10 REVISIONS
UPPER FLOOR PLAN
627 W. MAIN ST
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
FORUM PHI
174 Midland Ave, Suite 201
P.O. Box 1606
Basalt, Colorado 81621
PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585
DOUGLAS KELSO
####
KELSO ADDITION
Rocky Mountain Surveying
4133 Crystal Springs Rd.
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: (970) 379-1919
Fax: (970) 963-5873
Yeh and Associates, Inc.
170 Mel Ray Road
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Phone: (970) 384-1500
Fax: (970) 384-1501
Efficiency In Mind, LLC
P.O. Box 1481
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: (970) 274-6336
Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.
P.O. Box 978
Avon, CO 81620
Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221
Fax: (970) 949-9339
Mozer-Renn Structural Service
8573 E. Napa Place
Denver, CO 80237
Phone: (720) 212-0727
Fax: (303) 484-8958
DATE OF PUBLICATION1/5/2016
D207
D208
D206 D204
D205
D201
D202
1
9
R
@
7
"
=
1
1
'
-
1
"
1
8
T
@
1
1
3
/
8
"
=
1
7
'
-
0
5
/
8
"
U
P
12345678910111213141516171819
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
1
2
1
A3.1
4
A3.2
2
A3.2
6'
-
4
13
/
1
6
"
22
'
-
3
5/
8
"
ORIGINAL 1888 PROPOSED ADDITION OVER 2000 ADDITION PROPOSED ADDITION
1'
-
6
"
10
'
5'-8 3/8"5'-3 5/8"5 1/2"11'-10"
5'-8 3/8"5'-3 5/8"5 1/2"11'-10"
2'
-
3
1/
2
"
1'
-
9
"
2'
-
3
"
2'
-
3
1/
2
"
1'-8"3'-4"
8'
3'
1'
-
5
"
1'
-
3
"
2'
-
4
"
1'
1'
-
5
1/
2
"
2'
-
6
"
1'
-
8
1/
2
"
33'-1 1/2"15'-10 1/16"3'-5/16"4'-6 1/8"2'-8 1/2"3'-2 1/2"3"3'-8 3/8"3'-5/16"13'-2 9/16"
5'
4'
-
8
13
/
1
6
"
6'
-
2
1/
2
"
10
'
-
1
1/
1
6
"
11'-6 1/2"
5'
-
9
"
5'
-
9
"
33'-1 1/2"11'13'-11 11/16"15'-10 13/16"8'-7 1/4"
3'
-
1
1
5/
1
6
"
1'
12
'
-
5
"
3'
-
1
0
9/
1
6
"
33'-1 1/2"11'12'-1 1/2"17'-9"8'-7 1/4"
33'-1 1/2"11'4'-10 3/8"3'7'-2 3/8"7'-2 7/16"3'4'-7 1/4"8'-7 1/4"
RADON MITIGATION VENT LOCATION
FINAL LOCATION T.B.D.
BEDROOM
10
BATHROOM
12
BEDROOM
16
CLOSET
11
CLOSET
20
DEN
14 BATH
17
SITTING ROOM
18
D212
3
A3.1
W211
W202 W204W203
W212W213W214
W201
W207W205W206
W210 W208W209
SD
3
1)
3)
2)
SURFACE MOUNTED
SCONCE LIGHTING AS
REQUIRED AT EXITS.
FINAL LOCATIONS T.B.D.
4)
SMOKE DETECTOR
EXTERIOR CAN LIGHT
HANDRAILS AND
GUARDRAILS PER CODE.
5)
BUILDING REFERENCE
ELEVATION : 100'-0" = 7,926.38'
SURVEYED ELEV. V.I.F. TO
CONFIRM EXISTING
BASEMENT OMITTED
SLAB ON GRADE
6)
2 UPPER FLOOR PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0"
GENERAL NOTES
NCHANGE ORDER 3 UPPER LEVEL PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0"
P
4
0
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
EXISTING
ROOF PLAN
005
1
2
3
A2.4
SHEET TITLE
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
MECHANICAL
SURVEYOR
GEOTECH
COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI
PROJECT NO:0608
DRAWN BY:SMW
CIVIL
CONTRACTOR
DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
CONCEPTUAL
APPROVAL
HPC 5/1/08
CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS
HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL
10/23/08 REVISIONS
5/7/09 REVISIONS
08/18/10 REVISIONS
ROOF PLAN
627 W. MAIN ST
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
FORUM PHI
174 Midland Ave, Suite 201
P.O. Box 1606
Basalt, Colorado 81621
PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585
DOUGLAS KELSO
####
KELSO ADDITION
Rocky Mountain Surveying
4133 Crystal Springs Rd.
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: (970) 379-1919
Fax: (970) 963-5873
Yeh and Associates, Inc.
170 Mel Ray Road
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Phone: (970) 384-1500
Fax: (970) 384-1501
Efficiency In Mind, LLC
P.O. Box 1481
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: (970) 274-6336
Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.
P.O. Box 978
Avon, CO 81620
Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221
Fax: (970) 949-9339
Mozer-Renn Structural Service
8573 E. Napa Place
Denver, CO 80237
Phone: (720) 212-0727
Fax: (303) 484-8958
DATE OF PUBLICATION1/5/2016
1
A3.1
4
A3.2
2
A3.2
ORIGINAL 1888 PROPOSED ADDITION OVER 2000 ADDITION PROPOSED ADDITION
DECK
DECK
3
A3.1
6:12
8:12
6:12
16:12
2:12
6:12
12:12 12:12
8:12
3:12
12:12
16:12
2:12
6:12
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:12
RADON MITIGATION VENT LOCATION
FINAL LOCATION T.B.D.
6:126:12
6:126:12
SD
3
1)
3)
2)
SURFACE MOUNTED
SCONCE LIGHTING AS
REQUIRED AT EXITS.
FINAL LOCATIONS T.B.D.
4)
SMOKE DETECTOR
EXTERIOR CAN LIGHT
HANDRAILS AND
GUARDRAILS PER CODE.
5)
BUILDING REFERENCE
ELEVATION : 100'-0" = 7,926.38'
SURVEYED ELEV. V.I.F. TO
CONFIRM EXISTING
BASEMENT OMITTED
SLAB ON GRADE
6)
3 ROOF PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0"
GENERAL NOTES
NCHANGE ORDER 3 ROOF PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0"
P
4
1
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
MAIN LEVEL
OPT 1
006
1
1
A A
B B
C C
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
9
9
2 2 '-3 1 /2 "
33'-0"24'-111/2"22'-7"
1 0 '-0 1 /2 "
1 2 '-3 "
6'-0"3'-71/2"1'-11"3'-61/2"3'-61/2"3'-61/2"
4 '-1 1 1 /2 "
1 1 '-2 "
6 '-2 "
5'-5"
2 '-0 1 /2 "
1'-81/2"
33'-0"24'-111/2"22'-7"
2 2 '-3 1 /2 "
1 '-1 "
9 '-0 "
1 '-1 "
1 '-2 "
8 '-1 0 1 /2 "
6 "
5 1 /2 "
6 '-1 0 "
5 1 /2 "
2 '-1 0 "
1 '-2 "
1'-81/2"
14'-8"9'-8"8'-8"9'-71/2"15'-4"11'-31/2"11'-31/2"
4 '-1 1 1 /2 "
5 '-1 "
6 '-1 "
6 '-2 "
5'-0"51/2"
5 '-0 "
5 1 /2 "
1
012
1
012
2
012
2
012
4
012
4
012
3
012
3
012
3
011
2
010
1
009
4
010
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
MECH ROOM
001
6
6
EXISTING WALLS TO
REMAIN
PROPOSED REMODEL
ADDITION
WALL TYPE LEGEND
NPROPOSED MAIN LEVEL 1/4" = 1'-0"
P
4
2
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
UPPER LEVEL
OPT 1
007
1
1
A A
B B
C C
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
9
9
CDW
1
012
1
012
2
012
2
012
4
012
4
012
3
012
3
012
3
011
2
010
1
009
4
010
9'-73/4"15'-33/4"15'-7"
33'-0"
4 '-4 1 /2 "
7 "
1 2 '-3 "
2 '-1 1 /2 "
2 '-1 1 1 /2 "
14'-8"9'-8"8'-8"24'-111/2"5'-8"9'-11"9'-6"
33'-0"47'-61/2"2'-6"
51/2"14'-21/2"51/2"3'-21/2"51/2"13'-9"51/2"
2 2 '-3 1 /2 "
1 0 '-0 1 /2 "
1 2 '-3 "
7'-103/8"7'-53/8"
2 '-1 1 1 /2 "
4'-81/2"5'-103/4"4'-81/2"7'-1"3'-0"3'-0"2'-6"
51/2"14'-43/4"51/2"
2 '-1 1 /2 "
80'-61/2"2'-6"
9'-73/4"7'-103/8"7'-53/8"2'-10"2'-10"4'-111/2"4'-111/2"
6 '-1 1 /2 "
6 '-1 1 /2 "
1 0 1 /2 "
9 1 /2 "
5 1 /2 "
2 '-1 1 1 /2 "
4'-81/2"3'-17/8"7'-53/8"
2 '-1 1 /4 "
2'-21/2"
6 1 /2 "
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
EXIST. BEDROOM EXIST. BEDROOM DECK
BATH
110
DRESSING RM
111
BEDROOM
112
DECK
EXT. STAIR
STAIR
BATH
5 '-0 1 /8 "
5 1 /2 "
6
6
EXISTING WALLS TO
REMAIN
PROPOSED REMODEL
ADDITION
WALL TYPE LEGEND
NPROPOSED UPPER LEVEL 1/4" = 1'-0"
P
4
3
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
ROOF PLAN
OPT 1
008
1
1
A A
B B
C C
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
9
9
1
012
1
012
2
012
2
012
4
012
4
012
3
012
3
012
3
011
2
010
1
009
4
010
1:12
1:12
12:1212:12
12:12
12:12
12:12 12:12
12:12
12:12
DECK BELOW DECK BELOW
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
6
6
NPROPOSED ROOF PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0"
P
4
4
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
ELEVATIONS
OPT 1
009
1
2
3
A3.1
SHEET TITLE
STRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECH
COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI
PROJECT NO:0608
DRAWN BY:SMW
CIVIL
CONTRACTOR
DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
CONCEPTUAL
APPROVAL
HPC 5/1/08
CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS
HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL
10/23/08 REVISIONS
5/7/09 REVISIONS
08/18/10 REVISIONS
ELEVATIONS
627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO
####
KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501
Efficiency In Mind, LLC
P.O. Box 1481
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: (970) 274-6336
Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.
P.O. Box 978
Avon, CO 81620
Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221
Fax: (970) 949-9339
Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958
DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/2010
23PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB
ADDITION 2000
PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888
25
'
11 '
100'
100'-9"
109'-9"
111'-1"
118'-7"
3'-4 1/2"
3'
-
8
"
2'
-
7
"
5
7
3
9
1
T.O. PLATE
T.O.F.F.
EXISTING V.I.F.
EXISTING V.I.F.
25' HEIGHT LIMIT
EXISTING GRADE
T.O. SLAB
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0"
3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0"
PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888
1
6
1
5
T.O. EXISTING RIDGE
124'-3"
UPPER LEVEL
T.O. FF 111'-1"
9 6 6 5 4 3 2 1
10
12
9
11
7
12
11
9
6
8
7
MAIN LEVEL
T.O. FF 100'-0"
LOWER LEVEL
T.O. FF 95'-0"
123 A3.1SHEET TITLESTRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECHCOPYRIGHTFORUM PHIPROJECT NO:0608DRAWN BY:SMWCIVILCONTRACTORDESCRIPTIONMARKDATECONCEPTUALAPPROVALHPC5/1/08CD6/13/08 CONSULTANTSHPC7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL10/23/08 REVISIONS5/7/09 REVISIONS08/18/10 REVISIONS
ELEVAT IONS
627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO####KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501Efficiency In Mind, LLCP.O. Box 1481Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 274-6336Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.P.O. Box 978Avon, CO 81620Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221Fax: (970) 949-9339Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/201023PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLABADDITION 2000PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25'11'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"3'-4 1/2"3'-8"2'-7"57 391 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0"
3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0"
1
2
3
ASPHALT SHINGLE
EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING
EXISTING BRICK
4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE
5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING
7 PROPSED STUCCO SIDING
8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
9 PROPOSED RAILING
10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT
11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3
12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES
TO THE REAR ADDITION
KEYNOTE LEGEND
CHANGE ORDER 3 EAST ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0"
1 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"
P
4
5
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
ELEVATIONS
OPT 1
010
1
4
3
8
4
6
5 5
12
11
T.O. EXISTING RIDGE
124'-3"
UPPER LEVEL
T.O. FF 111'-1"
C B A
MAIN LEVEL
T.O. FF 100'-0"
LOWER LEVEL
T.O. FF 95'-0"
6
8
7
6
9 9
1
12
T.O. EXISTING RIDGE
124'-3"
UPPER LEVEL
T.O. FF 111'-1"
A B C
MAIN LEVEL
T.O. FF 100'-0"
LOWER LEVEL
T.O. FF 95'-0"
1
2
3
A3.2
SHEET TITLE
STRUCTURALCONSULTANTS
MECHANICAL
SURVEYORGEOTECH
COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI
PROJECT NO:0608
DRAWN BY:SMW
CIVIL
CONTRACTOR
DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
CONCEPTUAL
APPROVAL
HPC 5/1/08
CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS
HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL
10/23/08 REVISIONS
5/7/09 REVISIONS
08/18/10 REVISIONS
ELEVATIONS
627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO
####
KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501
Efficiency In Mind, LLC
P.O. Box 1481
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: (970) 274-6336
Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.
P.O. Box 978
Avon, CO 81620
Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221
Fax: (970) 949-9339
Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa Place
Denver, CO 80237
Phone: (720) 212-0727
Fax: (303) 484-8958
DATE OF PUBLICATION1/5/2016
3 18'-10 11/16"18'-10 11/16"25'100'100'-9"111'-1"118'-7"6 87POINT 3 POINT 4 15 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.T.O. SLAB25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB
100'
109'-9"
111'-7 3/16"
25
'
14
'
-
9
9/
1
6
"
14
'
-
9
9/
1
6
"
3
8
2
1
7
POINT 1POINT 2
5
EXISTING V.I.F.
EXISTING V.I.F.
EXISTING V.I.F.
25' HEIGHT LIMIT
EXISTING GRADE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
2 SOUTH 1/4" = 1'-0"
4 NORTH 1/4" = 1'-0"
1
2
3
A3.2
SHEET TITLE
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
MECHANICAL
SURVEYOR
GEOTECH
COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI
PROJECT NO:0608
DRAWN BY:SMW
CIVIL
CONTRACTOR
DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
CONCEPTUAL
APPROVAL
HPC 5/1/08
CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS
HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL
10/23/08 REVISIONS
5/7/09 REVISIONS
08/18/10 REVISIONS
ELEVATIONS
627 W. MAIN ST
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
FORUM PHI
174 Midland Ave, Suite 201
P.O. Box 1606
Basalt, Colorado 81621
PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585
DOUGLAS KELSO
####
KELSO ADDITION
Rocky Mountain Surveying
4133 Crystal Springs Rd.
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: (970) 379-1919
Fax: (970) 963-5873
Yeh and Associates, Inc.
170 Mel Ray Road
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Phone: (970) 384-1500
Fax: (970) 384-1501
Efficiency In Mind, LLC
P.O. Box 1481
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: (970) 274-6336
Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.
P.O. Box 978
Avon, CO 81620
Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221
Fax: (970) 949-9339
Mozer-Renn Structural Service
8573 E. Napa Place
Denver, CO 80237
Phone: (720) 212-0727
Fax: (303) 484-8958
DATE OF PUBLICATION1/5/2016
3
18
'
-
1
0
11
/
1
6
"
18
'
-
1
0
11
/
1
6
"
25
'
100'
100'-9"
111'-1"
118'-7"
6
8
7
POINT 3
POINT 4
1
5
T.O. PLATE
T.O.F.F.
T.O. SLAB
25' HEIGHT LIMIT
EXISTING GRADE
T.O. SLAB
100'
109'-9"
111'-7 3/16"
25
'
14
'
-
9
9/
1
6
"
14
'
-
9
9/
1
6
"
3
8
2
1
7
POINT 1POINT 2
5
EXISTING V.I.F.
EXISTING V.I.F.
EXISTING V.I.F.
25' HEIGHT LIMIT
EXISTING GRADE
12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLEEXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
2 SOUTH 1/4" = 1'-0"
4 NORTH 1/4" = 1'-0"
123 A3.1SHEET TITLESTRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECHCOPYRIGHTFORUM PHIPROJECT NO:0608DRAWN BY:SMWCIVILCONTRACTORDESCRIPTIONMARKDATECONCEPTUALAPPROVALHPC5/1/08CD6/13/08 CONSULTANTSHPC7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL10/23/08 REVISIONS5/7/09 REVISIONS08/18/10 REVISIONS
ELEVATIONS
627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO####KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501Efficiency In Mind, LLCP.O. Box 1481Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 274-6336Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.P.O. Box 978Avon, CO 81620Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221Fax: (970) 949-9339Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/201023PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLABADDITION 2000PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25'11 '100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"3'-4 1/2"3'-8"2'-7"57 391 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0"
3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0"
1
2
3
ASPHALT SHINGLE
EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING
EXISTING BRICK
4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE
5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING
7 PROPSED STUCCO SIDING
8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
9 PROPOSED RAILING
10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT
11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3
12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES
TO THE REAR ADDITION
KEYNOTE LEGEND
4 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"
CHANGE ORDER 3 NORTH ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0"CHANGE ORDER 3 SOUTH ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0"
HEIGHT OF ROOF IS INACCURATELY SHOWN
IN THE CHANGE ORDER 3 DRAWINGS
VERIFICATION IN FIELD CONFIRMS THAT THIS
ROOF IS 24'-3" ABOVE PROJECT 100'
P
4
6
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
ELEVATIONS
OPT 1
011
1
2
3
A3.1
SHEET TITLE
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
MECHANICAL
SURVEYOR
GEOTECH
COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI
PROJECT NO:0608
DRAWN BY:SMW
CIVIL
CONTRACTOR
DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
CONCEPTUAL
APPROVAL
HPC 5/1/08
CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS
HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL
10/23/08 REVISIONS
5/7/09 REVISIONS
08/18/10 REVISIONS
ELEVATIONS
627 W. MAIN ST
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
FORUM PHI
174 Midland Ave, Suite 201
P.O. Box 1606
Basalt, Colorado 81621
PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585
DOUGLAS KELSO
####
KELSO ADDITION
Rocky Mountain Surveying
4133 Crystal Springs Rd.
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: (970) 379-1919
Fax: (970) 963-5873
Yeh and Associates, Inc.
170 Mel Ray Road
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Phone: (970) 384-1500
Fax: (970) 384-1501
Efficiency In Mind, LLC
P.O. Box 1481
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: (970) 274-6336
Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.
P.O. Box 978
Avon, CO 81620
Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221
Fax: (970) 949-9339
Mozer-Renn Structural Service
8573 E. Napa Place
Denver, CO 80237
Phone: (720) 212-0727
Fax: (303) 484-8958
DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/2010
2
3
PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888
ADDITION 2000
11'
25
'
100'
100'-9"
109'-9"
111'-1"
118'-7"
3
2
7
6
4
5
1
9
T.O. PLATE
T.O.F.F.
EXISTING V.I.F.
EXISTING V.I.F.
25' HEIGHT LIMIT
EXISTING GRADE
T.O. SLAB
ADDITION 2000
PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888
25
'
11'
100'
100'-9"
109'-9"
111'-1"
118'-7"
3'-4 1/2"
3'
-
8
"
2'
-
7
"
5
7
3
9
1
T.O. PLATE
T.O.F.F.
EXISTING V.I.F.
EXISTING V.I.F.
25' HEIGHT LIMIT
EXISTING GRADE
T.O. SLAB
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0"
3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 2 3 4 5 6 9
9'-71/2"
ORIGINAL 1888 PROPOSED ADDITION
3
1
1
8
6
2
9
7
6
9
10
12
T.O. EXISTING RIDGE
124'-3"
UPPER LEVEL
T.O. FF 111'-1"
6
7
11
MAIN LEVEL
T.O. FF 100'-0"
LOWER LEVEL
T.O. FF 95'-0"
123 A3.1SHEET TITLESTRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECHCOPYRIGHTFORUM PHIPROJECT NO:0608DRAWN BY:SMWCIVILCONTRACTORDESCRIPTIONMARKDATECONCEPTUALAPPROVALHPC5/1/08CD6/13/08 CONSULTANTSHPC7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL10/23/08 REVISIONS5/7/09 REVISIONS08/18/10 REVISIONS
ELEVATIONS
627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO####KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501Efficiency In Mind, LLCP.O. Box 1481Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 274-6336Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.P.O. Box 978Avon, CO 81620Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221Fax: (970) 949-9339Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/201023PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLABADDITION 2000PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25'11'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"3'-4 1/2"3'-8"2'-7"57 391 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0"
3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0"
1
2
3
ASPHALT SHINGLE
EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING
EXISTING BRICK
4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE
5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING
7 PROPSED STUCCO SIDING
8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
9 PROPOSED RAILING
10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT
11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3
12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES
TO THE REAR ADDITION
KEYNOTE LEGEND
CHANGE ORDER 3 WEST ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0"
3 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"
HEIGHT OF ROOF IS INACCURATELY SHOWN
IN THE CHANGE ORDER 3 DRAWINGS
VERIFICATION IN FIELD CONFIRMS THAT THIS
ROOF IS 24'-3" ABOVE PROJECT 100'
P
4
7
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
SECTIONS
OPT 1
012
DRESSING RM
111
BEDROOM
112
DECKDECK
1 2 3 4 5 6 6 9
T.O. EXISTING RIDGE
124'-3"
UPPER LEVEL
T.O. FF 111'-1"
MAIN LEVEL
T.O. FF 100'-0"
LOWER LEVEL
T.O. FF 95'-0"
BATH
110
ABC
T.O. EXISTING RIDGE
124'-3"
UPPER LEVEL
T.O. FF 111'-1"
DRESSING RM
111
MAIN LEVEL
T.O. FF 100'-0"
BATH
110
A B C
T.O. EXISTING RIDGE
124'-3"
UPPER LEVEL
T.O. FF 111'-1"
DRESSING RM
111
MAIN LEVEL
T.O. FF 100'-0"
112
C B A
T.O. EXISTING RIDGE
124'-3"
UPPER LEVEL
T.O. FF 111'-1"
BEDROOM
MAIN LEVEL
T.O. FF 100'-0"
EXISTING WALLS TO
REMAIN
PROPOSED REMODEL
ADDITION
WALL TYPE LEGEND
1 SECTION 1/4" = 1'-0"
2 SECTION 1/4" = 1'-0"3 SECTION 1/4" = 1'-0"4 SECTION 1/4" = 1'-0"
P
4
8
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
3D VIEW OPT
1
013
1
2
3
ASPHALT SHINGLE
EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING
EXISTING BRICK
4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE
5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING
7 PROPSED STUCCO SIDING
8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
9 PROPOSED RAILING
10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT
11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3
12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES
TO THE REAR ADDITION
KEYNOTE LEGEND
SOUTHWEST PERSPECTIVE
1
9
8
3
6
7
5
7
9
8
6
9
2
P
4
9
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
3D VIEW OPT
1
014
1
2
3
ASPHALT SHINGLE
EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING
EXISTING BRICK
4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE
5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING
7 PROPSED STUCCO SIDING
8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
9 PROPOSED RAILING
10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT
11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3
12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES
TO THE REAR ADDITION
KEYNOTE LEGEND
SOUTHEAST PERSPECTIVE
8
9
6
1
2
3
7
5
6
8
6
7
P
5
0
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
3D VIEW OPT
1
015
1
2
3
ASPHALT SHINGLE
EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING
EXISTING BRICK
4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE
5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING
7 PROPSED STUCCO SIDING
8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
9 PROPOSED RAILING
10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT
11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3
12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES
TO THE REAR ADDITION
KEYNOTE LEGEND
NORTHEAST PERSPECTIVE
4
5
1
8
6
3
7
6
1
4
P
5
1
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
3D VIEW OPT
1
016
1
2
3
ASPHALT SHINGLE
EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING
EXISTING BRICK
4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE
5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING
7 PROPSED STUCCO SIDING
8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
9 PROPOSED RAILING
10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT
11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3
12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES
TO THE REAR ADDITION
KEYNOTE LEGEND
NORTHWEST PERSPECTIVE
5
4
3
2
6
9
9
1 9
4
9
P
5
2
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
MAIN LEVEL
OPT 2
017
1
1
A A
B B
C C
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
9
9
2 2 '-3 1 /2 "
33'-0"24'-111/2"22'-7"
1 0 '-0 1 /2 "
1 2 '-3 "
6'-0"3'-71/2"1'-11"3'-61/2"3'-61/2"3'-61/2"
4 '-1 1 1 /2 "
1 1 '-2 "
6 '-2 "
5'-5"
2 '-0 1 /2 "
1'-81/2"
33'-0"24'-111/2"22'-7"
2 2 '-3 1 /2 "
1 '-1 "
9 '-0 "
1 '-1 "
1 '-2 "
8 '-1 0 1 /2 "
6 "
5 1 /2 "
6 '-1 0 "
5 1 /2 "
2 '-1 0 "
1 '-2 "
1'-81/2"
14'-8"9'-8"8'-8"9'-71/2"15'-4"11'-31/2"11'-31/2"
4 '-1 1 1 /2 "
5 '-1 "
6 '-1 "
6 '-2 "
5'-0"51/2"
5 '-0 "
5 1 /2 "
1
023
1
023
2
023
2
023
4
023
4
023
3
023
3
023
3
022
2
021
1
020
4
021
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
MECH ROOM
001
6
6
EXISTING WALLS TO
REMAIN
PROPOSED REMODEL
ADDITION
WALL TYPE LEGEND
NPROPOSED MAIN LEVEL 1/4" = 1'-0"
P
5
3
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
UPPER LEVEL
OPT 2
018
1
1
A A
B B
C C
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
9
9
CDW
1
023
1
023
2
023
2
023
4
023
4
023
3
023
3
023
3
022
2
021
1
020
4
021
9'-73/4"15'-33/4"15'-7"
33'-0"
4 '-4 1 /2 "
7 "
1 2 '-3 "
2 '-1 1 /2 "
2 '-1 1 1 /2 "
14'-8"9'-8"8'-8"24'-111/2"5'-8"9'-11"9'-6"
33'-0"47'-61/2"2'-6"
51/2"14'-21/2"51/2"3'-21/2"51/2"13'-9"51/2"
2 2 '-3 1 /2 "
1 0 '-0 1 /2 "
1 2 '-3 "
7'-103/8"7'-53/8"
2 '-1 1 1 /2 "
4'-81/2"5'-103/4"4'-81/2"7'-1"3'-0"3'-0"2'-6"
51/2"14'-43/4"51/2"
2 '-1 1 /2 "
80'-61/2"2'-6"
9'-73/4"7'-103/8"7'-53/8"2'-10"2'-10"4'-111/2"4'-111/2"
6 '-1 1 /2 "
6 '-1 1 /2 "
1 0 1 /2 "
9 1 /2 "
5 1 /2 "
2 '-1 1 1 /2 "
4'-81/2"3'-17/8"7'-53/8"
2 '-6 3 /4 "
2'-21/2"
6 1 /2 "
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
EXIST. BEDROOM EXIST. BEDROOM DECK
BATH
110
DRESSING RM
111
BEDROOM
112
DECK
EXT. STAIR
STAIR
BATH
5 '-0 1 /8 "
5 1 /2 "
6
6
EXISTING WALLS TO
REMAIN
PROPOSED REMODEL
ADDITION
WALL TYPE LEGEND
NPROPOSED UPPER LEVEL 1/4" = 1'-0"
P
5
4
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
ROOF PLAN
OPT 2
019
1
1
A A
B B
C C
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
9
9
1
023
1
023
2
023
2
023
4
023
4
023
3
023
3
023
3
022
2
021
1
020
4
021 4 3/8:12
4 3/8:124 3/8:12
4 3/8:12
DECK BELOW DECK BELOW
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
6
6
NPROPOSED ROOF PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0"
P
5
5
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
ELEVATIONS
OPT 2
020
1
2
3
A3.1
SHEET TITLE
STRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECH
COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI
PROJECT NO:0608
DRAWN BY:SMW
CIVIL
CONTRACTOR
DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
CONCEPTUAL
APPROVAL
HPC 5/1/08
CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS
HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL
10/23/08 REVISIONS
5/7/09 REVISIONS
08/18/10 REVISIONS
ELEVATIONS
627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO
####
KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501
Efficiency In Mind, LLC
P.O. Box 1481
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: (970) 274-6336
Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.
P.O. Box 978
Avon, CO 81620
Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221
Fax: (970) 949-9339
Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958
DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/2010
23PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB
ADDITION 2000
PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888
25
'
11 '
100'
100'-9"
109'-9"
111'-1"
118'-7"
3'-4 1/2"
3'
-
8
"
2'
-
7
"
5
7
3
9
1
T.O. PLATE
T.O.F.F.
EXISTING V.I.F.
EXISTING V.I.F.
25' HEIGHT LIMIT
EXISTING GRADE
T.O. SLAB
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0"
3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0"
PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888
1
6
1
5
T.O. EXISTING RIDGE
124'-3"
UPPER LEVEL
T.O. FF 111'-1"
9 6 6 5 4 3 2 1
10
12
11
7
12
11
9
6
8
7
9
MAIN LEVEL
T.O. FF 100'-0"
LOWER LEVEL
T.O. FF 95'-0"
123 A3.1SHEET TITLESTRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECHCOPYRIGHTFORUM PHIPROJECT NO:0608DRAWN BY:SMWCIVILCONTRACTORDESCRIPTIONMARKDATECONCEPTUALAPPROVALHPC5/1/08CD6/13/08 CONSULTANTSHPC7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL10/23/08 REVISIONS5/7/09 REVISIONS08/18/10 REVISIONS
ELEVAT IONS
627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO####KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501Efficiency In Mind, LLCP.O. Box 1481Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 274-6336Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.P.O. Box 978Avon, CO 81620Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221Fax: (970) 949-9339Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/201023PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLABADDITION 2000PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25'11'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"3'-4 1/2"3'-8"2'-7"57 391 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0"
3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0"
1
2
3
ASPHALT SHINGLE
EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING
EXISTING BRICK
4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE
5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING
7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING
8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
9 PROPOSED RAILING
10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT
11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3
12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES
TO THE REAR ADDITION
KEYNOTE LEGEND
CHANGE ORDER 3 EAST ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0"
1 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"
P
5
6
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
ELEVATIONS
OPT 2
021
4
3
1
8
4
6
5 5
12
11
T.O. EXISTING RIDGE
124'-3"
UPPER LEVEL
T.O. FF 111'-1"
C B A
MAIN LEVEL
T.O. FF 100'-0"
LOWER LEVEL
T.O. FF 95'-0"
6
8
7
6
9 9
1
12
T.O. EXISTING RIDGE
124'-3"
UPPER LEVEL
T.O. FF 111'-1"
A B C
MAIN LEVEL
T.O. FF 100'-0"
LOWER LEVEL
T.O. FF 95'-0"
1
2
3
A3.2
SHEET TITLE
STRUCTURALCONSULTANTS
MECHANICAL
SURVEYORGEOTECH
COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI
PROJECT NO:0608
DRAWN BY:SMW
CIVIL
CONTRACTOR
DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
CONCEPTUAL
APPROVAL
HPC 5/1/08
CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS
HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL
10/23/08 REVISIONS
5/7/09 REVISIONS
08/18/10 REVISIONS
ELEVATIONS
627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO
####
KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501
Efficiency In Mind, LLC
P.O. Box 1481
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: (970) 274-6336
Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.
P.O. Box 978
Avon, CO 81620
Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221
Fax: (970) 949-9339
Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa Place
Denver, CO 80237
Phone: (720) 212-0727
Fax: (303) 484-8958
DATE OF PUBLICATION1/5/2016
3 18'-10 11/16"18'-10 11/16"25'100'100'-9"111'-1"118'-7"6 87POINT 3 POINT 4 15 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.T.O. SLAB25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB
100'
109'-9"
111'-7 3/16"
25
'
14
'
-
9
9/
1
6
"
14
'
-
9
9/
1
6
"
3
8
2
1
7
POINT 1POINT 2
5
EXISTING V.I.F.
EXISTING V.I.F.
EXISTING V.I.F.
25' HEIGHT LIMIT
EXISTING GRADE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
2 SOUTH 1/4" = 1'-0"
4 NORTH 1/4" = 1'-0"
1
2
3
A3.2
SHEET TITLE
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
MECHANICAL
SURVEYOR
GEOTECH
COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI
PROJECT NO:0608
DRAWN BY:SMW
CIVIL
CONTRACTOR
DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
CONCEPTUAL
APPROVAL
HPC 5/1/08
CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS
HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL
10/23/08 REVISIONS
5/7/09 REVISIONS
08/18/10 REVISIONS
ELEVATIONS
627 W. MAIN ST
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
FORUM PHI
174 Midland Ave, Suite 201
P.O. Box 1606
Basalt, Colorado 81621
PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585
DOUGLAS KELSO
####
KELSO ADDITION
Rocky Mountain Surveying
4133 Crystal Springs Rd.
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: (970) 379-1919
Fax: (970) 963-5873
Yeh and Associates, Inc.
170 Mel Ray Road
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Phone: (970) 384-1500
Fax: (970) 384-1501
Efficiency In Mind, LLC
P.O. Box 1481
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: (970) 274-6336
Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.
P.O. Box 978
Avon, CO 81620
Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221
Fax: (970) 949-9339
Mozer-Renn Structural Service
8573 E. Napa Place
Denver, CO 80237
Phone: (720) 212-0727
Fax: (303) 484-8958
DATE OF PUBLICATION1/5/2016
3
18
'
-
1
0
11
/
1
6
"
18
'
-
1
0
11
/
1
6
"
25
'
100'
100'-9"
111'-1"
118'-7"
6
8
7
POINT 3
POINT 4
1
5
T.O. PLATE
T.O.F.F.
T.O. SLAB
25' HEIGHT LIMIT
EXISTING GRADE
T.O. SLAB
100'
109'-9"
111'-7 3/16"
25
'
14
'
-
9
9/
1
6
"
14
'
-
9
9/
1
6
"
3
8
2
1
7
POINT 1POINT 2
5
EXISTING V.I.F.
EXISTING V.I.F.
EXISTING V.I.F.
25' HEIGHT LIMIT
EXISTING GRADE
12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLEEXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
2 SOUTH 1/4" = 1'-0"
4 NORTH 1/4" = 1'-0"
123 A3.1SHEET TITLESTRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECHCOPYRIGHTFORUM PHIPROJECT NO:0608DRAWN BY:SMWCIVILCONTRACTORDESCRIPTIONMARKDATECONCEPTUALAPPROVALHPC5/1/08CD6/13/08 CONSULTANTSHPC7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL10/23/08 REVISIONS5/7/09 REVISIONS08/18/10 REVISIONS
ELEVATIONS
627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO####KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501Efficiency In Mind, LLCP.O. Box 1481Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 274-6336Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.P.O. Box 978Avon, CO 81620Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221Fax: (970) 949-9339Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/201023PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLABADDITION 2000PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25'11 '100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"3'-4 1/2"3'-8"2'-7"57 391 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0"
3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0"
1
2
3
ASPHALT SHINGLE
EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING
EXISTING BRICK
4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE
5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING
7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING
8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
9 PROPOSED RAILING
10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT
11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3
12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES
TO THE REAR ADDITION
KEYNOTE LEGEND
4 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"
CHANGE ORDER 3 NORTH ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0"CHANGE ORDER 3 SOUTH ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0"
HEIGHT OF ROOF IS INACCURATELY SHOWN
IN THE CHANGE ORDER 3 DRAWINGS
VERIFICATION IN FIELD CONFIRMS THAT THIS
ROOF IS 24'-3" ABOVE PROJECT 100'
P
5
7
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
ELEVATIONS
OPT 2
022
1
2
3
A3.1
SHEET TITLE
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
MECHANICAL
SURVEYOR
GEOTECH
COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI
PROJECT NO:0608
DRAWN BY:SMW
CIVIL
CONTRACTOR
DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
CONCEPTUAL
APPROVAL
HPC 5/1/08
CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS
HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL
10/23/08 REVISIONS
5/7/09 REVISIONS
08/18/10 REVISIONS
ELEVATIONS
627 W. MAIN ST
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
FORUM PHI
174 Midland Ave, Suite 201
P.O. Box 1606
Basalt, Colorado 81621
PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585
DOUGLAS KELSO
####
KELSO ADDITION
Rocky Mountain Surveying
4133 Crystal Springs Rd.
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: (970) 379-1919
Fax: (970) 963-5873
Yeh and Associates, Inc.
170 Mel Ray Road
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Phone: (970) 384-1500
Fax: (970) 384-1501
Efficiency In Mind, LLC
P.O. Box 1481
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: (970) 274-6336
Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.
P.O. Box 978
Avon, CO 81620
Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221
Fax: (970) 949-9339
Mozer-Renn Structural Service
8573 E. Napa Place
Denver, CO 80237
Phone: (720) 212-0727
Fax: (303) 484-8958
DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/2010
2
3
PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888
ADDITION 2000
11'
25
'
100'
100'-9"
109'-9"
111'-1"
118'-7"
3
2
7
6
4
5
1
9
T.O. PLATE
T.O.F.F.
EXISTING V.I.F.
EXISTING V.I.F.
25' HEIGHT LIMIT
EXISTING GRADE
T.O. SLAB
ADDITION 2000
PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888
25
'
11'
100'
100'-9"
109'-9"
111'-1"
118'-7"
3'-4 1/2"
3'
-
8
"
2'
-
7
"
5
7
3
9
1
T.O. PLATE
T.O.F.F.
EXISTING V.I.F.
EXISTING V.I.F.
25' HEIGHT LIMIT
EXISTING GRADE
T.O. SLAB
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0"
3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 2 3 4 5 6 9
9'-71/2"
ORIGINAL 1888 PROPOSED ADDITION
3
1
1
2
8
6
9
7
6 10
12 9
T.O. EXISTING RIDGE
124'-3"
UPPER LEVEL
T.O. FF 111'-1"
6
7
11
MAIN LEVEL
T.O. FF 100'-0"
LOWER LEVEL
T.O. FF 95'-0"
123 A3.1SHEET TITLESTRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECHCOPYRIGHTFORUM PHIPROJECT NO:0608DRAWN BY:SMWCIVILCONTRACTORDESCRIPTIONMARKDATECONCEPTUALAPPROVALHPC5/1/08CD6/13/08 CONSULTANTSHPC7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL10/23/08 REVISIONS5/7/09 REVISIONS08/18/10 REVISIONS
ELEVATIONS
627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO####KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501Efficiency In Mind, LLCP.O. Box 1481Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 274-6336Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.P.O. Box 978Avon, CO 81620Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221Fax: (970) 949-9339Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/201023PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLABADDITION 2000PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25'11'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"3'-4 1/2"3'-8"2'-7"57 391 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0"
3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0"
1
2
3
ASPHALT SHINGLE
EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING
EXISTING BRICK
4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE
5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING
7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING
8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
9 PROPOSED RAILING
10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT
11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3
12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES
TO THE REAR ADDITION
KEYNOTE LEGEND
CHANGE ORDER 3 WEST ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0"
3 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"
HEIGHT OF ROOF IS INACCURATELY SHOWN
IN THE CHANGE ORDER 3 DRAWINGS
VERIFICATION IN FIELD CONFIRMS THAT THIS
ROOF IS 24'-3" ABOVE PROJECT 100'
P
5
8
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
SECTIONS
OPT 2
023
DRESSING RM
111
BEDROOM
112
DECKDECK
1 2 3 4 5 6 6 9
T.O. EXISTING RIDGE
124'-3"
UPPER LEVEL
T.O. FF 111'-1"
MAIN LEVEL
T.O. FF 100'-0"
LOWER LEVEL
T.O. FF 95'-0"
BATH
110
ABC
T.O. EXISTING RIDGE
124'-3"
UPPER LEVEL
T.O. FF 111'-1"
DRESSING RM
111
MAIN LEVEL
T.O. FF 100'-0"
BATH
110
A B C
T.O. EXISTING RIDGE
124'-3"
UPPER LEVEL
T.O. FF 111'-1"
DRESSING RM
111
MAIN LEVEL
T.O. FF 100'-0"
112
C B A
T.O. EXISTING RIDGE
124'-3"
UPPER LEVEL
T.O. FF 111'-1"
BEDROOM
MAIN LEVEL
T.O. FF 100'-0"
EXISTING WALLS TO
REMAIN
PROPOSED REMODEL
ADDITION
WALL TYPE LEGEND
1 SECTION SD 2 1/4" = 1'-0"
2 SECTION SD 2 1/4" = 1'-0"3 SECTION SD 2 1/4" = 1'-0"4 SECTION SD 2 1/4" = 1'-0"
P
5
9
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
3D VIEW OPT
2
024
1
2
3
ASPHALT SHINGLE
EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING
EXISTING BRICK
4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE
5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING
7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING
8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
9 PROPOSED RAILING
10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT
11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3
12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES
TO THE REAR ADDITION
KEYNOTE LEGEND
SOUTHWEST PERSPECTIVE
1
9
8
3
6
7
5
7
9
8
6
9
2
P
6
0
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
3D VIEW OPT
2
025
1
2
3
ASPHALT SHINGLE
EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING
EXISTING BRICK
4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE
5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING
7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING
8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
9 PROPOSED RAILING
10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT
11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3
12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES
TO THE REAR ADDITION
KEYNOTE LEGEND
SOUTHEAST PERSPECTIVE
8
9
6
1
2
3
7
5
6
8
6
9
7
P
6
1
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
3D VIEW OPT
2
026
1
2
3
ASPHALT SHINGLE
EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING
EXISTING BRICK
4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE
5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING
7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING
8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
9 PROPOSED RAILING
10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT
11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3
12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES
TO THE REAR ADDITION
KEYNOTE LEGEND
NORTHEAST PERSPECTIVE
4
5
1
8
6
3
7
6
1
4
P
6
2
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
3D VIEW OPT
2
027
1
2
3
ASPHALT SHINGLE
EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING
EXISTING BRICK
4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE
5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING
7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING
8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
9 PROPOSED RAILING
10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT
11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3
12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES
TO THE REAR ADDITION
KEYNOTE LEGEND
NORTHWEST PERSPECTIVE
5
4
3
2
8
6
9
9
1
9
4
9
P
6
3
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
MAIN LEVEL
OPT 3
028
1
1
A A
B B
C C
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
9
9
2 2 '-3 1 /2 "
33'-0"24'-111/2"22'-7"
1 0 '-0 1 /2 "
1 2 '-3 "
6'-0"3'-71/2"1'-11"3'-61/2"3'-61/2"3'-61/2"
4 '-1 1 1 /2 "
1 1 '-2 "
6 '-2 "
5'-5"
2 '-0 1 /2 "
1'-81/2"
33'-0"24'-111/2"22'-7"
2 2 '-3 1 /2 "
1 '-1 "
9 '-0 "
1 '-1 "
1 '-2 "
8 '-1 0 1 /2 "
6 "
5 1 /2 "
6 '-1 0 "
5 1 /2 "
2 '-1 0 "
1 '-2 "
1'-81/2"
14'-8"9'-8"8'-8"9'-71/2"15'-4"11'-31/2"11'-31/2"
4 '-1 1 1 /2 "
5 '-1 "
6 '-1 "
6 '-2 "
5'-0"51/2"
5 '-0 "
5 1 /2 "
1
034
1
034
2
034
2
034
4
034
4
034
3
034
3
034
3
033
2
032
1
031
4
032
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
MECH ROOM
001
6
6
EXISTING WALLS TO
REMAIN
PROPOSED REMODEL
ADDITION
WALL TYPE LEGEND
NPROPOSED MAIN LEVEL 1/4" = 1'-0"
P
6
4
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
UPPER LEVEL
OPT 3
029
1
1
A A
B B
C C
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
9
9
CDW
1
034
1
034
2
034
2
034
4
034
4
034
3
034
3
034
3
033
2
032
1
031
4
032
9'-73/4"15'-33/4"15'-7"
33'-0"
4 '-4 1 /2 "
7 "
1 2 '-3 "
2 '-1 1 /2 "
2 '-1 1 1 /2 "
14'-8"9'-8"8'-8"24'-111/2"5'-8"9'-11"9'-6"
33'-0"47'-61/2"2'-6"
51/2"14'-21/2"51/2"3'-21/2"51/2"13'-9"51/2"
2 2 '-3 1 /2 "
1 0 '-0 1 /2 "
1 2 '-3 "
7'-103/8"7'-53/8"
2 '-1 1 1 /2 "
4'-81/2"5'-103/4"4'-81/2"7'-1"3'-0"3'-0"2'-6"
51/2"14'-43/4"51/2"
2 '-1 1 /2 "
80'-61/2"2'-6"
9'-73/4"7'-103/8"7'-53/8"2'-10"2'-10"4'-111/2"4'-111/2"
6 '-1 1 /2 "
6 '-1 1 /2 "
1 0 1 /2 "
9 1 /2 "
5 1 /2 "
2 '-1 1 1 /2 "
4'-81/2"3'-17/8"7'-53/8"
2 '-6 3 /4 "
2'-21/2"
6 1 /2 "
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
EXIST. BEDROOM EXIST. BEDROOM DECK
BATH
110
DRESSING RM
111
BEDROOM
112
DECK
EXT. STAIR
STAIR
BATH
5 '-0 1 /8 "
5 1 /2 "
6
6
EXISTING WALLS TO
REMAIN
PROPOSED REMODEL
ADDITION
WALL TYPE LEGEND
NPROPOSED UPPER LEVEL 1/4" = 1'-0"
P
6
5
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
ROOF PLAN
OPT 3
030
1
1
A A
B B
C C
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
9
9
1
034
1
034
2
034
2
034
4
034
4
034
3
034
3
034
3
033
2
032
1
031
4
032
2:12 2:12
2:122:12
DECK BELOW DECK BELOW
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
6
6
NPROPOSED ROOF PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0"
P
6
6
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
ELEVATIONS
OPT 3
031
1
2
3
A3.1
SHEET TITLE
STRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECH
COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI
PROJECT NO:0608
DRAWN BY:SMW
CIVIL
CONTRACTOR
DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
CONCEPTUAL
APPROVAL
HPC 5/1/08
CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS
HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL
10/23/08 REVISIONS
5/7/09 REVISIONS
08/18/10 REVISIONS
ELEVATIONS
627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO
####
KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501
Efficiency In Mind, LLC
P.O. Box 1481
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: (970) 274-6336
Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.
P.O. Box 978
Avon, CO 81620
Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221
Fax: (970) 949-9339
Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958
DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/2010
23PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB
ADDITION 2000
PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888
25
'
11 '
100'
100'-9"
109'-9"
111'-1"
118'-7"
3'-4 1/2"
3'
-
8
"
2'
-
7
"
5
7
3
9
1
T.O. PLATE
T.O.F.F.
EXISTING V.I.F.
EXISTING V.I.F.
25' HEIGHT LIMIT
EXISTING GRADE
T.O. SLAB
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0"
3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0"
PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888
1
6
1
5
T.O. EXISTING RIDGE
124'-3"
UPPER LEVEL
T.O. FF 111'-1"
9 6 6 5 4 3 2 1
10
12
11
7
12
11
9
6
8
7
9
MAIN LEVEL
T.O. FF 100'-0"
LOWER LEVEL
T.O. FF 95'-0"
123 A3.1SHEET TITLESTRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECHCOPYRIGHTFORUM PHIPROJECT NO:0608DRAWN BY:SMWCIVILCONTRACTORDESCRIPTIONMARKDATECONCEPTUALAPPROVALHPC5/1/08CD6/13/08 CONSULTANTSHPC7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL10/23/08 REVISIONS5/7/09 REVISIONS08/18/10 REVISIONS
ELEVAT IONS
627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO####KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501Efficiency In Mind, LLCP.O. Box 1481Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 274-6336Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.P.O. Box 978Avon, CO 81620Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221Fax: (970) 949-9339Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/201023PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLABADDITION 2000PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25'11'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"3'-4 1/2"3'-8"2'-7"57 391 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0"
3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0"
1
2
3
ASPHALT SHINGLE
EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING
EXISTING BRICK
4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE
5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING
7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING
8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
9 PROPOSED RAILING
10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT
11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3
12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES
TO THE REAR ADDITION
KEYNOTE LEGEND
CHANGE ORDER 3 EAST ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0"
1 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"
P
6
7
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
ELEVATIONS
OPT 3
032
4
3
1
4
6
5 5
12
11
8
T.O. EXISTING RIDGE
124'-3"
UPPER LEVEL
T.O. FF 111'-1"
C B A
MAIN LEVEL
T.O. FF 100'-0"
LOWER LEVEL
T.O. FF 95'-0"
6
8
7
6
9 9
1
12
T.O. EXISTING RIDGE
124'-3"
UPPER LEVEL
T.O. FF 111'-1"
A B C
MAIN LEVEL
T.O. FF 100'-0"
LOWER LEVEL
T.O. FF 95'-0"
1
2
3
A3.2
SHEET TITLE
STRUCTURALCONSULTANTS
MECHANICAL
SURVEYORGEOTECH
COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI
PROJECT NO:0608
DRAWN BY:SMW
CIVIL
CONTRACTOR
DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
CONCEPTUAL
APPROVAL
HPC 5/1/08
CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS
HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL
10/23/08 REVISIONS
5/7/09 REVISIONS
08/18/10 REVISIONS
ELEVATIONS
627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO
####
KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501
Efficiency In Mind, LLC
P.O. Box 1481
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: (970) 274-6336
Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.
P.O. Box 978
Avon, CO 81620
Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221
Fax: (970) 949-9339
Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa Place
Denver, CO 80237
Phone: (720) 212-0727
Fax: (303) 484-8958
DATE OF PUBLICATION1/5/2016
3 18'-10 11/16"18'-10 11/16"25'100'100'-9"111'-1"118'-7"6 87POINT 3 POINT 4 15 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.T.O. SLAB25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB
100'
109'-9"
111'-7 3/16"
25
'
14
'
-
9
9/
1
6
"
14
'
-
9
9/
1
6
"
3
8
2
1
7
POINT 1POINT 2
5
EXISTING V.I.F.
EXISTING V.I.F.
EXISTING V.I.F.
25' HEIGHT LIMIT
EXISTING GRADE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
2 SOUTH 1/4" = 1'-0"
4 NORTH 1/4" = 1'-0"
1
2
3
A3.2
SHEET TITLE
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
MECHANICAL
SURVEYOR
GEOTECH
COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI
PROJECT NO:0608
DRAWN BY:SMW
CIVIL
CONTRACTOR
DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
CONCEPTUAL
APPROVAL
HPC 5/1/08
CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS
HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL
10/23/08 REVISIONS
5/7/09 REVISIONS
08/18/10 REVISIONS
ELEVATIONS
627 W. MAIN ST
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
FORUM PHI
174 Midland Ave, Suite 201
P.O. Box 1606
Basalt, Colorado 81621
PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585
DOUGLAS KELSO
####
KELSO ADDITION
Rocky Mountain Surveying
4133 Crystal Springs Rd.
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: (970) 379-1919
Fax: (970) 963-5873
Yeh and Associates, Inc.
170 Mel Ray Road
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Phone: (970) 384-1500
Fax: (970) 384-1501
Efficiency In Mind, LLC
P.O. Box 1481
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: (970) 274-6336
Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.
P.O. Box 978
Avon, CO 81620
Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221
Fax: (970) 949-9339
Mozer-Renn Structural Service
8573 E. Napa Place
Denver, CO 80237
Phone: (720) 212-0727
Fax: (303) 484-8958
DATE OF PUBLICATION1/5/2016
3
18
'
-
1
0
11
/
1
6
"
18
'
-
1
0
11
/
1
6
"
25
'
100'
100'-9"
111'-1"
118'-7"
6
8
7
POINT 3
POINT 4
1
5
T.O. PLATE
T.O.F.F.
T.O. SLAB
25' HEIGHT LIMIT
EXISTING GRADE
T.O. SLAB
100'
109'-9"
111'-7 3/16"
25
'
14
'
-
9
9/
1
6
"
14
'
-
9
9/
1
6
"
3
8
2
1
7
POINT 1POINT 2
5
EXISTING V.I.F.
EXISTING V.I.F.
EXISTING V.I.F.
25' HEIGHT LIMIT
EXISTING GRADE
12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLEEXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
2 SOUTH 1/4" = 1'-0"
4 NORTH 1/4" = 1'-0"
123 A3.1SHEET TITLESTRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECHCOPYRIGHTFORUM PHIPROJECT NO:0608DRAWN BY:SMWCIVILCONTRACTORDESCRIPTIONMARKDATECONCEPTUALAPPROVALHPC5/1/08CD6/13/08 CONSULTANTSHPC7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL10/23/08 REVISIONS5/7/09 REVISIONS08/18/10 REVISIONS
ELEVATIONS
627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO####KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501Efficiency In Mind, LLCP.O. Box 1481Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 274-6336Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.P.O. Box 978Avon, CO 81620Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221Fax: (970) 949-9339Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/201023PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLABADDITION 2000PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25'11 '100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"3'-4 1/2"3'-8"2'-7"57 391 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0"
3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0"
1
2
3
ASPHALT SHINGLE
EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING
EXISTING BRICK
4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE
5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING
7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING
8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
9 PROPOSED RAILING
10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT
11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3
12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES
TO THE REAR ADDITION
KEYNOTE LEGEND
4 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"
CHANGE ORDER 3 NORTH ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0"CHANGE ORDER 3 SOUTH ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0"
HEIGHT OF ROOF IS INACCURATELY SHOWN
IN THE CHANGE ORDER 3 DRAWINGS
VERIFICATION IN FIELD CONFIRMS THAT THIS
ROOF IS 24'-3" ABOVE PROJECT 100'
P
6
8
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
ELEVATIONS
OPT 3
033
1
2
3
A3.1
SHEET TITLE
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
MECHANICAL
SURVEYOR
GEOTECH
COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI
PROJECT NO:0608
DRAWN BY:SMW
CIVIL
CONTRACTOR
DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
CONCEPTUAL
APPROVAL
HPC 5/1/08
CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS
HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL
10/23/08 REVISIONS
5/7/09 REVISIONS
08/18/10 REVISIONS
ELEVATIONS
627 W. MAIN ST
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
FORUM PHI
174 Midland Ave, Suite 201
P.O. Box 1606
Basalt, Colorado 81621
PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585
DOUGLAS KELSO
####
KELSO ADDITION
Rocky Mountain Surveying
4133 Crystal Springs Rd.
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: (970) 379-1919
Fax: (970) 963-5873
Yeh and Associates, Inc.
170 Mel Ray Road
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Phone: (970) 384-1500
Fax: (970) 384-1501
Efficiency In Mind, LLC
P.O. Box 1481
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: (970) 274-6336
Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.
P.O. Box 978
Avon, CO 81620
Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221
Fax: (970) 949-9339
Mozer-Renn Structural Service
8573 E. Napa Place
Denver, CO 80237
Phone: (720) 212-0727
Fax: (303) 484-8958
DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/2010
2
3
PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888
ADDITION 2000
11'
25
'
100'
100'-9"
109'-9"
111'-1"
118'-7"
3
2
7
6
4
5
1
9
T.O. PLATE
T.O.F.F.
EXISTING V.I.F.
EXISTING V.I.F.
25' HEIGHT LIMIT
EXISTING GRADE
T.O. SLAB
ADDITION 2000
PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888
25
'
11'
100'
100'-9"
109'-9"
111'-1"
118'-7"
3'-4 1/2"
3'
-
8
"
2'
-
7
"
5
7
3
9
1
T.O. PLATE
T.O.F.F.
EXISTING V.I.F.
EXISTING V.I.F.
25' HEIGHT LIMIT
EXISTING GRADE
T.O. SLAB
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0"
3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 2 3 4 5 6 9
9'-71/2"
ORIGINAL 1888 PROPOSED ADDITION
3
1
1
2
8
6
9
7
6 10
12 9
T.O. EXISTING RIDGE
124'-3"
UPPER LEVEL
T.O. FF 111'-1"
6
7
11
MAIN LEVEL
T.O. FF 100'-0"
LOWER LEVEL
T.O. FF 95'-0"
123 A3.1SHEET TITLESTRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECHCOPYRIGHTFORUM PHIPROJECT NO:0608DRAWN BY:SMWCIVILCONTRACTORDESCRIPTIONMARKDATECONCEPTUALAPPROVALHPC5/1/08CD6/13/08 CONSULTANTSHPC7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL10/23/08 REVISIONS5/7/09 REVISIONS08/18/10 REVISIONS
ELEVATIONS
627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO####KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501Efficiency In Mind, LLCP.O. Box 1481Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 274-6336Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.P.O. Box 978Avon, CO 81620Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221Fax: (970) 949-9339Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/201023PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLABADDITION 2000PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25'11'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"3'-4 1/2"3'-8"2'-7"57 391 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0"
3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0"
1
2
3
ASPHALT SHINGLE
EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING
EXISTING BRICK
4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE
5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING
7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING
8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
9 PROPOSED RAILING
10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT
11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3
12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES
TO THE REAR ADDITION
KEYNOTE LEGEND
CHANGE ORDER 3 WEST ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0"
3 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"
HEIGHT OF ROOF IS INACCURATELY SHOWN
IN THE CHANGE ORDER 3 DRAWINGS
VERIFICATION IN FIELD CONFIRMS THAT THIS
ROOF IS 24'-3" ABOVE PROJECT 100'
P
6
9
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
SECTIONS
OPT 3
034
DRESSING RM
111
BEDROOM
112
DECKDECK
1 2 3 4 5 6 6 9
T.O. EXISTING RIDGE
124'-3"
UPPER LEVEL
T.O. FF 111'-1"
MAIN LEVEL
T.O. FF 100'-0"
LOWER LEVEL
T.O. FF 95'-0"
BATH
110
ABC
T.O. EXISTING RIDGE
124'-3"
UPPER LEVEL
T.O. FF 111'-1"
DRESSING RM
111
MAIN LEVEL
T.O. FF 100'-0"
BATH
110
A B C
T.O. EXISTING RIDGE
124'-3"
UPPER LEVEL
T.O. FF 111'-1"
DRESSING RM
111
MAIN LEVEL
T.O. FF 100'-0"
112
C B A
T.O. EXISTING RIDGE
124'-3"
UPPER LEVEL
T.O. FF 111'-1"
BEDROOM
MAIN LEVEL
T.O. FF 100'-0"
EXISTING WALLS TO
REMAIN
PROPOSED REMODEL
ADDITION
WALL TYPE LEGEND
1 SECTION SD 3 1/4" = 1'-0"
2 SECTION SD 3 1/4" = 1'-0"3 SECTION SD 3 1/4" = 1'-0"4 SECTION SD 3 1/4" = 1'-0"
P
7
0
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
3D VIEW OPT
3
035
1
2
3
ASPHALT SHINGLE
EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING
EXISTING BRICK
4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE
5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING
7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING
8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
9 PROPOSED RAILING
10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT
11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3
12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES
TO THE REAR ADDITION
KEYNOTE LEGEND
SOUTHWEST PERSPECTIVE
1
9
8
3
6
7
5
7
9
8
6
9
2
P
7
1
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
3D VIEW OPT
3
036
1
2
3
ASPHALT SHINGLE
EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING
EXISTING BRICK
4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE
5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING
7 PROPSED STUCCO SIDING
8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
9 PROPOSED RAILING
10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT
11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3
12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES
TO THE REAR ADDITION
KEYNOTE LEGEND
SOUTHEAST PERSPECTIVE
8
9
6
1
2
3
7
5
6
8
6
9
7
P
7
2
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
3D VIEW OPT
3
037
1
2
3
ASPHALT SHINGLE
EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING
EXISTING BRICK
4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE
5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING
7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING
8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
9 PROPOSED RAILING
10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT
11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3
12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES
TO THE REAR ADDITION
KEYNOTE LEGEND
NORTHEAST PERSPECTIVE
4
5
1
8
6
3
7
6
1
4
P
7
3
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
3D VIEW OPT
3
038
1
2
3
ASPHALT SHINGLE
EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING
EXISTING BRICK
4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE
5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING
7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING
8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
9 PROPOSED RAILING
10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT
11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3
12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES
TO THE REAR ADDITION
KEYNOTE LEGEND
NORTHWEST PERSPECTIVE
5
4
3
2
8
6
9
9
1 9
4
9
P
7
4
I
I
I
.
A
.
P75
III.A.
P76
III.A.
P77
III.A.
P78
III.A.
P79
III.A.
P80
III.A.
P81
III.A.
P82
III.A.
P83
III.A.
P84
III.A.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
HPC COVER
CVR
001
002
003
004
005
006
007
008
009
010
011
012
013
014
015
016
017
018
SITE PLAN
FAR CALCS
EXISTING MAIN LEVEL
EXISTING UPPER LEVEL
EXISTING ROOF PLAN
MAIN LEVEL
UPPER LEVEL
ROOF PLAN
ELEVATIONS
ELEVATIONS
ELEVATIONS
MAIN LEVEL EXTERIOR LIGHTING
UPPER LEVEL EXTERIOR LIGHTING
3D VIEW
3D VIEW
3D VIEW
3D VIEW
MATERIALS
SURVEY
627 W MAIN ST ASPEN CO 81611 USA
627 W MAIN ST.
SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION #9, SERIES 2008
FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM: NFPA 13D (EXISTING TO BE REVISED PER PLANS)
CODE EDITIONS: 2009 IRC, 2009 IMC, 2009 IECC, 2009 IPC, 2009 IFGC, 2011 NEC, CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 8
MASTER BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER 0085.2008.ARBK
SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDES:
RECONFIGURATION OF UPPER LEVEL BEDROOM/BATH ADDITION, DECKS AND ROOF LAYOUTS
HPC PRESENTATION SHEET INDEX
P
8
5
I
I
I
.
A
.
P
8
6
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
SITE PLAN
001
8"
ASPEN
10"
ASPEN
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
EXISTING STRUCTURE
1
2
3
A1.1
SHEET TITLE
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
MECHANICAL
SURVEYOR
GEOTECH
COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI
PROJECT NO:0608
DRAWN BY:SMW
CIVIL
CONTRACTOR
DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
CONCEPTUAL
APPROVAL
HPC 5/1/08
CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS
HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL
10/23/08 REVISIONS
5/7/09 REVISIONS
08/18/10 REVISIONS
SITE PLAN
627 W. MAIN ST
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
FORUM PHI
174 Midland Ave, Suite 201
P.O. Box 1606
Basalt, Colorado 81621
PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585
DOUGLAS KELSO
####
KELSO ADDITION
Rocky Mountain Surveying
4133 Crystal Springs Rd.
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: (970) 379-1919
Fax: (970) 963-5873
Yeh and Associates, Inc.
170 Mel Ray Road
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Phone: (970) 384-1500
Fax: (970) 384-1501
Efficiency In Mind, LLC
P.O. Box 1481
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: (970) 274-6336
Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.
P.O. Box 978
Avon, CO 81620
Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221
Fax: (970) 949-9339
Mozer-Renn Structural Service
8573 E. Napa Place
Denver, CO 80237
Phone: (720) 212-0727
Fax: (303) 484-8958
DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/2010
SD SD
1
9
R
@
7
"
=
1
1
'
-
1
"
1
8
T
@
1
1
3
/
8
"
=
1
7
'
-
0
5
/
8
"
U
P
12345678910111213141516171819
3
5
'
-
3
1
/
8
"
5
'
-
6
1
/
1
6
"
1
1
5
/
1
6
"
10'
5'
5'
5'
3'
-
2
"
RADON MITIGATION VENT LOCATION
FINAL LOCATION T.B.D.
AREA TO BE DEMOLISHED
EXTERIOR WALLS TO BE COMPLETELY REMOVED
STONE WALK
28.08'13.82'
x
x x x
952.29'
N09°03'13"E
P
.
O
.
B
.
D
8
"
D
L
1
1
'
D
5
"
D
L
5
'
D
1
0
"
D
L
7
'
D
8
"
D
L
1
3
'
D
7
"
D
L
8
'
L
O
T
B
0
.
0
6
8
A
C
±
3
0
.
0
0
'
N
7
5
°
0
9
'
1
1
"
W
100.00'S14°50'49"W
3
0
.
0
0
'
S
7
5
°
0
9
'
1
1
"
E
100.00'N14°50'49"E
WM
S
T
O
N
E
W
A
L
L
C
O
N
C
.
.
P
A
T
I
O
CONC.. WALK
P
A
T
I
O
S
T
O
N
E
S
H
E
D
W
O
O
D
CONC.. WALK
O.H. T
Y
P
.
CONC.. WALK
C
U
R
B
D
I
T
C
H
REBAR AN
D
Y
P
C
LS# 1
6
1
2
9
ELEV=79
2
4
.
5
8
R
E
B
A
R
A
N
D
R
P
C
L
S
#
2
5
9
4
7
REBA
R
A
N
D
RPC L
S
#
2
5
9
4
7
9
1
8
4
E
L
E
V
=
7
9
2
6
.
8
4
S
I
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
2
2
.
3
25.0
1
.
4
1.61
.
4
31.5
2
2
.
3
58.1
x
x x x x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
x
xxx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x x
EM
G
M
792
5
7925
7
9
2
6
SETBACK
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SETBACK
SE
T
B
A
C
K
KITCHEN
02
BEDROOM
05
CLOSET
07
GARAGE
08
PDR
19
BATHROOM
06
ENTRY
04
LIVING ROOM
01
EXISTING - 1,276 SF
256.30 sq ft
EXISTING - 640.5 SF
DECK - 270.98 sq ft
DECK - 85.36 sq ft
476.5 SF
2
3
3
A SITE PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0"
0 BASEMENT FAR 1" = 10'1 MAIN FLOOR FAR 1" = 10'2 UPPER FLOOR FAR 1" = 10'
0 SF
0 SF
TOTAL FAR
TOTAL UPPER FLOOR FAR
F.A.R. CALCULATION - TOTAL
MAIN FLOOR AREA - EXISTING
BASEMENT FLOOR AREA - EXISTING
TOTAL MAIN FLOOR FAR
0 SF
UPPER FLOOR AREA - EXISTING
TOTAL EXISTING FAR
UPPER FLOOR AREA - EXISTING
MAIN FLOOR AREA - EXISTING
ALLOWABLE DECKS (15%)360 SF
2,150 SF
F.A.R. CALCULATION - EXISTING
ALLOWABLE FAR (2,400 - 250 = 2,150)
0 SF
% EXPOSED (0%)
0 SF
0 SF
0%
3.15 SF
3.15 SF
3.15 SF
F.A.R. CALCULATION - APPROVED
MAIN FLOOR AREA - APPROVED
GARAGE AREA - APPROVED (256.30 - 250 = 6.30/2 = 3.15)
TOTAL MAIN FLOOR FAR - APPROVED
UPPER FLOOR AREA - APPROVED
TOTAL UPPER FLOOR FAR - APPROVED
BASEMENT FLOOR AREA - APPROVED
TOTAL BASEMENT FAR - APPROVED
MAIN FLOOR AREA - APPROVED
UPPER FLOOR AREA - APPROVED
BASEMENT FLOOR AREA - APPROVED
TOTAL BASEMENT FAR - APPROVED
1,276 SF
640.5 SF
1,916.5 SF
1916.5
DECK AREA - APPROVED (271+85.5 - 360)
493.45
1,276 SF
1279.15 SF
640.5 SF
TOTAL FAR AFTER DEMO ( 1916.5 - 370 = 1546.5)1,546.5 SF 1117 SF
2,396.15 SF
2,396.15
476.5 SF
476.5 SF
476.5 SF
0 SF
N
PROPOSED SITE PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0"
CHANGE ORDER 3 APPROVED SITE PLAN
P
8
7
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
FAR CALCS
002
1
2
3
A1.1
SHEET TITLE
STRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECH
COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI
PROJECT NO:0608
DRAWN BY:SMW
CIVIL
CONTRACTOR
DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
CONCEPTUAL
APPROVAL
HPC 5/1/08
CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS
HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL
10/23/08 REVISIONS
5/7/09 REVISIONS
08/18/10 REVISIONS
SITE PLAN
627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO
####
KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501Efficiency In Mind, LLCP.O. Box 1481Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 274-6336
Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.
P.O. Box 978
Avon, CO 81620
Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221
Fax: (970) 949-9339
Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958
DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/2010
SD SD 19 R @ 7" = 1 1'-1"18 T @ 1 1 3/8" = 17'-0 5/8"UP12345678910111213141516171819 35'-3 1/8"5'-6 1/16"11 5/16"10'5'5'5'3'-2"RADON MITIGATION VENT LOCATIONFINAL LOCATION T.B.D.AREA TO BE DEMOLISHEDEXTERIOR WALLS TO BE COMPLETELY REMOVEDSTONE WALK 28.08'13.82'xxxx952.29'N09°03'13"E P.O.B.D8"DL11'D5"DL5'D10"DL7'D8"DL13'D7"DL8'LOT B0.068 AC±30.00'N75°09'11"W100.00'S14°50'49"W30.00'S75°09'11"E 100.00'N14°50'49"E WM STONE WALLCONC.. PATIOCONC.. WALKPATIOSTONE
S
H
E
D
W
O
O
D
CONC.. WALKO.H. TYP.CONC.. WALKCURBDITCH REBAR AND YPCLS# 16129ELEV=7924.58REBAR
A
N
D
RPC LS#
2
5
9
4
7
REBAR ANDRPC LS# 25947 9
1
8
4
ELEV=
7
9
2
6
.
8
4
SINGLE FAMILYRESIDENCE 22.325.01.41.61.431.522.3 58.1 x x x x x x x x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxEMGM792579257926SETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKKITCHEN02BEDROOM05CLOSET07GARAGE08PDR19BATHROOM06ENTRY04LIVING ROOM01
EXISTING - 1,276 SF
256.30 sq ft
EXISTING - 640.5 SF
DECK - 270.98 sq ft
DECK - 85.36 sq ft
476.5 SF
2
3
3
A SITE PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0"
0 BASEMENT FAR 1" = 10'1 MAIN FLOOR FAR 1" = 10'2 UPPER FLOOR FAR 1" = 10'
0 SF
0 SF
TOTAL FAR
TOTAL UPPER FLOOR FAR
F.A.R. CALCULATION - TOTAL
MAIN FLOOR AREA - EXISTING
BASEMENT FLOOR AREA - EXISTING
TOTAL MAIN FLOOR FAR
0 SF
UPPER FLOOR AREA - EXISTING
TOTAL EXISTING FAR
UPPER FLOOR AREA - EXISTING
MAIN FLOOR AREA - EXISTING
ALLOWABLE DECKS (15%)360 SF
2,150 SF
F.A.R. CALCULATION - EXISTING
ALLOWABLE FAR (2,400 - 250 = 2,150)
0 SF
% EXPOSED (0%)
0 SF
0 SF
0%
3.15 SF
3.15 SF
3.15 SF
F.A.R. CALCULATION - APPROVED
MAIN FLOOR AREA - APPROVED
GARAGE AREA - APPROVED (256.30 - 250 = 6.30/2 = 3.15)
TOTAL MAIN FLOOR FAR - APPROVED
UPPER FLOOR AREA - APPROVED
TOTAL UPPER FLOOR FAR - APPROVED
BASEMENT FLOOR AREA - APPROVED
TOTAL BASEMENT FAR - APPROVED
MAIN FLOOR AREA - APPROVED
UPPER FLOOR AREA - APPROVED
BASEMENT FLOOR AREA - APPROVED
TOTAL BASEMENT FAR - APPROVED
1,276 SF
640.5 SF
1,916.5 SF
1916.5
DECK AREA - APPROVED (271+85.5 - 360)
493.45
1,276 SF
1279.15 SF
640.5 SF
TOTAL FAR AFTER DEMO ( 1916.5 - 370 = 1546.5)1,546.5 SF 1117 SF
2,396.15 SF
2,396.15
476.5 SF
476.5 SF
476.5 SF
0 SF
126.75 sq ft
1,277.25 sq ft
41.75 sq ft
72.75 sq ft @ 50% = 36.50 SF
322.75 sq ft
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
148.25 sq ft 102.50 sq ft
89.25 sq ft
640.00 sq ft
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
SETBACK LINE
445.00 sq ft
18.00 sq ft
18.00 sq ft
18.00 sq ft
18.00 sq ft
COUNTABLE
FAR FILLS
GARAGE
DECK
EXEMPT
Lower Level Floor Area Calculations
627 W Main St.
Proposed Lower Level Floor Area Calculations
Lower Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)126.75
Lower Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00
Total Lower Level Countable Area (Sq Ft)0.00
Total Proposed Floor Area Calculations
Lower Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00
Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1314.25
Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1085.00
Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00
Total Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft)2,399.25
Main Level Floor Area Calculations
627 W Main St.
Proposed Main Level Floor Area Calculations
Main Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)1277.75
Garage Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)322.75
Main Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)1277.75
Garage Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)36.50 Exemption (0-250 @ 0% 250-500 @ 50%
Total Main Level Countable Area (Sq Ft)1314.25
Proposed Deck/Porch Floor Area Calculations
Front Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)41.75
Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00
Exempt Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00
Deck/Porch Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00
Total Proposed Floor Area Calculations
Lower Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00
Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1314.25
Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1085.00
Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00
Total Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft)2,399.25
Upper Level Floor Area Calculations
627 W Main St.
Proposed Upper Level Floor Area Calculations
Upper Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)1085.00
Upper Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)1085.00
Total Upper Level Countable Area (Sq Ft)1085.00
Proposed Deck/Porch Floor Area Calculations
Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)340.00 148.25 + 89.25 + 102.50
Exempt Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)360.00 360 Sq Ft Exempt (15% of 2,400)
Deck/Porch Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00
Total Proposed Floor Area Calculations
Lower Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00
Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1314.25
Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1085.00
Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00
Total Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft)2,399.25
CHANGE ORDER 3 FAR CALCULATIONS 1' = 1'-0"
PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL FAR 1" = 10'PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL FAR 1" = 10'PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FAR 1" = 10'
P
8
8
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
EXISTING
MAIN LEVEL
003
1
2
3
A2.2
SHEET TITLE
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
MECHANICAL
SURVEYOR
GEOTECH
COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI
PROJECT NO:0608
DRAWN BY:SMW
CIVIL
CONTRACTOR
DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
CONCEPTUAL
APPROVAL
HPC 5/1/08
CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS
HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL
10/23/08 REVISIONS
5/7/09 REVISIONS
08/18/10 REVISIONS
MAIN FLOOR PLAN
627 W. MAIN ST
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
FORUM PHI
174 Midland Ave, Suite 201
P.O. Box 1606
Basalt, Colorado 81621
PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585
DOUGLAS KELSO
####
KELSO ADDITION
Rocky Mountain Surveying
4133 Crystal Springs Rd.
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: (970) 379-1919
Fax: (970) 963-5873
Yeh and Associates, Inc.
170 Mel Ray Road
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Phone: (970) 384-1500
Fax: (970) 384-1501
Efficiency In Mind, LLC
P.O. Box 1481
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: (970) 274-6336
Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.
P.O. Box 978
Avon, CO 81620
Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221
Fax: (970) 949-9339
Mozer-Renn Structural Service
8573 E. Napa Place
Denver, CO 80237
Phone: (720) 212-0727
Fax: (303) 484-8958
DATE OF PUBLICATION1/5/2016
01
D106
W101 W102 W105W104W103
D101
D104
D105
D102
SD SD
1
9
R
@
7
"
=
1
1
'
-
1
"
1
8
T
@
1
1
3
/
8
"
=
1
7
'
-
0
5
/
8
"
U
P
12345678910111213141516171819
3
3
3
22
'
-
3
1/
2
"
ORIGINAL 1888 ADDITION 2000 PROPOSED ADDITION
33'-1 1/2"24'-11 1/2"22'-6 1/2"
1'
-
9
"
80'-7 1/2"
80'-7 1/2"
10
'
22'-1"
33'-1 1/2"24'-11 1/2"22'-6 1/2"
33'-1 1/2"24'-11 1/2"1'-11"20'-7 1/2"
6'-7"5 1/2"
7'-1/2"
6'
-
1
"
5
1/
2
"
6'
-
6
1/
2
"
33'-1 1/2"1'-7 1/2"1'-3 1/2"2'-10 1/2"2'-10 1/2"2'-10"3'-6"3'-6"3'-6"2'-11 1/2"1'-11"20'-7 1/2"
33'-1 1/2"24'-11 1/2"22'-6 1/2"
10
'
-
1
1
"
6'
-
5
1/
2
"
5'
-
5
1/
2
"
5'
-
5
1/
2
"
6'
-
5
1/
2
"
1
A3.1
4
A3.2
2
A3.2
RADON MITIGATION VENT LOCATION
FINAL LOCATION T.B.D.
EXISTING CLOSET TO REMAIN
EXISTING WINDOW
TO BE REMOVED
FILL TO MATCH EXISTING
KITCHEN
02
BEDROOM
05
CLOSET
07
GARAGE
08
PDR
19
BATHROOM
06
ENTRY
04
LIVING ROOM
01
3
A3.1
SD
3
1)
3)
2)
SURFACE MOUNTED
SCONCE LIGHTING AS
REQUIRED AT EXITS.
FINAL LOCATIONS T.B.D.
4)
SMOKE DETECTOR
EXTERIOR CAN LIGHT
HANDRAILS AND
GUARDRAILS PER CODE.
5)
BUILDING REFERENCE
ELEVATION : 100'-0" = 7,926.38'
SURVEYED ELEV. V.I.F. TO
CONFIRM EXISTING
BASEMENT OMITTED
SLAB ON GRADE
6)
1 MAIN FLOOR PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0"
GENERAL NOTES
NCHANGE ORDER 3 MAIN LEVEL PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0"
P
8
9
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
EXISTING
UPPER LEVEL
004
1
2
3
A2.3
SHEET TITLE
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
MECHANICAL
SURVEYOR
GEOTECH
COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI
PROJECT NO:0608
DRAWN BY:SMW
CIVIL
CONTRACTOR
DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
CONCEPTUAL
APPROVAL
HPC 5/1/08
CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS
HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL
10/23/08 REVISIONS
5/7/09 REVISIONS
08/18/10 REVISIONS
UPPER FLOOR PLAN
627 W. MAIN ST
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
FORUM PHI
174 Midland Ave, Suite 201
P.O. Box 1606
Basalt, Colorado 81621
PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585
DOUGLAS KELSO
####
KELSO ADDITION
Rocky Mountain Surveying
4133 Crystal Springs Rd.
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: (970) 379-1919
Fax: (970) 963-5873
Yeh and Associates, Inc.
170 Mel Ray Road
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Phone: (970) 384-1500
Fax: (970) 384-1501
Efficiency In Mind, LLC
P.O. Box 1481
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: (970) 274-6336
Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.
P.O. Box 978
Avon, CO 81620
Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221
Fax: (970) 949-9339
Mozer-Renn Structural Service
8573 E. Napa Place
Denver, CO 80237
Phone: (720) 212-0727
Fax: (303) 484-8958
DATE OF PUBLICATION1/5/2016
D207
D208
D206 D204
D205
D201
D202
1
9
R
@
7
"
=
1
1
'
-
1
"
1
8
T
@
1
1
3
/
8
"
=
1
7
'
-
0
5
/
8
"
U
P
12345678910111213141516171819
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
1
2
1
A3.1
4
A3.2
2
A3.2
6'
-
4
13
/
1
6
"
22
'
-
3
5/
8
"
ORIGINAL 1888 PROPOSED ADDITION OVER 2000 ADDITION PROPOSED ADDITION
1'
-
6
"
10
'
5'-8 3/8"5'-3 5/8"5 1/2"11'-10"
5'-8 3/8"5'-3 5/8"5 1/2"11'-10"
2'
-
3
1/
2
"
1'
-
9
"
2'
-
3
"
2'
-
3
1/
2
"
1'-8"3'-4"
8'
3'
1'
-
5
"
1'
-
3
"
2'
-
4
"
1'
1'
-
5
1/
2
"
2'
-
6
"
1'
-
8
1/
2
"
33'-1 1/2"15'-10 1/16"3'-5/16"4'-6 1/8"2'-8 1/2"3'-2 1/2"3"3'-8 3/8"3'-5/16"13'-2 9/16"
5'
4'
-
8
13
/
1
6
"
6'
-
2
1/
2
"
10
'
-
1
1/
1
6
"
11'-6 1/2"
5'
-
9
"
5'
-
9
"
33'-1 1/2"11'13'-11 11/16"15'-10 13/16"8'-7 1/4"
3'
-
1
1
5/
1
6
"
1'
12
'
-
5
"
3'
-
1
0
9/
1
6
"
33'-1 1/2"11'12'-1 1/2"17'-9"8'-7 1/4"
33'-1 1/2"11'4'-10 3/8"3'7'-2 3/8"7'-2 7/16"3'4'-7 1/4"8'-7 1/4"
RADON MITIGATION VENT LOCATION
FINAL LOCATION T.B.D.
BEDROOM
10
BATHROOM
12
BEDROOM
16
CLOSET
11
CLOSET
20
DEN
14 BATH
17
SITTING ROOM
18
D212
3
A3.1
W211
W202 W204W203
W212W213W214
W201
W207W205W206
W210 W208W209
SD
3
1)
3)
2)
SURFACE MOUNTED
SCONCE LIGHTING AS
REQUIRED AT EXITS.
FINAL LOCATIONS T.B.D.
4)
SMOKE DETECTOR
EXTERIOR CAN LIGHT
HANDRAILS AND
GUARDRAILS PER CODE.
5)
BUILDING REFERENCE
ELEVATION : 100'-0" = 7,926.38'
SURVEYED ELEV. V.I.F. TO
CONFIRM EXISTING
BASEMENT OMITTED
SLAB ON GRADE
6)
2 UPPER FLOOR PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0"
GENERAL NOTES
NCHANGE ORDER 3 UPPER LEVEL PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0"
P
9
0
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
EXISTING
ROOF PLAN
005
1
2
3
A2.4
SHEET TITLE
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
MECHANICAL
SURVEYOR
GEOTECH
COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI
PROJECT NO:0608
DRAWN BY:SMW
CIVIL
CONTRACTOR
DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
CONCEPTUAL
APPROVAL
HPC 5/1/08
CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS
HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL
10/23/08 REVISIONS
5/7/09 REVISIONS
08/18/10 REVISIONS
ROOF PLAN
627 W. MAIN ST
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
FORUM PHI
174 Midland Ave, Suite 201
P.O. Box 1606
Basalt, Colorado 81621
PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585
DOUGLAS KELSO
####
KELSO ADDITION
Rocky Mountain Surveying
4133 Crystal Springs Rd.
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: (970) 379-1919
Fax: (970) 963-5873
Yeh and Associates, Inc.
170 Mel Ray Road
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Phone: (970) 384-1500
Fax: (970) 384-1501
Efficiency In Mind, LLC
P.O. Box 1481
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: (970) 274-6336
Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.
P.O. Box 978
Avon, CO 81620
Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221
Fax: (970) 949-9339
Mozer-Renn Structural Service
8573 E. Napa Place
Denver, CO 80237
Phone: (720) 212-0727
Fax: (303) 484-8958
DATE OF PUBLICATION1/5/2016
1
A3.1
4
A3.2
2
A3.2
ORIGINAL 1888 PROPOSED ADDITION OVER 2000 ADDITION PROPOSED ADDITION
DECK
DECK
3
A3.1
6:12
8:12
6:12
16:12
2:12
6:12
12:12 12:12
8:12
3:12
12:12
16:12
2:12
6:12
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:12
RADON MITIGATION VENT LOCATION
FINAL LOCATION T.B.D.
6:126:12
6:126:12
SD
3
1)
3)
2)
SURFACE MOUNTED
SCONCE LIGHTING AS
REQUIRED AT EXITS.
FINAL LOCATIONS T.B.D.
4)
SMOKE DETECTOR
EXTERIOR CAN LIGHT
HANDRAILS AND
GUARDRAILS PER CODE.
5)
BUILDING REFERENCE
ELEVATION : 100'-0" = 7,926.38'
SURVEYED ELEV. V.I.F. TO
CONFIRM EXISTING
BASEMENT OMITTED
SLAB ON GRADE
6)
3 ROOF PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0"
GENERAL NOTES
NCHANGE ORDER 3 ROOF PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0"
P
9
1
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
MAIN LEVEL
006
1
1
A A
B B
D D
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
9
9
B B
2 2 '-3 1 /2 "
4 '-1 1 1 /2 "
5 1 /2 "
1 3 '-4 1 /2 "
5 1 /2 "
3 '-0 1 /2 "
80'-61/2"
33'-0"24'-111/2"22'-7"
80'-61/2"
33'-0"24'-111/2"22'-7"
3
011
2
010
1
009
4
010
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
LIVING ROOM ENTRYKITCHEN
POWDER
BEDROOM
BATHROOM CLOSET
GARAGE
6
6
EXISTING WALLS TO
REMAIN
PROPOSED REMODEL
ADDITION
WALL TYPE LEGEND
NPROPOSED MAIN LEVEL 1/4" = 1'-0"
P
9
2
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
UPPER LEVEL
007
1
1
A A
B B
D D
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
9
9
B B
CDW
3
011
2
010
1
009
4
010
33'-0"10'-0"15'-33/4"15'-7"
73'-61/2"
51/2"
14'-21/2"51/2"
3'-21/2"51/2"
13'-9"
51/2"
2 2 '-3 1 /2 "
1 0 '-0 1 /2 "
1 2 '-3 "
2 '-1 1 1 /2 "
73'-61/2"7'-0"2'-6"
33'-0"10'-0"15'-33/4"5'-8"9'-11"
51/2"
14'-43/4"51/2"
5'-21/2"51/2"
9'-51/2"51/2"4'-5"2'-91/4"2'-91/4"4'-51/4"1'-10"6'-01/2"1'-7"
1 6 '-4 1 /2 "
5 1 /2 "
9 '-1 1 7 /8 "
5 1 /2 "
5 '-0 1 /8 "
5 1 /2 "
51/2"14'-43/4"51/2"7'-1"51/2"5'-1"51/2"2'-01/2"51/2"
4'-5"5'-61/2"4'-51/4"2'-61/2"2'-61/2"
1 6 '-4 1 /2 "
2 '-0 "
1 2 '-3 "
2 '-1 1 /2 "
5 1 /2 "
1 '-6 1 /2 "
5 1 /2 "
1 1 '-4 "
5 1 /2 "
1 '-8 "
5 1 /2 "
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
EXTERIOR STAIR
EXIST. BEDROOM EXIST. BEDROOM DECK
BATH
110
DRESSING RM
111
BEDROOM
112
DECK
STAIR
BATH
6
6
EXISTING WALLS TO
REMAIN
PROPOSED REMODEL
ADDITION
WALL TYPE LEGEND
NPROPOSED UPPER LEVEL 1/4" = 1'-0"
P
9
3
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
ROOF PLAN
008
1
1
A A
B B
D D
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
9
9
B B
3
011
2
010
1
009
4
010
8:12
8:128:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
DECK BELOW DECK BELOW
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
6
6
NPROPOSED ROOF PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0"
P
9
4
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
ELEVATIONS
009
1
2
3
A3.1
SHEET TITLE
STRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECH
COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI
PROJECT NO:0608
DRAWN BY:SMW
CIVIL
CONTRACTOR
DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
CONCEPTUAL
APPROVAL
HPC 5/1/08
CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS
HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL
10/23/08 REVISIONS
5/7/09 REVISIONS
08/18/10 REVISIONS
ELEVATIONS
627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO
####
KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501
Efficiency In Mind, LLC
P.O. Box 1481
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: (970) 274-6336
Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.
P.O. Box 978
Avon, CO 81620
Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221
Fax: (970) 949-9339
Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958
DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/2010
23PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB
ADDITION 2000
PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888
25
'
11 '
100'
100'-9"
109'-9"
111'-1"
118'-7"
3'-4 1/2"
3'
-
8
"
2'
-
7
"
5
7
3
9
1
T.O. PLATE
T.O.F.F.
EXISTING V.I.F.
EXISTING V.I.F.
25' HEIGHT LIMIT
EXISTING GRADE
T.O. SLAB
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0"
3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0"
PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888
1
6
1
5
T.O. EXISTING RIDGE
124'-3"
UPPER LEVEL
T.O. FF 111'-1"
9 6 6 5 4 3 2 1
10
12
11
12
11
9
6
8
7
9
7
13
14
14
MAIN LEVEL
T.O. FF 100'-0"
LOWER LEVEL
T.O. FF 95'-0"
123 A3.1SHEET TITLESTRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECHCOPYRIGHTFORUM PHIPROJECT NO:0608DRAWN BY:SMWCIVILCONTRACTORDESCRIPTIONMARKDATECONCEPTUALAPPROVALHPC5/1/08CD6/13/08 CONSULTANTSHPC7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL10/23/08 REVISIONS5/7/09 REVISIONS08/18/10 REVISIONS
ELEVAT IONS
627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO####KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501Efficiency In Mind, LLCP.O. Box 1481Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 274-6336Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.P.O. Box 978Avon, CO 81620Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221Fax: (970) 949-9339Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/201023PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLABADDITION 2000PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25'11'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"3'-4 1/2"3'-8"2'-7"57 391 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0"
3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0"
1
2
3
EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLE
EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING
EXISTING BRICK
4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE
5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING
7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING
8 PROPOSED ASPHALT SHINGLES
9 PROPOSED RAILING
10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT
11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3
12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES
TO THE REAR ADDITION
KEYNOTE LEGEND
13 PROPOSED EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURES
14 PROPOSED WINDOWS
15 PROPOSED DOORS
CHANGE ORDER 3 EAST ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0"
1 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"
P
9
5
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
ELEVATIONS
010
B
4
3 3
4
1
4
6
5 5
12
11
8
T.O. EXISTING RIDGE
124'-3"
UPPER LEVEL
T.O. FF 111'-1"
D B A
MAIN LEVEL
T.O. FF 100'-0"
LOWER LEVEL
T.O. FF 95'-0"
B
6
8
13
6
9 9
1
12
13
15
7
13
T.O. EXISTING RIDGE
124'-3"
UPPER LEVEL
T.O. FF 111'-1"
A B D
MAIN LEVEL
T.O. FF 100'-0"
LOWER LEVEL
T.O. FF 95'-0"
1
2
3
A3.2
SHEET TITLE
STRUCTURALCONSULTANTS
MECHANICAL
SURVEYORGEOTECH
COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI
PROJECT NO:0608
DRAWN BY:SMW
CIVIL
CONTRACTOR
DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
CONCEPTUAL
APPROVAL
HPC 5/1/08
CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS
HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL
10/23/08 REVISIONS
5/7/09 REVISIONS
08/18/10 REVISIONS
ELEVATIONS
627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO
####
KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501
Efficiency In Mind, LLC
P.O. Box 1481
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: (970) 274-6336
Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.
P.O. Box 978
Avon, CO 81620
Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221
Fax: (970) 949-9339
Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa Place
Denver, CO 80237
Phone: (720) 212-0727
Fax: (303) 484-8958
DATE OF PUBLICATION1/5/2016
3 18'-10 11/16"18'-10 11/16"25'100'100'-9"111'-1"118'-7"6 87POINT 3 POINT 4 15 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.T.O. SLAB25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB
100'
109'-9"
111'-7 3/16"
25
'
14
'
-
9
9/
1
6
"
14
'
-
9
9/
1
6
"
3
8
2
1
7
POINT 1POINT 2
5
EXISTING V.I.F.
EXISTING V.I.F.
EXISTING V.I.F.
25' HEIGHT LIMIT
EXISTING GRADE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
2 SOUTH 1/4" = 1'-0"
4 NORTH 1/4" = 1'-0"
1
2
3
A3.2
SHEET TITLE
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
MECHANICAL
SURVEYOR
GEOTECH
COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI
PROJECT NO:0608
DRAWN BY:SMW
CIVIL
CONTRACTOR
DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
CONCEPTUAL
APPROVAL
HPC 5/1/08
CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS
HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL
10/23/08 REVISIONS
5/7/09 REVISIONS
08/18/10 REVISIONS
ELEVATIONS
627 W. MAIN ST
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
FORUM PHI
174 Midland Ave, Suite 201
P.O. Box 1606
Basalt, Colorado 81621
PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585
DOUGLAS KELSO
####
KELSO ADDITION
Rocky Mountain Surveying
4133 Crystal Springs Rd.
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: (970) 379-1919
Fax: (970) 963-5873
Yeh and Associates, Inc.
170 Mel Ray Road
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Phone: (970) 384-1500
Fax: (970) 384-1501
Efficiency In Mind, LLC
P.O. Box 1481
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: (970) 274-6336
Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.
P.O. Box 978
Avon, CO 81620
Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221
Fax: (970) 949-9339
Mozer-Renn Structural Service
8573 E. Napa Place
Denver, CO 80237
Phone: (720) 212-0727
Fax: (303) 484-8958
DATE OF PUBLICATION1/5/2016
3
18
'
-
1
0
11
/
1
6
"
18
'
-
1
0
11
/
1
6
"
25
'
100'
100'-9"
111'-1"
118'-7"
6
8
7
POINT 3
POINT 4
1
5
T.O. PLATE
T.O.F.F.
T.O. SLAB
25' HEIGHT LIMIT
EXISTING GRADE
T.O. SLAB
100'
109'-9"
111'-7 3/16"
25
'
14
'
-
9
9/
1
6
"
14
'
-
9
9/
1
6
"
3
8
2
1
7
POINT 1POINT 2
5
EXISTING V.I.F.
EXISTING V.I.F.
EXISTING V.I.F.
25' HEIGHT LIMIT
EXISTING GRADE
12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLEEXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
2 SOUTH 1/4" = 1'-0"
4 NORTH 1/4" = 1'-0"
123 A3.1SHEET TITLESTRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECHCOPYRIGHTFORUM PHIPROJECT NO:0608DRAWN BY:SMWCIVILCONTRACTORDESCRIPTIONMARKDATECONCEPTUALAPPROVALHPC5/1/08CD6/13/08 CONSULTANTSHPC7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL10/23/08 REVISIONS5/7/09 REVISIONS08/18/10 REVISIONS
ELEVATIONS
627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO####KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501Efficiency In Mind, LLCP.O. Box 1481Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 274-6336Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.P.O. Box 978Avon, CO 81620Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221Fax: (970) 949-9339Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/201023PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLABADDITION 2000PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25'11 '100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"3'-4 1/2"3'-8"2'-7"57 391 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0"
3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0"
1
2
3
EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLE
EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING
EXISTING BRICK
4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE
5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING
7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING
8 PROPOSED ASPHALT SHINGLES
9 PROPOSED RAILING
10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT
11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3
12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES
TO THE REAR ADDITION
KEYNOTE LEGEND
13 PROPOSED EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURES
14 PROPOSED WINDOWS
15 PROPOSED DOORS
4 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"
CHANGE ORDER 3 NORTH ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0"CHANGE ORDER 3 SOUTH ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0"
HEIGHT OF ROOF IS INACCURATELY SHOWN
IN THE CHANGE ORDER 3 DRAWINGS
VERIFICATION IN FIELD CONFIRMS THAT THIS
ROOF IS 24'-3" ABOVE PROJECT 100'
P
9
6
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
ELEVATIONS
011
1
2
3
A3.1
SHEET TITLE
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
MECHANICAL
SURVEYOR
GEOTECH
COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI
PROJECT NO:0608
DRAWN BY:SMW
CIVIL
CONTRACTOR
DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
CONCEPTUAL
APPROVAL
HPC 5/1/08
CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS
HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL
10/23/08 REVISIONS
5/7/09 REVISIONS
08/18/10 REVISIONS
ELEVATIONS
627 W. MAIN ST
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
FORUM PHI
174 Midland Ave, Suite 201
P.O. Box 1606
Basalt, Colorado 81621
PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585
DOUGLAS KELSO
####
KELSO ADDITION
Rocky Mountain Surveying
4133 Crystal Springs Rd.
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: (970) 379-1919
Fax: (970) 963-5873
Yeh and Associates, Inc.
170 Mel Ray Road
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Phone: (970) 384-1500
Fax: (970) 384-1501
Efficiency In Mind, LLC
P.O. Box 1481
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: (970) 274-6336
Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.
P.O. Box 978
Avon, CO 81620
Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221
Fax: (970) 949-9339
Mozer-Renn Structural Service
8573 E. Napa Place
Denver, CO 80237
Phone: (720) 212-0727
Fax: (303) 484-8958
DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/2010
2
3
PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888
ADDITION 2000
11'
25
'
100'
100'-9"
109'-9"
111'-1"
118'-7"
3
2
7
6
4
5
1
9
T.O. PLATE
T.O.F.F.
EXISTING V.I.F.
EXISTING V.I.F.
25' HEIGHT LIMIT
EXISTING GRADE
T.O. SLAB
ADDITION 2000
PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888
25
'
11'
100'
100'-9"
109'-9"
111'-1"
118'-7"
3'-4 1/2"
3'
-
8
"
2'
-
7
"
5
7
3
9
1
T.O. PLATE
T.O.F.F.
EXISTING V.I.F.
EXISTING V.I.F.
25' HEIGHT LIMIT
EXISTING GRADE
T.O. SLAB
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0"
3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 2 3 4 5 6 9
9'-71/2"
ORIGINAL 1888 PROPOSED ADDITION
3
1
1
2
8
6
9
7
6 10
1213
9
13
14
14
T.O. EXISTING RIDGE
124'-3"
UPPER LEVEL
T.O. FF 111'-1"
6
7
1513
1115
14
14
MAIN LEVEL
T.O. FF 100'-0"
LOWER LEVEL
T.O. FF 95'-0"
123 A3.1SHEET TITLESTRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECHCOPYRIGHTFORUM PHIPROJECT NO:0608DRAWN BY:SMWCIVILCONTRACTORDESCRIPTIONMARKDATECONCEPTUALAPPROVALHPC5/1/08CD6/13/08 CONSULTANTSHPC7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL10/23/08 REVISIONS5/7/09 REVISIONS08/18/10 REVISIONS
ELEVATIONS
627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO####KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501Efficiency In Mind, LLCP.O. Box 1481Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 274-6336Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.P.O. Box 978Avon, CO 81620Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221Fax: (970) 949-9339Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/201023PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLABADDITION 2000PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25'11'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"3'-4 1/2"3'-8"2'-7"57 391 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0"
3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0"
1
2
3
EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLE
EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING
EXISTING BRICK
4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE
5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING
7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING
8 PROPOSED ASPHALT SHINGLES
9 PROPOSED RAILING
10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT
11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3
12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES
TO THE REAR ADDITION
KEYNOTE LEGEND
13 PROPOSED EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURES
14 PROPOSED WINDOWS
15 PROPOSED DOORS
CHANGE ORDER 3 WEST ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0"
3 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"
HEIGHT OF ROOF IS INACCURATELY SHOWN
IN THE CHANGE ORDER 3 DRAWINGS
VERIFICATION IN FIELD CONFIRMS THAT THIS
ROOF IS 24'-3" ABOVE PROJECT 100'
P
9
7
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
MAIN LEVEL
EXTERIOR
LIGHTING
012
1
1
A A
B B
D D
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
9
9
B B
3
011
2
010
1
009
4
010
LIVING ROOM ENTRYKITCHEN
POWDER
BEDROOM
BATHROOM CLOSET
GARAGE
6
6
EXTERIOR LIGHTING LEGEND
LT1 RECESSED DOWNLIGHT
WALL MOUNT FIXTURE
EXTERIOR SOFFIT
NMAIN LEVEL 1/4" = 1'-0"
P
9
8
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
UPPER LEVEL
EXTERIOR
LIGHTING
013
1
1
A A
B B
D D
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
9
9
B B
3
011
2
010
1
009
4
010
EXTERIOR STAIR
EXIST. BEDROOM EXIST. BEDROOM DECK
BATH
110
DRESSING RM
111
BEDROOM
112
DECK
STAIR
BATH
6
6
EXTERIOR LIGHTING LEGEND
LT1 RECESSED DOWNLIGHT
WALL MOUNT FIXTURE
EXTERIOR SOFFIT
NUPPER LEVEL 1/4" = 1'-0"
P
9
9
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
3D VIEW
014
1
2
3
EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLE
EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING
EXISTING BRICK
4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE
5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING
7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING
8 PROPOSED ASPHALT SHINGLES
9 PROPOSED RAILING
10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT
11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3
12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES
TO THE REAR ADDITION
KEYNOTE LEGEND
13 PROPOSED EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURES
14 PROPOSED WINDOWS
15 PROPOSED DOORS
SOUTHWEST PERSPECTIVE
1
13
3
6
7
5
7
9
8
6
9
13
15
13
14
9
15
2
P
1
0
0
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
3D VIEW
015
1
2
3
EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLE
EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING
EXISTING BRICK
4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE
5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING
7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING
8 PROPOSED ASPHALT SHINGLES
9 PROPOSED RAILING
10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT
11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3
12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES
TO THE REAR ADDITION
KEYNOTE LEGEND
13 PROPOSED EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURES
14 PROPOSED WINDOWS
15 PROPOSED DOORS
SOUTHEAST PERSPECTIVE
13
6
1
2
3
7
5
8
6
7
13
9
13
P
1
0
1
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
3D VIEW
016
1
2
3
EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLE
EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING
EXISTING BRICK
4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE
5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING
7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING
8 PROPOSED ASPHALT SHINGLES
9 PROPOSED RAILING
10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT
11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3
12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES
TO THE REAR ADDITION
KEYNOTE LEGEND
13 PROPOSED EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURES
14 PROPOSED WINDOWS
15 PROPOSED DOORS
NORTHEAST PERSPECTIVE
4
5
1
8
6
3
7
6
1
4
13
P
1
0
2
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
3D VIEW
017
1
2
3
EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLE
EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING
EXISTING BRICK
4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE
5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN
6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING
7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING
8 PROPOSED ASPHALT SHINGLES
9 PROPOSED RAILING
10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT
11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3
12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES
TO THE REAR ADDITION
KEYNOTE LEGEND
13 PROPOSED EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURES
14 PROPOSED WINDOWS
15 PROPOSED DOORS
NORTHWEST PERSPECTIVE
5
4
3
2
6
9
9
1 9
4
9
8
1313
15
8
15
P
1
0
3
I
I
I
.
A
.
6
2
7
W
M
A
I
N
S
T .
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
P
R
E
S
E
R
V A T
I
O
N
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
715 West Main Street Ste. 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157
F: 866.770.5585
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
PLANNING
FORUMPHI.COM
MATERIALS
018
PROPOSED ASPHALT SHINGLE PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING PROPOSED HORIZONTAL SIDING
P
1
0
4
I
I
I
.
A
.
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 232 E. Main Street– Demolition, Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual
Commercial Design, Special Review and Variation Review, PUBLIC
HEARING
DATE: July 27, 2016
______________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to demolish the existing gas station on this site and replace
is with a retail building. The property is within the Main Street Historic District.
Aspects of the new development to be addressed by HPC at this hearing include site plan,
architectural design, public amenity, utility/delivery/trash and mitigation of transportation
impacts. Affordable housing mitigation will be addressed at Final and is expected to be in the
form of credits generated by units built elsewhere in town.
As with all Conceptual reviews, Council will have the authority to call up HPC’s determination
and require the board to reconsider the project if appropriate.
APPLICANT: 232 East Main Street LLC, represented by Bendon Adams.
ADDRESS: 232 E. Main Street, Lots R and S, Block 73, City and Townsite of Aspen.
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-20-008.
ZONING: MU, Mixed Use.
DEMOLITION
The first topic for HPC to discuss is demolition of the existing building. Demolition shall be
approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria:
a. The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety
and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner,
b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly
maintain the structure,
c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen or
d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance.
Staff response: The project involves removal of all of the existing development.
A gas station has existed on this site for decades. Below is a photo of the predecessor to the
existing building. The Conner family’s original station was built at 232 E. Main in 1953 and
P105
IV.A.
2
replaced with the current building in 1970. In this photo, the second story of the Cortina Lodge,
then known as Aspen Court, had not been built.
While the long time existence of the use is noteworthy, the current structure has not been
identified as having historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance,
therefore staff finds that the first demolition Criterion D is met.
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met:
a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in
which it is located and
b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of
the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent
designated properties and
c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs
of the area.
P106
IV.A.
3
Staff Response: This structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic
District in which it is located and therefore its loss will not have a negative impact on
preservation goals.
Staff finds the criteria for Demolition are met and recommends approval.
CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW & COMMERCIAL
DESIGN
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval of a Conceptual Development Plan,
and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be
binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or
addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and
proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as
part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant.
Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a
proposal. The design guidelines for conceptual review of the proposed new structure are found
in the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines; Main Street
Historic District chapter. This project is also subject to Chapter 12 of the new City of Aspen
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, which deal with accessibility, architectural lighting,
mechanical equipment, services areas and signage. Some of these topics will be addressed at
Final, rather than Conceptual. The applicable guidelines for this hearing are attached as “Exhibit
A.”
In terms of form, staff finds the proposal
creates an appropriate dialogue with the
landmarked Cortina Lodge directly to the
west, as well as the Victorian’s further
down the block. The new building is
predominantly gable roofed, with a pitch
that is not quite as shallow as the Chalet,
but not quite as steep as the 19th century
residential buildings. The façade is
broken down into two modules, each of
which are related to the width of adjacent
historic development. The western
module is just over 20’ wide and the
eastern module is just over 30’ wide.
This is consistent with the remaining Victorians marked with a star on the 1904 Sanborn map
above. The nearest of the structures at Cortina Lodge is two stories tall and 20’ wide, while the
one story building is closer to 15’ in width.
Regarding height, directly adjacent to Cortina Lodge, the proposed structure at 232 E. Main is
approximately 3’ taller at the ridgeline. At the corner, the higher ridgeline is approximately 7’
P107
IV.A.
4
taller than the Cortina Lodge, but approximately the same height as the roof of Carl’s Pharmacy.
The overall height of the 232 E. Main building drops slightly along the alley.
Staff finds the structure is a good fit with the scale of the surrounding development. Materials
and windows will be discussed at Final, but the project seems to be compatible while still being
architecturally interesting itself.
While the building complies with the maximum floor area allowed for the lot; 1:1 or 5,976
square feet, it is only allowable to achieve that maximum square footage by incorporating more
than one use into the development. Commercial use only is limited to 0.75:1, or 4,482 square
feet. The applicant is asking to be allowed to construct an extra 1,494 square feet of commercial
space, rather than forgo it, or build that area and devote it to residential use, for instance.
Arguably, that extra square footage is the 2nd level retail space shown on the plans. This area has
low sidewalls and is essentially within the roof form. If it were deleted, the overall size of the
building would be unlikely to decrease. HPC has the authority to allow the commercial area to
be built to a 1:1 floor area under Special Review, as follows:
Dimensional requirements. Whenever the dimensional requirements of a proposed
development are subject to special review, the development application shall only be approved if
the following conditions are met.
1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks
of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or
enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the
underlying zone district.
2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts
on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts, including but not limited to the effects
of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the neighborhood or blocking of a
designated view plane.
As stated above, staff finds the project to be a good fit for the neighborhood. Mitigation for the
impacts of the extra commercial space, such as parking and affordable housing, is being required.
This discussion is primarily about building size. Staff supports the requested variation.
The proposed building is sited in a traditional manner, but setbacks must be discussed. The
Mixed Use zone district requires a front yard setback of at least 10’, with side and rear yards to
be a minimum of 5’.
The Code offers flexibility on the front yard by allowing the applicant’s request that the front
yard be reduced to 5’ through the Special Review criteria listed above.
The face of the building is 10’ back from the street, however a roof overhang and sidewalls
project forward 5’ to shelter outdoor seating, similar to a porch. Staff finds the feature to be
successful in terms of design, but looking down the blockface, a deeper front yard setback is
typical. There are three Victorian era homes which are 12-15’ back from the street. One of the
P108
IV.A.
5
Cortina structures has a small area of yard in front of it, while the other has a balcony which
extends a bit past the front lot line, over the sidewalk.
Staff finds the proposal to have an inadequate front setback. The sense that there is a limited
setback seems to be increased by the dense planting border indicated conceptually on the
renderings, and the fact that there is a deck at the front of the building that is up to about a foot
and half above grade. The primary building entrance does not seem to be on the Main Street
side, as suggested by the guidelines, a circumstance which also erodes the relationship to
adjacent front yards. Staff recommends against this variance, finding this minimal front setback
to be incompatible with the surrounding development.
The applicant also requests a variation of the 5’ side yard setback requirements. On the west,
against the Cortina, a 0’ yard is requested. On the east the building meets the setback, but a fixed
overhang shielding an entrance exceeds the maximum 18” eave projection that is allowed,
instead occupying the full setback.
Unlike the front yard, where HPC may consider setbacks variations based on the character of the
neighborhood, sideyard variations must be shown to address a hardship.
In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the appropriate
decision-making body shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist:
1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and
policies of this Title and the Municipal Code; and
2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use
of the parcel, building or structure; and
P109
IV.A.
6
3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would
deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone
district and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship, as distinguished from mere
inconvenience. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the
Board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply:
a) There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel,
building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings
in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or
b) Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied
by the terms of this Title and the Municipal Code to other parcels, buildings or
structures, in the same zone district.
The criteria for receiving a variance are strict. A property owner must demonstrate that
reasonable use of the property has been withheld and can only be achieved by providing a
variance. In situations where all, or practically all, reasonable use of a property is made
impossible by development regulations, the City has the ability to grant a variance to avoid a
“regulatory taking”. Staff believes this property has reasonable use.
The property owner must demonstrate that his rights, as compared with owners of similar
properties, have been deprived. In considering this criterion, the HPC must consider unique
conditions inherent to the property which are not the result of the applicant’s actions.
There are other design solutions that could still achieve their concept without requiring a
variance, particularly in terms of the awning. A retractable fabric awning may project into the
full 5’ setback. On the Cortina side, both Building and Engineering have concerns with the
possibility of snow shedding from 232 E. Main onto the neighbor’s roof, which is not permitted.
The Cortina does not provide their own sideyard setback, so the applicant believes that butting
the buildings together, as they are now, and providing snowmelt on the 232 E. Main roof will
work to control the issue.
Staff does not find that this application meets the standards for a hardship variance and
recommends revisions. This is staff’s only objection to the proposal, but will necessitate
continuing the hearing.
Downtown projects like this one typically require mitigation of development impacts, such as
parking. There is no code compliant parking on the site now. The redevelopment will generate
a requirement for 3.8 parking spaces. The applicant has opted to choose cash-in-lieu payment,
which will be a condition of approval.
The project must meet requirements for adequate utility, trash and recycling areas. These
topics will be more fully vetted at building permit by Environmental Health, Engineering and
Utilities, however the application appears to meet the following criteria by providing all elements
in the correct size and placement on the site. These functions are placed at the northwest corner
of the lot:
P110
IV.A.
7
1. A trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the
minimum size and location standards established by Title 12, Solid Waste, of the
Municipal Code, unless otherwise established according to said Chapter.
2. A utility area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum
standards established by Title 25, Utilities, of the Municipal Code, the City’s Electric
Distribution Standards, and the National Electric Code, unless otherwise established
according to said Codes.
3. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located and combined to the greatest
extent practical.
4. If the property adjoins an alleyway, the utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be
along and accessed from the alleyway, unless otherwise approved through Title 12, Solid
Waste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review.
5. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be fenced so as not to be visible from the
street, unless they are entirely located on an alleyway or otherwise approved though Title
12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. All
fences shall be six (6) feet high from grade, shall be of sound construction, and shall be
no less than ninety percent (90%) opaque, unless otherwise varied through Chapter
26.430, Special Review.
6. Whenever utility, trash, and recycle service areas are required to be provided abutting an
alley, other portions of a building may extend to the rear property line if otherwise
allowed by this Title, provided that the utility, trash and recycle area is located at grade
and accessible to the alley.
7. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property. Easements shall allow
for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall be minimized to the
extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site conditions, such as an
historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly
licensed.
8. All commercial and lodging buildings shall provide a delivery area. The delivery area
shall be located along the alley if an alley adjoins the property. The delivery area shall be
accessible to all tenant spaces of the building in a manner that meets the requirements of
the International Building Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City
of Aspen. All non-ground floor commercial spaces shall have access to an elevator or
dumbwaiter for delivery access. Alleyways (vehicular rights-of-way) may not be utilized
as pathways (pedestrian rights-of-way) to meet the requirements of the International
Building Code. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building.
Shared facilities are highly encouraged.
P111
IV.A.
8
9. All commercial tenant spaces located on the ground floor in excess of 1,500 square feet
shall contain a vestibule (double set of doors) developed internal to the structure to meet
the requirements of the International Energy Conservation Code as adopted and amended
by the City of Aspen, or an air curtain.
10. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the
roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical.
11. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within
the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed
behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a
public right-of-way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for
future ventilation and ducting needs.
12. The trash and recycling service area requirements may be varied pursuant to Title 12,
Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code. All other requirements of this subsection may be
varied by special review (see Chapter 26.430.040.E, Utility and delivery service area
provisions).
Redevelopment of this site requires the provision of an on-site public amenity space or a cash-
in-lieu payment. Currently there is no qualifying public amenity on the site. The applicant has
chosen to create usable open space on the property and is meeting the requirement to devote at
least 10% of the site to this purpose. When combined with upgrades to occur in the right of way
bordering the site the improvements have very meaningful benefit to this area of town.
Desirable characteristics of on-site amenity space are addressed by the following requirements:
1. The dimensions of any proposed on-site public amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of
uses and activities to occur, considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants
and uses.
2. The public amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this
characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade
trees, solar access, view orientation and simple at-grade relationships with adjacent
rights-of-way are encouraged.
3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures,
rights-of-way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment.
4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls,
sidewalks or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian
environment.
5. Any variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity, Subsection
26.575.030.F., promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements.
P112
IV.A.
9
The application must incorporate improvements to pedestrian and transit amenities, such as
safety improvements, public bike racks, etc. The application is considered to have a minor
impact due to the credits for the existing structure, however the applicant is required to complete
a “Transportation Impact Analysis.” The property is currently entirely surrounded by driveway,
which creates pedestrian and car conflicts and an unappealing walking environment.
The right-of-way on both sides of the property will be upgraded to current standards with a
detached sidewalk and trees. A bulb out is proposed at the corner to increase pedestrian space
and provide for a safer street crossing. A We-cycle station is planned on the west side of
Monarch, along with three new parallel parking spaces. The applicant must continue to work
with the Engineering, Parks and Transportation Departments for an approved plan for Final
review. The TIA plan included in the application more than mitigates for the impact
calculations, however Engineering has noted that credit is not appropriate for a few actions and
they wish to further evaluate the bulb out design. There are a number of details regarding
sidewalk widths, curb design and tree locations that have been identified as needing minor
revisions, according to comments provided by the Engineering Department. This can be further
refined for Final review.
REFERRAL COMMENTS
As part of the preparation of this project for HPC review, staff and the applicant met with other City
Departments to discuss any conditions for the redevelopment. Although many of the concerns of
other departments will be resolved as part of the building permit review process, HPC may wish to
be aware of the topics.
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District – ACSD has numerous standards that will need to be
addressed at building permit. There are no unique challenges identifed in their comments.
Building- Building indicted the need to install a grease interceptor for food prep and sprinklers
throughout the building. A hinged door, rather than folding doors, will be needed facing Main
Street.
Engineering Dept – Engineering commented on the TIA and provided input about Stormwater
mitigation, snow storage, and utilities. Engineering noted that proper remediation of the
underground gas storage tanks will be required.
Environmental Health Dept – Environmental Health has preliminarily reviewed the plans for a
302 square foot trash and utility area and found them to be compliant. They may require the
interior access to the trash area to be by ramp, rather than stairs or a lift.
Parks Dept – Parks has a number of requirements for the installation of trees in the new right-of-
way design.
Zoning Dept – Zoning requested topographical information (provided in the application) and
will review the height of the building relative to natural grade. There is more than a 2’ drop from
P113
IV.A.
10
front to back. Zoning mentioned the need to provide adequate information regarding exterior
lighting and mechanical equipment at permit review.
______________________________________________________________________________
The HPC may:
• approve the application,
• approve the application with conditions,
• disapprove the application, or
• continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
______________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends HPC continue the application, requiring the design to be modified to meet the
front, east and west setback requirements.
A resolution approving the project as proposed is attached, should the Commission elect to make
that decision.
Exhibits:
Resolution #__, Series of 2016
A. Design Guidelines
B. DRC Comments
C. Application
Exhibit A- Relevant Design Guidelines
7.1 Preserve the historic district’s street plan.
Three distinct street grids intersect in the neighborhood (Main Street, side streets and alleys).
This layout should be retained.
7.2 Maintain the traditional character and function of an alley where it exists.
Locate buildings and fences along the alley’s edge to maintain its narrow width.
Paving alleys is strongly discouraged.
Closing an alley is inappropriate.
7.3 Parking shall not be positioned between the building and the street. Visual impacts
shall be minimized in one or more of the following ways:
Parking shall be placed underground or in a structure wherever possible.
Where surface parking must be provided, it shall be located to the rear or the interior of the
property, behind the structure.
P114
IV.A.
11
Surface parking shall be externally buffered with landscaping, and internally planted and
landscaped to soften parking areas.
7.5 Respect historic settlement patterns.
Site a new building in a way similar to historic buildings in the area. This includes
consideration of building setbacks, entry orientation and open space.
7.6 Where a sidewalk exists, maintain its historic material and position.
Historically, sidewalks were detached from the curb, and separated by a planting strip.
7.7 Minimize the use of curb cuts along the street.
Provide auto access along an alley wherever possible.
New curb cuts are not permitted.
Whenever possible, remove an existing curb cut.
7.8 Provide a walk to the primary building entry, perpendicular from the public sidewalk.
7.9 Orient a new building in a manner that is similar to the orientation of buildings during
the mining era, with the primary entrance facing the street.
The building should be oriented parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern
of the block.
A structure, or each street-facing unit in the case of a multifamily structure, should have a
primary entrance that faces the street. The entrance to the structure should be at an appropriate
residential scale and visible from the street.
7.10 When constructing a new building, locate it to fit within the range of yard dimensions
seen in the block historically during the mining era.
These include front yard , side yard and rear yard setbacks.
Setbacks vary in some areas, but generally fall within an established range. A greater variety
in setbacks is inappropriate in this context.
Consider locating within the average range of setbacks along the block.
7.13 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of
the Main Street Historic District.
Refer to the zone district regulations to determine the maximum height limit on the subject
property.
A minimum second story floor to ceiling height of 9 ft. should be used in a method that is
respectful to historic buildings.
Additional height, as permitted in the zone district, may be added for one or more of the
following reasons:
- The primary function of the building is civic. (i.e. the building is a Museum,
Performance Hall, Fire Station, etc.)
- Some portion of the property is affected by a height restriction due to its proximity to a
historic resource, or location within a View Plane, therefore relief in another area may be
appropriate.
- To benefit the livability of Affordable Housing units.
P115
IV.A.
12
- To make a demonstrable (to be verified by the Building Department) contribution To the
building's overall energy efficiency, for instance by providing improved daylighting.
7.14 Design a new building to appear similar in scale to those in the district during the
mining era.
Generally, a new building should be one to two stories in height.
7.15 On larger structures, subdivide the mass into smaller “modules” that are similar in
size to single family residences or Victorian era buildings seen traditionally on Main Street.
Other subordinate modules may be attached to the primary building form.
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.
12.4 Minimize the visual impacts of utilitarian areas, such as mechanical equipment and
trash storage.
Place mechanical equipment on the ground where it can be screened.
Mechanical equipment may only be mounted on a building on an alley façade.
Rooftop mechanical equipment or vents must be grouped together to minimize their visual
impact. Where rooftop units are visible, it may be appropriate to provide screening with
materials that are compatible with those of the building itself. Use the smallest, low profile
units available for the purpose.
Window air conditioning units are not allowed.
Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Group them in a
discrete location. Use pedestals when possible, rather than mounting on a historic building.
Paint mechanical equipment in a neutral color to minimize their appearance by blending
with their backgrounds
In general, mechanical equipment should be vented through the roof, rather than a wall, in a
manner that has the least visual impact possible.
Avoid surface mounted conduit on historic structures.
12.5 Awnings must be functional.
An awning must project at least 3 feet, and not more than 5 feet from the building façade.
An awning may only be installed at a door or window and must fit within the limits of the
door or window opening.
Awnings are inappropriate on AspenModern properties unless historic evidence shows
otherwise.
P116
IV.A.
Historic Preservation Commission
Resolution #__, Series 2016
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION #__
(SERIES OF 2016)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
GRANTING DEMOLITION, CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT,
CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL REVIEW AND
VARIATIONS FOR 232 E. MAIN STREET, LOTS R AND S, BLOCK 73, CITY AND
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
Parcel ID: 2737-073-20-008
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from 232
East Main Street, LLC, represented by Bendon Adams, LLC, for the following land use review
approvals:
• Demolition pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415,
• Commercial Design Review, Conceptual pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412,
• Major Development, Conceptual pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415,
• Special Review pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.430,
• Variances pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.314; and,
WHEREAS, all code citation references are to the City of Aspen Land Use Code in
effect on the day of initial application, March 15 2016, as applicable to this Project; and,
WHEREAS, as a result of a Development Review Committee meeting held on June 8,
2016, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Parks Department and Zoning; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed
Application and recommended continuation for restudy; and,
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the Application at a duly
noticed public hearing on July 27, 2016, during which time the recommendations of the
Community Development Director and comments from the public were requested and heard by
the Historic Preservation Commission; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing the Historic Preservation Commission
approved Resolution #__, Series of 2016, by a __ to __ vote, granting approval with the
conditions listed hereinafter.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Historic Preservation Commission hereby grants Demolition, Conceptual Major Development,
Conceptual Commercial Design, Special Review and Variation approval for the project as
presented to HPC on July 27, 2016, with the following conditions:
P117
IV.A.
Historic Preservation Commission
Resolution #__, Series 2016
Page 2 of 2
1. Cash-in-lieu mitigation is required for the generation of 3.8 new parking spaces.
2. Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, the Applicant is required to obtain Final Major Development Review and Growth
Management approval.
A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one
(1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an
application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the
Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole
discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for
a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written
request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date.
Section 3:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation
presented before the Community Development Department and the Historic Preservation
Commission 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 4:
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 5:
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.
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 27th day of July, 2016.
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
__________________________ ______________________________
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Willis Pember, Chair
Attest:
_______________________________
Kathy Strickland, Deputy Clerk
P118
IV.A.
REFERRAL COMMENTS
From: Hailey Guglielmo, EIT
Development Engineer
City of Aspen Engineering Department
To: Amy Simon
Date: June 8, 2016
RE: DRC Comments for 232 E Main St Conceptual Application
These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the project packet
submitted for purpose of the DRC meeting.
1) Transportation Impact Analysis:
a) Further discussion is needed on the bulb out. At detailed review, after an engineer is hired
for the project, the applicant will need to provide a detailed plan that is approved by the
Engineering, Transportation, Streets, and Fire Departments. Multiple design iterations
may be necessary to arrive at an agreed upon design.
b) MMLOS Item Number 9, Large Scale Landscaping, is not applicable to this site. Please
remove this item from the report.
c) MMLOS Item Number 14, Enhanced Pedestrian Access Points, is not applicable for
solely the replacement of ADA ramps.
d) TDM Item Number 6, Transit Access Improvement, is not applicable. The project already
takes credit for the improved sidewalk within the MMLOS section of the TIA. Credit
cannot be given twice for the same measure.
2) Drainage:
a) At detailed review provide a conceptual major drainage report that meets URMP and
Engineering Design Standards. The conceptual design shall address WQCV and drainage
requirements.
b) If a vault is utilized the pipe discharge cannot point discharge into the gutter. The outlet
must tie into the city system. There is a stormline in Monarch St.
3) Snow Storage:
a) Show the snow storage area. A minimum functional area equaling 30% of the paved area
shall be provided contiguous to the paved and designed to accommodate snow storage.
For heated areas, the functional area can be reduced to 10%. If the rooftop deck is to be
utilized throughout the winter, where will snow storage from the roof take place?
b) Ensure there is no snow shed onto neighboring properties. The current proposed pitched
roof will dump snow directly onto the Cortina Lodge, which will not be permitted.
4) Sidewalk and Curb and Gutter:
a) A pedestrian easement is needed on Monarch St where the walkway extends onto the
property.
P119
IV.A.
DRC Comments – 232 E Main Conceptual Page 2
b) All sidewalk, curb and gutter must meet the Engineering Standards as outlined in Title 21
and the Engineering Design Standards adopted by Title 29.
c) Minimum sidewalk width for a commercial/residential area is 8’.
d) The existing ramps on the corner of Main St and Monarch are non-complying ramps.
Curbheads along ramps are only permitted if the curbhead is adjacent to a planting or
other non-walking surface. Since this particular corner is paved throughout, winged
ramps are required. Winged ramps are currently shown on the planset and will be
required.
5) Alley:
a) Alley entrance shall meet COA Standards.
b) Identify utility pedestals serving the property. Relocate all utility pedestals to within the
property boundary.
6) Environmental Site Assessment
a) Due to the previous use of the site as a gas station and the location of an underground
storage tank an environmental site assessment and soils test is required. The site
assessment and remediation is to comply with the Colorado Department of Labor and
Employment – Division of Oil and Public Safety.
7) Survey Requirements
a) A survey requirement is to pothole and provide depth to utilities. Please comply with this
requirement at building permit submittal.
8) Utilities:
a) All trees shall be planted a minimum of 10’ away from existing and proposed utilities.
b) Fire flow calculations shall be submitted at building permit to demonstrate the requested
service line size is necessary. Calculations for a service line one size smaller shall also be
submitted which show the smaller line does not supply adequate fire sprinkler protection.
c) Ensure the proposed transformer easement provides 3’ of clearance on the sides and back
of the transformer, and a 10’ clearance at the front of the transformer which can extend
into the City alley.
________________________________________________________________________
ACSD Requirements: 232 E. Main Street 6-8-16
The applicant for these proposed developments shall commit to funding the replacement of the
existing District owned main sanitary sewer lines the alleys serving the proposed developments.
Service is contingent upon compliance with the District’s rules, regulations, and specifications,
which are on file at the District office.
ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof,
foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system.
On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD.
Oil and Grease interceptors (not traps) are required for all food processing establishments.
Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance establishments.
P120
IV.A.
DRC Comments – 232 E Main Conceptual Page 3
Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells.
Elevator shafts drains must flow thru o/s interceptor
Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to
specific ACSD requirements and prior to soil stabilization. Soil nails are not allowed in ROW.
Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. Above grade development
shall flow by gravity.
One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more
than one unit is served by a single service line.
Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will
require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to
be dedicated to the district.
All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office can develop
an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district.
Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity
of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee
will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint.
Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of
concern in order to fund the improvements needed.
Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned capacity of
the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will be assessed fees to
cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. The District
would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the material
cost difference for larger line).
Pool drain sizing shall be approved by the District.
Glycol heating and snow melt systems must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any
portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have
approved containment facilities.
The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and requirements once detailed
building and utility plans are available.
Parks comments are:
1. Minimum 5-foot planting strip required for street trees, with 30” good soil depth.
2. City Forester will make recommendations on species of trees.
3. Irrigation required for trees.
4. Install utilities outside of driplines of trees to minimize future impacts.
5. If electrical boxes are planned for tree area, stanchion must be outside of root ball.
6. Structural cells not required unless planting strip is reduced to less than 5-feet, however
they may help to offset storm water mitigation.
P121
IV.A.
DRC Comments – 232 E Main Conceptual Page 4
Zoning comments
* Address is on Main Street; multiple entrances appear to be on Monarch. The tables in the
5’
front yard setback; not consistent with front entrance.
* Outdoor Lighting: please provide information
P122
IV.A.
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
March 15, 2016
Updated June 29, 2016
Ms. Amy Simon
Historic Preservation Officer
City of Aspen
130 So. Galena St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: 232 East Main Street Conceptual Application
Ms. Simon:
Please accept this request to redevelop the property located at 232 East Main Street, also known as the
Conoco gas station. The site is 5,981 sf in size and is located in the Mixed Use Zone District/Main Street
Historic District. As you know, the property previously received conceptual approvals for a three story
lodge, Base 2. The conceptual lodge project was subject to a community vote last November and the Base
2 lodge was voted down.
The applicant has updated the application based on feedback from City Planning Staff and City referral
departments. A walkway has been added to the Main Street façade to create a more prominent entrance
and to fit into the pattern of walkways and entrances in the Main Street Historic District. The requested
rear yard setback variance for exterior stairs to access the trash area is removed from the application –
circulation is now accommodated inside the building. A snowmelt/snow shedding system is shown on the
elevations to insure that snow will not shed onto the Cortina Lodge or into the right of way. The trash area
has been enlarged to meet City Standards, rather than request Special Review from the Environmental
Health Department.
The applicant has developed a new concept for the property: a 100% commercial building that is well
below the height limit, incorporates lively outdoor space to energize Main Street, and redefines the street
corner. The proposal is to redevelop the current gas station with a new two story commercial building.
No basement is proposed at this time. The front portion of the property is one story and a small two story
space is located toward the alley. The proposed building is a fresh approach to new construction in the
Historic District that blends Victorian and Modern by drawing inspiration from the gable forms of the
historic Victorians and the deep overhang of the chalet style represented by the Cortina Lodge. Being in
the Historic District this project is reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission for demolition
approval, and for compatibility with surrounding landmarks and consistency with the purpose and intent
of the Historic Preservation program. Public amenity is located onsite around the perimeter of the building
P123
IV.A.
232 East Main Street
Conceptual HPC Reviews
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
in the required setbacks. This application requests the following reviews of the Historic Preservation
Commission:
• Conceptual Major Development Review (Exhibit A)
• Conceptual Commercial Design Review (Exhibit A)
• Special Review for an FAR increase for internal commercial use from 0.75:1 to 1:1 (Exhibit B)
• Setback Variances (Exhibit B)
• Demolition for properties within the Main Street Historic District (Exhibit C)
The property is currently developed as a gas station with a 1,500 sf nla commercial building. There is
currently no legal parking and the entire site is hardscape and curb cuts (a survey showing a lack of legal
parking spaces is provided in the application). The proposal is to demolish the building and construct a
new two story building that is entirely commercial. The required 3.8 parking spaces 1 are to be mitigated
through cash in lieu which is allowed by right in the Land Use Code for commercial buildings.
Special Review for an increase to the internal commercial floor area from 0.75:1 to 1:1 and for a 5’ front
yard setback for an eave overhang and wing walls is proposed and discussed in Exhibit B of the application.
The requested floor area increase affects the size of the use inside the building and not the overall size of
the building. The size of the building complies with the Mixed Use Zone District. The building face along
Main Street sits 11’ back from the property line, where 10’ is required by zoning. The requested variance
is for a 5’ setback from a deep eave overhang and wing walls that define a modern front porch to relate to
the residential character of the 19th century Victorians in the District, and to create a buffer for the Cortina
Lodge which has a 0’ front yard setback.
We look forward to discussing this project with you and with the Historic Preservation Commission as we
feel that it is a great addition to the Main Street Historic District and serves as an appropriate transition to
the Commercial Core Historic District. Please contact me with any questions or concerns: 925-2855 or
sara@bendonadams.com
Kind Regards,
Sara Adams, AICP
Principal
BendonAdams, LLC
1 1 parking space per 1,000 sf of net leasable is required to be mitigated. Existing deficit on property is 1.5 spaces
(1,500 sf/1,000). A deficit is allowed to be maintained when a property is redeveloped. Total net leasable proposed
is 5,371 sf = 5.3 spaces (5,371/1,000). 5.3 spaces – 1.5 spaces = 3.8 spaces
P124
IV.A.
232 East Main Street
Conceptual HPC Reviews
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
Attachments:
A – Commercial Design Review and Major Development Conceptual Review
B – Special Review and Setback Variances
C – Demolition
D – TIA
E – Drawings, survey, rendering
F - Pre-Application conference summary
G - Land Use Application and Dimensional Requirements Form.
H – Vicinity Map
I – Authorization to represent
J – Disclosure of ownership
K – Agreement to pay form
L – HOA compliance form
M – list of owners within 300 ft. will be furnished closer to the public hearing to ensure compliance with
the 6 month requirement for the list.
P125
IV.A.
Exhibit A- Conceptual Design Reviews
Page 1 of 8
Exhibit A - Commercial Design Standards and HPC Major Development Conceptual for 232 East Main
Street
26.415.060.B.2 The City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, as amended, which are on
file with the Community Development Department, will be used in the review of requests of certificates
of no negative effect or certificates of appropriateness. Conformance with the applicable guidelines and
the common development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304 will be necessary for the
approval of any proposed work:
Please find below (part A) an analysis of the Main Street Historic District Design Guidelines and Objectives.
Conceptual Commercial Design Standard Review uses the same design guidelines for the Main Street
Historic District and the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. As described below, the project conforms
with the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines/ Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design
Guidelines and Objectives. Relevant Design Guidelines found in Chapter 12, Architectural Lighting,
Mechanical Equipment, Service Areas and Signage, are addressed below.
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.
The proposed new building intends to meet all IBC requirements for accessibility.
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.
The existing building is not a designated landmark and is proposed to be demolished.
12.3 Exterior light fixtures should be simple in character.
• The design of a new fixture should be appropriate in form, finish, and scale with the structure.
• New fixtures should not reflect a different period of history than that of the affected building, or
be associated with a different architectural style.
• Lighting should be placed in a manner that is consistent with the period of the building, and
should not provide a level of illumination that is out of character.
• One light adjacent to each entry is appropriate on an Aspen Victorian residential structure. A
recessed fixture, surface mounted light, pendant or sconce will be considered if suited to the
building type or style.
• On commercial structures and AspenModern properties, recessed lights and concealed lights are
often most appropriate.
Conceptual ideas for exterior gooseneck light fixtures that highlight the proposed architectural style are
included in the application. Light fixtures, cut sheets and a more refined lighting plan will be included in
the final design application for Final Review.
12.4 Minimize the visual impacts of utilitarian areas, such as mechanical equipment and trash
storage.
P126
IV.A.
Exhibit A- Conceptual Design Reviews
Page 2 of 8
• Place mechanical equipment on the ground where it can be screened.
• Mechanical equipment may only be mounted on a building on an alley façade.
• Rooftop mechanical equipment or vents must be grouped together to minimize their visual
impact. Where rooftop units are visible, it may be appropriate to provide screening with
materials that are compatible with those of the building itself. Use the smallest, low profile
units available for the purpose.
• Window air conditioning units are not allowed.
• Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Group them in a discrete
location. Use pedestals when possible, rather than mounting on a historic building.
• Paint mechanical equipment in a neutral color to minimize their appearance by blending with
their backgrounds
• In general, mechanical equipment should be vented through the roof, rather than a wall, in a
manner that has the least visual impact possible.
• Avoid surface mounted conduit on historic structures.
Mechanical equipment is centrally located on the rooftop and is concealed from the street behind the
gable roof forms.
12.5 Awnings must be functional.
• An awning must project at least 3 feet, and not more than 5 feet from the building façade.
• An awning may only be installed at a door or window and must fit within the limits of the door
or window opening.
• Awnings are inappropriate on AspenModern properties unless historic evidence shows
otherwise.
A metal awning is proposed at the primary entrance facing Monarch Street. The awning is not
operable, but is about 6 ft., defines the entrance, and protects customers from weather.
12.6 Signs should not obscure or damage historic building fabric.
• Where possible, install a free standing sign that is appropriate in height and width. Consolidate
signage for multiple businesses.
• Mount signs so that the attachment point can be easily repaired when the sign is replaced. Do
not mount signage directly into historic masonry.
• Blade signs or hanging signs are generally preferred to wall mounted signs because the number
of attachment points may be less.
• Signs should be constructed of wood or metal.
• Pictographic signs are encouraged because they add visual interest to the street.
12.7 Sign lighting must be subtle and concealed.
• Pin mounted letters with halo lighting will not be approved on Aspen Victorian buildings.
• The size of a fixture used to light a sign must be minimized. The light must be directed towards
the sign. If possible, integrate the lights into the sign bracket.
12.8 Locate signs to be subordinate to the building design.
• Signs should be located on the first floor of buildings, primarily.
• Signs should not obscure historic building details.
P127
IV.A.
Exhibit A- Conceptual Design Reviews
Page 3 of 8
12.9 Preserve historic signs.
There is no historic building fabric on the proposed building. The applicant intends to meet the Guidelines
and the City of Aspen Sign Code when a sign permit is submitted.
26.412.050. Review Criteria. An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved
with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria:
A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design
standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more appealing pattern of development
considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard.
Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070,
Suggested design elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the standards.
Site plan:
The project proposes a double gable roof facing Main Street that defines the corner and reflects the pattern
of gable roofs in the block. The project reflects the street grid (Guideline 7.1) and maintains the traditional
character of the alley by accessing trash and utilities from the rear of the property (Guideline 7.2). A
sidewalk is proposed to define an entrance along Main Street. An awning is proposed to extend from the
building along Monarch Street to define the entrance and as a pedestrian scaled element. A 6’ deep eave
with wing walls projects from the building facing Main Street that is a modern interpretation of a
traditional front porch element found on the 19th century building in the District.
New sidewalks and street planting that are compliant with City of Aspen regulations are proposed
(Guideline 7.6). A landscape garden bed is proposed along Main Street to create a buffer between outdoor
seating and Highway 82 and to creatively resolve grade changes along the street. Parking is proposed
through cash in lieu, which is a by right mitigation option at $30,000 per space.
P128
IV.A.
Exhibit A- Conceptual Design Reviews
Page 4 of 8
Building Orientation and Alignment:
The proposed building is setback 5 feet from Main Street and between 5 and 7 feet from Monarch Street.
It is parallel to lot lines which maintains the traditional street grid and softens the 0 feet setback of the
designated Cortina Lodge by proposes a front yard setback that fits within the range of setbacks
(Guidelines 7.9 and 7.10).
The image above illustrates the building setbacks in the
neighborhood. As shown below, the Cortina sticks out into the right
of way and there are almost 0 feet setbacks across Main and
Monarch Streets. More generous setbacks are found heading west
on Main Street.
Building Height, Mass and Scale:
The proposed building is a range of building height from 18’ 10” and
20’ 3.25” gable forms facing Main Street. The property slopes toward
the alley with a 2’ grade change. Building height steps down toward
the rear of the property as shown on the east elevation. The entire
building is well below the 28’ height limit in the Mixed Use Zone
District. This range of heights is consistent with Guideline 7.13
and is sensitive to the two story historic Cortina Lodge.
7.13 A new building or addition should reflect the range and
variation in building height of the Main Street Historic District.
7.14 Design a new building to appear similar in scale to those
in the district during the mining era.
The property is almost 60’ in width. The proposed building is
broken into 2 gable modules that creates a repetitive pattern
Figure 1: Building setbacks in neighborhood. Star indicates 232 E. Main Street. Cortina is directly to the east.
Figure 2: 1904 Sanborn Map shows almost a 0’ setback at 232 E. Main Street.
Figures 3 & 4: Landmarks located within the same block as
232 E. Main St.
P129
IV.A.
Exhibit A- Conceptual Design Reviews
Page 5 of 8
that is in scale and harmonious with the other two story buildings in the block (Guideline 7.14). A glass
connector piece is proposed between the two gable forms along Monarch Street to create a visual break.
The proposed building is clearly new construction that draws inspiration from the historic gable forms in
the Historic District and the deep overhang of the chalet style represented by the Cortina Lodge.
B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to
commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements
of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, to the greatest
extent practical. Changes to the façade of the building may be required
to comply with this Section.
n/a.
C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the
Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and
Guidelines as determined by the appropriate Commission. The
guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines
that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The
City shall determine when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria,
standards and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards and
guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances
where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives
might be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the
intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means.
Please see discussion above. The conceptual design guidelines for the
Main Street Historic District are met.
26.412.060. Commercial Design Standards.
The following design standards, in addition to the commercial, lodging and historic district design
objectives and guidelines, shall apply to commercial, lodging and mixed-use development:
A. Public Amenity Space. Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to an
attractive, exciting and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and
entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements
to public rights-of-way or private property within commercial areas.
On parcels required to provide public amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Public amenity, the
following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity. Acceptance of the method or
combination of methods of providing the public amenity shall be at the option of the Planning and Zoning
Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, according to the procedures herein
and according to the following standards:
1. The dimensions of any proposed on-site public amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of uses and
activities to occur, considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants and uses.
There is currently no public amenity on-site as the entire site is used for a gas station. The required public
amenity is 10% or 597.6 sf. At grade areas adjacent to the building along the east elevation and the garden
area along Main Street meet the public amenity design standards and encompass 898.8 sf. Extensive
Figure 5: Cortina Lodge.
P130
IV.A.
Exhibit A- Conceptual Design Reviews
Page 6 of 8
upgrades to the right of way including street trees, sidewalks and a new intersection are proposed (subject
to Parks and Engineering Department approval). The total public amenity including the off-site
improvements to the right of way equals 2,979 sf.
2. The public amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this characteristic, public
seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade trees, solar access, view
orientation and simple at-grade relationships with adjacent rights-of-way are encouraged.
Outdoor restaurant seating and landscaping are proposed along Main Street to vitalize the corner. New
street trees are proposed to provide shade. The outdoor seating is underneath the eave overhang and as
such does not count toward the public amenity calculation.
3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures, rights-of-
way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment.
The public amenity area is open to view and open to the sky. There are no walls or enclosures and the
grade changes are less than 2’. Landscaping is proposed and detailed information will be provided during
Final Design Review. All of these features contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment on a busy
corner.
4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls, sidewalks
or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian environment.
The proposed amenity space does not duplicate existing spaces. The proposed space defines the corner
while providing a simple and energized area for pedestrians and customers to dwell.
5. Any variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity, Subsection
26.575.030.F., promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements.
No variations are requested to the design and operational standards for public amenity.
B. Utility, delivery and trash service provision. When the necessary logistical elements of a
commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success of the
district. Poor logistics of one (1) building can detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient
delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The following standards shall apply:
1. A trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the
minimum size and location standards established by Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code,
unless otherwise established according to said Chapter.
The required size for this type of development is 20’w x 15’d x 10’h and 300 sf. The proposed area is located
off of the alley and is 22’5.75”w x 19’2.75”d x 10’ h and 302 sf in size (interior measurement). A slightly
shorter trash area was originally proposed; however, after consulting with the Environmental Health
Department, the depth was increased to meet city Standards.
2. A utility area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum standards
established by Title 25, Utilities, of the Municipal Code, the City’s Electric Distribution Standards,
and the National Electric Code, unless otherwise established according to said Codes.
A 10’ x 10’ area is proposed on the alley that is open to the sky, which meets the Utilities Department
Section 5 requirement.
P131
IV.A.
Exhibit A- Conceptual Design Reviews
Page 7 of 8
3. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located and combined to the greatest extent
practical.
The utility and trash areas are co-located along the alley in the northwest corner away from Monarch
Street.
4. If the property adjoins an alleyway, the utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be along and
accessed from the alleyway, unless otherwise approved through Title 12, Solid Waste, of the
Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review.
These areas are located off of the alley.
5. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be fenced so as not to be visible from the street,
unless they are entirely located on an alleyway or otherwise approved though Title 12, Solid
Waste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. All fences shall be six
(6) feet high from grade, shall be of sound construction, and shall be no less than ninety percent
(90%) opaque, unless otherwise varied through Chapter 26.430, Special Review.
The utility trash area is located on an alley inside the building’s double pocket doors to prevent wildlife
from entering and to visibly shield the area from the alley.
6. Whenever utility, trash, and recycle service areas are required to be provided abutting an alley,
other portions of a building may extend to the rear property line if otherwise allowed by this Title,
provided that the utility, trash and recycle area is located at grade and accessible to the alley.
The trash and recycle area is located at grade along the alley that is accessible from inside the building.
7. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property. Easements shall allow for service
provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall be minimized to the extent practical and
should only be necessary when existing site conditions, such as an historic resource, dictate such
encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed.
The utility areas are proposed to be located on private property. The applicant understands that an
easement may be necessary to provide access.
8. All commercial and lodging buildings shall provide a delivery area. The delivery area shall be
located along the alley if an alley adjoins the property. The delivery area shall be accessible to all
tenant spaces of the building in a manner that meets the requirements of the International
Building Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. All non-ground
floor commercial spaces shall have access to an elevator or dumbwaiter for delivery access.
Alleyways (vehicular rights-of-way) may not be utilized as pathways (pedestrian rights-of-way) to
meet the requirements of the International Building Code. Any truck loading facility shall be an
integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged.
Deliveries are proposed along the alleyway. The building is setback from the property line by 5’ providing
a pathway that is on the property. Additional information and proposed pathway will be provided during
Final Design Reviews and as part of the building permit application.
9. All commercial tenant spaces located on the ground floor in excess of 1,500 square feet shall
contain a vestibule (double set of doors) developed internal to the structure to meet the
requirements of the International Energy Conservation Code as adopted and amended by the City
of Aspen, or an air curtain.
P132
IV.A.
Exhibit A- Conceptual Design Reviews
Page 8 of 8
An internal air curtain is proposed at the main entrance along Monarch Street as noted on the plans.
10. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the roof. The
exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical.
Mechanical equipment and venting is proposed on the one story flat roof in a location that is fully shielded
by the gable roof forms. Venting locations will be provided in the Final Design Review application.
11. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within the
building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a
parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a public right-of-way
at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for future ventilation and
ducting needs.
The rooftop mechanical is clustered on the one story flat roof element toward the rear of the property.
Details of the mechanical equipment location will be provided in the Final Design Review application.
12. The trash and recycling service area requirements may be varied pursuant to Title 12, Solid Waste,
of the Municipal Code. All other requirements of this subsection may be varied by special review
(see Chapter 26.430.040.E, Utility and delivery service area provisions).
A variance from the trash area requirements is not requested.
P133
IV.A.
Exhibit B – Special Review
and Setback Variances
Exhibit B – Special Review and Setback Variances for 232 East Main Street
Special Review: The proposed project requests Special Review approval to increase the commercial floor
area from 0.75:1 to 1:1 and to decrease the front yard setback from 10’ to 5’ for an eave overhang and
wing walls. The Mixed Use Zone District authorizes these variations through specific Special Review
criteria.
26.4130.040. Review standards for special review. No development subject to special review shall be
permitted unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed
development complies with all standards and requirements set forth below.
A. Dimensional requirements. Whenever the dimensional requirements of a proposed
development are subject to special review, the development application shall only be approved
if the following conditions are met.
1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks of
the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances
the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying
zone district.
Commercial floor area: The Mixed Use Zone District allows commercial floor area to reach 1:1
through Special Review, where 0.75:1 is allowed by right. The project proposes a 100% commercial
building that is well below the allowable height and meets the overall allowable floor area for the
parcel.
The proposed commercial use is compatible with surrounding land uses: across the street is the
100% commercial Moore Building, Explore booksellers and Main Street bakery are all 100%
commercial buildings. Salon Tullio, Aspen Consignment and the office building across from Main
Street Bakery are all commercial buildings. There are very limited residential uses in this section of
Main Street including the Cortina Lodge which is housing for the Hotel Jerome employees and a
residential historic Victorian adjacent to the Cortina.
The purpose of the Mixed Use Zone District is “provide a transition between the commercial core
and the surrounding residential neighborhoods and to provide a variety of building sizes
compatible with character of the Main Street Historic District.” Considering the location of the
property on the edge of the Commercial Core Zone District and the activity on this corner, we
believe that a commercial building is most appropriate in this area. Adding residential to the
building would raise the height through the addition of a true second floor, which we believe would
be detrimental to the Cortina Lodge and the surrounding 1 and 2 story landmarks in the block. The
proposed maximum height of just over 20’ to the 1/3 point fits in with neighboring 2 story
structures and is compatible with surrounding landmarks:
Carl’s Pharmacy – about 27’5” top of parapet
Cortina Lodge (the 2 story building) – about 21’ gable roof apex
Hotel Jerome – about 50’ at the corner of Monarch and Bleeker Sts.
Residential 2 story Victorian adjacent to Cortina – about 20’ 6” gable roof apex
P134
IV.A.
Exhibit B – Special Review
and Setback Variances
Allowing an increase to the commercial floor area within the building does not change the
maximum allowable floor area for the property; it only affects the use of the interior space. We
find that a commercial building in this location is appropriate and that the proposed use fits in
with the largely commercial neighborhood.
Front yard setback: The Mixed Use Zone District allows up to a 5’ front yard setback through
Special Review. Examining the historic and current development patterns of the neighborhood
supports a 5’ setback requirement as a way to soften the Cortina Lodge, which sits in the right of
way, and to create a transition between the Main Street and Commercial Core Historic Districts.
The 10’ setback is important toward the middle of the Main Street Historic District where generous
front yards are the pattern of development and represent 19th century residential site plans as
seen below; however, 232 East Main Street is located at the end of the District where the setbacks
are not as generous.
Figure 3: An example of generous front yards on Main Street between 3rd and 4th Streets – 0.3 miles away from the subject
property.
Figure 1: Building setbacks in neighborhood. Star indicates 232 E. Main Street. Cortina is directly to the east.
Figure 2: 1904 Sanborn Map shows almost a 0’ setback at 232 E. Main Street.
P135
IV.A.
Exhibit B – Special Review
and Setback Variances
The proposed building facade sits 11’ feet back from the front property line; however, the wing
walls and the eave overhang are 5’ from the front property line. The proposal finds a successful
middle ground between meeting the Code for the actual building wall and creating a buffer for the
Cortina Lodge by projecting wing walls and a deep eave to the 5’ setback line.
2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts
on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts, including but not limited to the effects of
shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the neighborhood or blocking of a designated
view plane.
Commercial floor area: The project proposes to mitigate all impacts of the new commercial
development. The proposed building cleans up the existing curb cuts and traffic issues at the
current gas station. Parallel parking will be restored along Monarch Street in compliance with
Engineering Department standards. Parking for the project is proposed to be met through cash in
lieu, which is allowed by right for commercial development in this location. The property is not
located within a designated view plane and the low height of the proposed building will not affect
shading. As mentioned above the proposed use is consistent with other established uses in the
neighborhood.
Front yard setback: The proposed 5’ front yard setback is consistent with the surrounding
development and does not negatively impact surrounding uses. The development proposes to
mitigate all impacts by meeting Code requirements. The front yard setback allows the generous
eave overhangs and wing walls to extend beyond the building face, which is integral to the success
of the new architecture. The actual building face sits 11’ back from the property line which is more
than the 10’ requirement of the zone district.
Setback Variances: The following setback variances are requested:
East side yard (Monarch): 5’ required, building is at 5’ but awning extends to ¾”
West side yard: 5’ required, 0’ provided
The property is located within the Main Street Historic District but is not a designated landmark. As such,
it is subject to the following review criteria for setback variances:
26.312.040.A Standards applicable to variances. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional
requirements of Title 26, the appropriate decision making body shall make a finding that the following
three (3) circumstances exist:
1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals and objectives of
this Title and the Municipal Code; and
2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of
the parcel, building or structure; and
3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive
the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district and would
cause the applicant unnecessary hardship, as distinguished from mere inconvenience. In
P136
IV.A.
Exhibit B – Special Review
and Setback Variances
determining whether an applicant’s rights would be deprived, the Board shall consider
whether either of the following conditions apply:
a) There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building
or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same
zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or
b) Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by
the terms of this Title and the Municipal Code to other parcels, buildings or structures, in
the same zone district.
East setback: The proposed east setback is solely for an awning that defines the entrance to the
building facing Monarch Street. The building is located 5’ from the property line and is compliant
with zone district requirements. The grant of a variance for an awning is consistent with the
purpose and goals of the Land Use Code and the Main Street Historic District guidelines which
state:
“Entries are clearly defined on most structures in the neighborhood. Porches, porticos and
stoops are elements that typically define entries. These features add a one-story element
to the fronts of buildings, helping to establish a uniform sense of human scale along the
block.”
The project already has a porch like entry facing Main Street. The awning proposed along
Monarch Street acts as a secondary porch element that defines the entrance and breaks up the
Monarch façade with a one story element.
The 4’11 ¼” awning is the minimum reasonable depth for this type of building element that
protects pedestrians and customers from the elements and is a defined architectural detail that
does not appear understated in comparison to the rest of the building.
The Land Use Code allows a long list of architectural details to infringe within required setbacks.
Almost all of these elements are allowed because they do not add mass or bulk to the building. As
stated earlier, the building is located at the 5’ setback, only the awning extends into this area.
While properties are allowed to extend building eaves 18” into a setback, awnings are not allowed
a setback exemption. The Main Street design guidelines support defined entries; however setting
the building back even further from the property line to accommodate this awning would be
detrimental on this specific corner site that is located in a transitional commercial neighborhood.
The properties on the other 3 corners of the intersection are all allowed to have 0’ setbacks, while
this property is subject to a 5’ setback which is met by the proposed building with the exception of
the awning.
P137
IV.A.
Exhibit B – Special Review
and Setback Variances
West setback: A 0’ setback is proposed adjacent to the landmarked Cortina Lodge. The Cortina
Lodge sits on the property line and the proposal maintains the current relationship between the
two properties as shown below. The proposed 0’ setback is consistent with current development
pattern of the Cortina and maintaining this relationship is important and aligned with historic
preservation goals.
Allowing the building to grow in width maintains a low two story building that is compatible with
the adjacent landmarks and allows a reasonable amount of commercial use in the building.
Requiring a west yard setback will shift the square footage from the setback to the second story
which will have an adverse impact on adjacent landmarks and properties across the alley. In
addition to being located to a landmark that does not meet setback requirement, this is a special
property located on an intersection that contains all commercial zoning with the exception of this
parcel. The commercial zoning on the other 3 corners all allow 0’ sideyard setbacks.
The proposed 0’ setback along the west elevation supports the goals of the historic preservation
program by maintaining the relationship between the landmark and the new building; is
appropriate for reasons of fairness considering the other corners in the intersection are allowed 0’
setbacks; and facilitates a wider but lower height building that is compatible with surrounding
landmarks.
Figure 4: Current west side yard setback condition.
P138
IV.A.
P
1
3
9
I
V
.
A
.
= input
= calculation
DATE:
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS:
APPLICANT CONTACT
INFORMATION:
NAME, COMPANY,
ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL
minor
Entering Exiting Total Entering Exiting Total
Commercial (sf)3828.0 sf 6.06 2.72 8.79 6.41 9.62 16.03
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)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Essential Public Facility (sf)0.0 sf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6.06 2.72 8.79 6.41 9.62 16.03
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
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?
232 E. Main Street
232 E. Main Street
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 of BendonAdams
300 S. Spring St., #202, Aspen, CO 81611
925‐2855
sara@bendonadams.com
Trip Generation
3/15/2016
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
Minor Development - Inside the Roundabout
Major Development - Outside the Roundabout
Helpful Hints:
1. Refer to the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for information on the use of this tool.
2. Refer to TIA Frequently Asked Questions for a quick overview.
2. Hover over red corner tags for additional information on individual measures.
3. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should be new and/or an improvement of existing conditions. A project will
not receive credit for measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense in the
context of project location and future use.
Transportation Impact Analysis
TIA Frequently Asked Questions
P140
IV.A.
= input
= calculation
35
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?
Yes 5
2 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width greater than the standard
minimum width?No 0
3 Does the project propose a landscape buffer greater than the
standard minimum width?Yes 5
10
4
Does the project propose a detached sidewalk on an adjacent
block? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer meet standard
minimum widths?
No 0
5 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width on an adjacent block
greater than the standard minimum width?No 0
6 Is the proposed landscape buffer on an adjacent block greater than
the standard minimum width?No 0
0
7 Are slopes between back of curb and sidewalk equal to or less than
5%?Yes 0
8 Are curbs equal to (or less than) 6 inches?Yes 0
9
Is new large-scale landscaping proposed that improves the
pedestrian experience? Properties within the Core do not have ample
area to provide the level of landscaping required to receive credit in
this category.
Yes 5
10 Does the project propose an improved crosswalk? This measure must
get City approval before receiving credit. Yes 5
10
11 Are existing driveways removed from the street? Yes 5
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.
Yes 5
15 Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian or bicyclist
interaction with vehicles at driveway areas?No 0
10
16 Is the project's pedestrian directness factor less than 1.5? Yes 0
17
Does the project propose new improvements which reduce the
pedestrian directness factor to less than 1.2? A site which has an
existing pedestrian directness factor less than 1.2 cannot receive
credit in this category.
No 0
18 Is the project proposing an off site improvement that results in a
pedestrian directness factor below 1.2?* No 0
19 Are traffic calming features proposed that are part of an approved
plan (speed humps, rapid flash)?*No 0
0
20
Are additional minor improvements proposed which benefit the
pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of
Aspen staff?
No 0
21
Are additional major improvements proposed which benefit the
pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of
Aspen staff?
No 0
0
30
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
Subtotal
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
TOTAL NUMBER OF TRIPS MITIGATED:
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
R
o
u
t
e
s
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
C
a
l
m
i
n
g
a
n
d
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
N
e
t
w
o
r
k
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
s
,
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
A
c
c
e
s
s
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
MMLOS Input Page
Subtotal
Subtotal
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
on
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
B
l
o
c
k
s
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
on
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
F
r
o
n
t
a
g
e
Subtotal
Instructions: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable to each measure under the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections.
Subtotal
Subtotal
Pedestrian Total*
P141
IV.A.
Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points
22 Is a new bicycle path being implemented with City approved design? No 0
23 Do new bike paths allow access without crossing a street or
driveway?No 0
24 Is there proposed landscaping, striping, or signage improvements to
an existing bicycle path?No 0
25 Does the project propose additional minor bicycle improvements
which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?Yes 5
26 Does the project propose additional major bicycle improvements
which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?No 0
5
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
27 Is the project providing bicycle parking? No 0
0
5
Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points
28 Is seating/bench proposed?No 0
29 Is a trash receptacle proposed?No 0
30 Is transit system information (signage) proposed?No 0
31 Is shelter/shade proposed?No 0
32 Is enhanced pedestrian-scale lighting proposed?No 0
33 Is real-time transit information proposed?No 0
34 Is bicycle parking/storage proposed specifically for bus stop use? No 0
35 Are ADA improvements proposed?No 0
0
36 Is a bus pull-out proposed at an existing stop?No 0
37 Is relocation of a bus stop to improve transit accessibility or roadway
operations proposed?No 0
38 Is a new bus stop proposed (with minimum of two basic amenities)? No 0
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Ba
s
i
c
A
m
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
Subtotal
Subtotal
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
Am
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
Subtotal
Subtotal
Bicycles Total*
Transit Total*
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
s
Mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
Pa
t
h
s
P142
IV.A.
Category Measure
Number Sub. Question Answer
Strategy VMT
Reductions
Will an onsite ammenities strategy be implemented?No
Which onsite ammenities will be implemented?Retail Servicing
Will a shared shuttle service strategy be implemented?No
What is the degree of implementation?Low
What is the company size?Small
What percentage of customers are eligible?
3 Nonmotorized Zones Will a nonmotorized zones strategy be implemented?No 0.00%
0.00%
Category Measure
Number Sub. Question Answer
Strategy VMT
Reductions
Will a network expansion stragtegy be implemented?NA
What is the percentage increase of transit network coverage?
What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips?
Will a service frequency/speed strategy be implemented?NA
What is the percentage reduction in headways (increase in frequency)?
What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips?
What is the level of implementation?
Will a transit access improvement strategy be implemented?Yes
What is the extent of access improvements? Within Project and Connecting Off‐site
7 Intercept Lot Will an intercept lot strategy be implemented?No 0.00%
2.00%
Category Measure
Number Sub. Question Answer
Strategy VMT
Reductions
Will there be participation in TOP?No
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a transit fare subsidy strategy implemented?No
What percentage of employees are eligible?0%
What is the amount of transit subsidy per passenger (daily equivalent)?25%
Is an employee parking cash‐out strategy being implemented?No
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a workplace parking pricing strategy implemented?No
What is the daily parking charge?
What percentage of employees are subject to priced parking?
Is a compressed work weeks strategy implemented?No
What percentage of employees are participating?
What is the workweek schedule?
Is an employer sponsered shuttle program implemented?No
What is the employer size?
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a carpool matching strategy implemented?No
What percentage of employees are eligble?0%
Is carshare participation being implemented?No
How many employee memberships have been purchased?<100
What percentage of employees are eligble?0%
Is participation in the bikeshare program WE‐cycle being implemented?Yes
How many memberships have been purchased?<100
What percentage of employees/guests are eligble?100%
Is an end of trip facilities strategy being implemented?No
What is the degree of implementation?
What is the employer size?
Is a self‐funded emergency ride home strategy being implemented?No
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a carpool/vanpool priority parking strategy being implemented?No
What is the employer size?
What number of parking spots are available for the program?
Is a private employer shuttle strategy being implemented?No
What is the employer size?
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a trip reduction marketing/incentive program implemented?Yes
What percentage of employees/guests are eligible?100%
1.19%
2.00%
3.16%
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
1.50%
0.00%
0.00%
Co
m
m
u
t
e
T
r
i
p
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
Onsite Servicing
Shared Shuttle Service
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
/
S
i
t
e
En
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
0.00%
0.00%
Network Expansion
Service Frequency/Speed
Transit Access Improvement
Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Bikeshare Program
0.00%
4.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.00%
0.00%
Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category
Maximum Reduction Allowed in CategoryTr
a
n
s
i
t
S
y
s
t
e
m
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
St
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
1
2
4
5
6
8
9
10
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.
P143
IV.A.
DATE:
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS:
APPLICANT CONTACT
INFORMATION:
NAME, COMPANY,
ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL
Peak Hour Max Trips Generated MMLOS TDM Total Trips Mitigated
PM 16.0 35 0.51 35.51 0.00
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 of BendonAdams
300 S. Spring St., #202, Aspen, CO 81611
925‐2855
sara@bendonadams.com
Summary and Narrative:
Narrative:
3/15/2016
232 E. Main Street
232 E. Main Street
Trip Generation
SUMMARY
Trip Mitigation NET TRIPS TO BE
MITIGATED
Project Description
In the space below provide a description of the proposed project.
A two story commercial building the replaces an existing gas station is proposed on the corner of Monarch and Main Streets. Outdoor seating
on the property is proposed facing Main Street. A landscape area both on and off the property is proposed in addition to new sidewalks, a
new intersection and new street trees. A wecycle station is proposed on Monarch Street in the right of way.
MMLOS
In the space provided call out the effective sidewalk width and the percentage of the site which meets or exceeds the minimum standard
width. Explain the site constraints for areas which do not meet the minimum width.
This property is located on the corner of Main and Monarch Streets. 8 ft. sidewalk widths are proposed for both Main and Monarch Streets
which meets the requirment for a commercial building. 100% of the site meets the required 8' sidewalk width.
A detached sidewalk is proposed on an adjacent block. Explain below how this improvement ties into the proposed project.
Detached sidewalks are proposed for both Main and Monarch Streets, but are not proposed on a adjacent block.
In the space provided desicribe what new landscaping is proposed and how the proposed landscaping plan enhances the pedestrian
experience. This measure is only applicable to large scale projects and requires more extensive landscaping then a few plantings or lawn
area. The project shall establish extensive landscaping which significantly benefits the site and improves the pedestrian comfort and
experience.
P144
IV.A.
New landscaping is proposed in the right of way and on the property along Main Street to enhance the pedestrian experience by creating a
beautiful buffer between the pedestrian and Highway 82. more detailed landscape plans will be provided during Final Design Reviews and
included in the Final TIA application.
Explain the proposed improved crosswalk and how this improvement benefits the pedestian experience and the site as a whole. An
improved crosswalk includes measures such as incorporating a corner bulb out or defining a crosswalk path with colored concrete. Simply
re‐striping a crosswalk will not recieve credit. This measure must be pre‐approved by City staff.
Prio r to a final review application, we plan to meet with Engineering Staff to discuss the specific crosswalk and corner bulb out proposed at
the corner of Main and Monarch Streets.
Explain what driveways are removed and how this benefits the pedestrian experience.
The entire site is a curbcut due to the current use as a gas station. Removing all curb cuts and reconstructing the sidewalks benefits the
pedestrian experience by offering a more organized, safe and clearly delineated area for walking.
Describe the enhanced pedestrian access point(s). This measure is to improve pedestrian access to the site from the ROW. It includes
adding additional access points which prevent pedestrians and bicyclists from crossing a street, improvements to the project's ADA ramps
in the ROW, and improvements to existing access points.
New ADA ramps in the right of way will be provided at the intersection of Main and Monarch Streets.
Explain any additional minor bicycle improvements which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff.
We plan to discuss the addition of a wecycle station in the right of way with City Staff prior to the submission of a final TIA as part of the final
review land use application.
Include any additional information that pertains to the MMLOS plan in the space provided below.
A TIA site plan is included in the application on sheet TIA‐1.
TDM
The project proposes onsite amenities. Describe the combination of amenities below. Providing a combination of creative onsite
amenities reduces the need for SOV trips throughout the day. Services within the development that will reduce the need for auto trips
include grocery, restaurant, recreation rental, dry cleaning, child care, bicycle repair stations, etc. A combination of amenities is required.
n/a
Explain the proposed nonmotorized zones strategy below. Larger areas of non‐motorized travel zones provide safe and comfortable space
that encourages walking and bicycling, thus reducing SOV trips. Non‐motorized zones are applicable for larger redevelopment or specific
areas only. Public amenity space already required by the City of Aspen does not qualify for this reduction.
n/a ‐ this is a small development on a 5,976 sf lot.
P145
IV.A.
A transit access improvement strategy will be implemented. Provision of safe and comfortable access to transit service is important for
generating and maintaining transit ridership, thus reducing SOV trips. The successful project will improve pedestrian access to a transit
stop via formalization of trails, addition and/or improvement of sidewalk, installation of lighting and/or way finding or other
measures.Explain the proposed transit access improvement strategy below.
We propose to improve the sidewalk and to remove all of the curb cuts on the property making the trip to the bus stop on Main Street much
more safe.
Provide details in the space provided for the proposed carshare participation. Carshare programs have been linked to increased use of
alternative transportation modes and reduced SOV trips. The successful project will provide access to Aspen’s CAR TO GO carshare
program. Trip reduction potential will depend on the level to which the development participates. Car share memberships can be
provided to all employees or residents of new developments.
n/a
Provide details for the proposed bike share program participation. Bike sharing provides access to a fleet of bicycles for short trips, thus
reducing SOV travel. The successful project will provide memberships to the existing WE‐cycle program. Include details on how many WE‐
cycle memberships will be purchased and whether these will be made available to guests, employees, or both.
Memberships to wecycle will be provided to employees and a new wecycle station will be located in adjacent the right of way.
Explain the proposed trip reduction marketing/incentive program in the space provided. A trip reduction marketing programs should
include a number of the following strategies: orientation to trip reduction programs and benefits; orientation to specific alternative
transportation modes such as bus service information, bike/walk route maps, etc.; publishing of web or traditional informational
materials; events and contests such as commuter fairs, new employee orientations, bike to work days, etc.; educational opportunities
such bicycle commute/repair classes; web or traditional materials aimed at guests/customers such as bike/walk maps, free transit day
passes, etc.; incentive programs such as prizes, rewards or discounts for alternative commuting.
Information about transportation alternatives such as bus routes and times, bike and walking maps, and other transit focused information
will be provided to employees.
Include any additional information that pertains to the TDM plan in the space provided below.
Enter Text Here
MMLOS Site Plan Requirements
Include the following on a site plan. Clearly call out and label each measure. Attach the site plan to the TIA submittal.
Sidewalk Width and Buffer Width
Detached Sidewalk on Adjacent Property
Landscape Buffer on Adjacent Property
Slopes Between Back of Curb and Sidewalk
Landscape Plan
Crosswalk Improvement(s)
Removed Driveway(s)
2% Slope at Pedestrian Driveway Crossings
Enhanced Pedestrian Access Point
Pedestrian Directness Factor (See callout number 9 on the MMLOS sheet for an example)
Enforcement and Financing
Provide an overview of the Enforcement and Financing plan for the proposed transportation mitigation measures.
P146
IV.A.
this is a small redevelopment: most of the improvements to meet transportation mitigation are physical improvements that will be captured
during the building permit and certificate of occupancy process. Financing and enforcement for wecycle memberships will be clarified in the
final TIA application.
The property owner will assess these measures through a survey and report them every year for 3 years to the City of Aspen. The plan will
include status of implemented measures, survey methodology and results, evaluation of performance and conclusions/ recommendations for
changes.
Scheduling and Implementation Responsibility of Mitigation Measures
Provide an overview of the scheduling and implementation responsibility for the proposed transportation mitigation measures.
Most of the transportation mitigation measures will occur during construction and prior to a certificate of occupancy.
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.
P147
IV.A.
PR
O
J
E
C
T
LO
C
A
T
I
O
N
ScalePROJECT NUMBER DATE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY 12" = 1’−0"6/29/2016 5:31:21 PM232 E. MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO.CS−1ProjectNumberIssue Date Author Checker COVER SHEET
AS
P
E
N
,
C
O
LO
C
A
L
J
U
R
I
S
D
I
C
T
I
O
N
:
TH
E
C
I
T
Y
O
F
A
S
P
E
N
13
0
S
.
G
A
L
E
N
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
AS
P
E
N
,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
TE
L
(
9
7
0
)
4
2
9
-
2
7
6
1
CO
N
T
A
C
T
:
B
Y
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
:
MO
D
I
F
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
E
12
0
0
W
E
S
T
L
A
K
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
CH
I
C
A
G
O
,
I
L
6
0
6
0
7
CO
N
T
A
C
T
S
:
R
O
B
A
V
I
L
A
,
R
A
O
R
S
T
E
V
E
C
O
U
G
H
L
I
N
,
R
A
OW
N
E
R
'
S
R
E
P
R
E
S
E
N
T
A
T
I
V
E
&
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
:
M
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
20
0
1
N
.
H
A
L
S
T
E
D
S
T
.
,
S
U
I
T
E
3
0
4
CH
I
C
A
G
O
,
I
L
6
0
6
1
4
CO
N
T
A
C
T
:
M
A
R
K
H
U
N
T
LA
N
D
P
L
A
N
N
E
R
:
BE
N
D
O
N
A
D
A
M
S
30
0
S
.
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
T
.
,
#
2
0
2
AS
P
E
N
,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
SA
R
A
A
D
A
M
S
,
A
I
C
P
VI
C
I
N
I
T
Y
M
A
P
SH
E
E
T
N
U
M
B
E
R
SH
E
E
T
N
A
M
E
1
-
T
I
T
L
E
CS
-
1
CO
V
E
R
S
H
E
E
T
2-
S
U
R
V
E
Y
SH
E
E
T
1
V
I
C
I
N
I
T
Y
M
A
P
,
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
L
I
N
G
M
O
N
U
M
E
N
T
A
I
O
N
,
P
R
O
P
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
S
,
N
O
T
E
S
,
A
N
D
C
E
R
T
I
F
I
C
A
T
E
S
SH
E
E
T
2
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
,
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
,
A
N
D
TO
P
O
G
R
A
P
H
Y
3
-
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
A
L
PA
-
1
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
P
U
B
L
I
C
A
M
E
N
I
T
Y
PA
-
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
P
U
B
L
I
C
A
M
E
N
I
T
Y
TI
A
-
1
TI
A
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
EC
-
1
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
S
EC
-
2
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
A-
0
1
0
SI
T
E
P
L
A
N
A-
1
1
0
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
S
FA
R
-
1
FA
R
C
A
L
C
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
S
NL
-
1
NE
T
L
E
A
S
A
B
L
E
A-
1
3
1
RO
O
F
P
L
A
N
A-
2
1
1
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
A-
2
1
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
NO. DATE BYDESCRIPTION 1 03.02.16 SC ISSUED TO LAND PLANNER
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
C
O
D
E
:
I
N
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
C
O
D
E
2
0
1
5
ME
C
H
A
N
I
C
A
L
:
I
N
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
M
E
C
H
A
N
I
C
A
L
C
O
D
E
2
0
1
5
PL
U
M
B
I
N
G
:
I
N
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
P
L
U
M
B
I
N
G
C
O
D
E
2
0
1
5
EL
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
:
N
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
C
O
D
E
2
0
1
4
AC
C
E
S
S
I
B
I
L
I
T
Y
:
I
C
C
/
A
N
S
I
A
1
1
7
.
1
2
0
0
3
EN
E
R
G
Y
:
I
N
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
E
N
E
R
G
Y
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
C
O
D
E
2
0
1
5
FI
R
E
C
O
D
E
:
I
N
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
F
I
R
E
C
O
D
E
2
0
1
5
FU
E
L
G
A
S
:
I
N
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
F
U
E
L
G
A
S
C
O
D
E
2
0
1
5
AP
P
L
I
C
A
B
L
E
C
O
D
E
S
P148
IV.A.
ScalePROJECT NUMBER DATE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY 6/29/2016 5:31:20 PM232 E. MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO.ALTAProjectNumberIssue Date Author Checker EXISTING LAND SURVEYNO. DATE BYDESCRIPTION 1 03.02.16 SC ISSUED TO LAND PLANNER
P149
IV.A.
ScalePROJECT NUMBER DATE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY 6/29/2016 5:31:37 PM232 E. MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO.PA−1ProjectNumberIssue Date Author Checker EXISTING PUBLIC AMENITY
TH
I
S
L
O
T
D
O
E
S
N
O
T
HA
V
E
A
N
Y
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
PU
B
L
I
C
A
M
E
N
I
T
Y
S
P
A
C
E
NO. DATE BYDESCRIPTION 1 03.02.16 SC ISSUED TO LAND PLANNER
P150
IV.A.
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
2
S
T
O
R
Y
RE
T
A
I
L
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
C
O
R
T
I
N
A
L
O
D
G
E
TR
A
N
S
F
O
R
M
E
R
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
CO
R
T
I
N
A
LO
D
G
E
B
A
L
C
O
N
Y
PU
B
L
I
C
A
M
E
N
I
T
Y
A
R
E
A
89
8
.
8
0
S
F
15
'
-
0
"
6'-
1
1
/
4
"
9
'
-
4
1
/
2
"
8
'
-
0
"
5
'
-
0
"
R.
O
.
W
.
P
U
B
L
I
C
A
M
E
N
I
T
Y
A
R
E
A
29
7
8
.
9
2
S
F
ScalePROJECT NUMBER DATE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY 1" = 10’−0"6/29/2016 5:31:39 PM232 E. MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO.PA−2ProjectNumberIssue Date Author Checker PROPOSED PUBLIC AMENITY
1
"
=
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
P
U
B
L
I
C
A
M
M
E
N
I
T
Y
P
L
A
N
NO. DATE BYDESCRIPTION 1 03.02.16 SC ISSUED TO LAND PLANNER
P151
IV.A.
AL
L
E
Y
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
2
S
T
O
R
Y
RE
T
A
I
L
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
M
O
N
A
R
C
H
S
T
.
MA
I
N
S
T
.
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
C
O
R
T
I
N
A
L
O
D
G
E
N
E
W
S
T
R
E
E
T
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
N
E
W
S
T
R
E
E
T
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
N
E
W
S
T
R
E
E
T
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
TR
A
N
S
F
O
R
M
E
R
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
CO
R
T
I
N
A
LO
D
G
E
B
A
L
C
O
N
Y
BE
N
C
H
BE
N
C
H
W
E
C
Y
C
L
E
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
FL
E
X
I
B
L
E
DE
L
I
N
E
A
T
O
R
PO
S
T
S
DE
T
E
C
T
A
B
L
E
WA
R
N
I
N
G
DE
T
E
C
T
A
B
L
E
WA
R
N
I
N
G
DE
T
E
C
T
A
B
L
E
WA
R
N
I
N
G
FL
E
X
I
B
L
E
DE
L
I
N
E
A
T
O
R
PO
S
T
S
RO
U
T
E
DI
S
T
A
N
C
E
:
4
3
'
-
0
"
NE
W
P
E
D
E
S
T
R
I
A
N
EN
T
R
Y
D
O
O
R
:
DI
S
T
A
N
C
E
5
8
'
-
0
"
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
R
E
A
42
7
S
F
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
R
E
A
1
3
6
.
4
9
S
F
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
R
E
A
1
0
5
.
1
4
S
F
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
R
E
A
1
0
3
.
6
2
S
F
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
R
E
A
9
3
.
6
1
S
F
TR
A
S
H
A
N
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
AR
E
A
10
3
2
2
'
-
4
3
/
4
"
3
'
-
0
"
1
7
'
-
3
"
3
'
-
0
"
1
7
'
-
0
"
3
'
-
0
"
1
5
'
-
4
1
/
4
"
15
'
-
0
"
6'-
1
1
/
4
"
45
'
-
9
"
9
'
-
4
1
/
2
"
8
'
-
0
"
5
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
13
'
-
0
"
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
R
E
A
17
5
S
F
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
R
E
A
70
S
F
ScalePROJECT NUMBER DATE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY 1" = 10’−0"6/29/2016 5:31:39 PM232 E. MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO.TIA−1ProjectNumberIssue Date Author Checker TIA PROPOSED SITE PLAN
1
"
=
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
T
I
A
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
NO. DATE BYDESCRIPTION 1 03.02.16 SC ISSUED TO LAND PLANNER
P152
IV.A.
NE
T
L
E
A
S
A
B
L
E
A
R
E
A
=
1
5
0
0
S
F
FU
E
L
P
U
M
P
S
(
N
I
C
I
N
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
N
E
T
LE
A
S
A
B
L
E
A
R
E
A
)
ScalePROJECT NUMBER DATE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY 1/4" = 1’−0"6/29/2016 5:31:26 PM232 E. MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO.EC−1ProjectNumberIssue Date Author Checker EXISTING FLOOR PLANS
1
/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
1
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
NO. DATE BYDESCRIPTION 1 03.02.16 SC ISSUED TO LAND PLANNER
P153
IV.A.
AL
L
E
Y
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
2
S
T
O
R
Y
RE
T
A
I
L
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
R
E
A
42
7
S
F
M
O
N
A
R
C
H
S
T
.
MA
I
N
S
T
.
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
R
E
A
1
3
6
.
4
9
S
F
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
C
O
R
T
I
N
A
L
O
D
G
E
N
E
W
S
T
R
E
E
T
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
N
E
W
S
T
R
E
E
T
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
N
E
W
S
T
R
E
E
T
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
TR
A
N
S
F
O
R
M
E
R
AW
N
I
N
G
,
T
Y
P
.
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
CO
R
T
I
N
A
LO
D
G
E
B
A
L
C
O
N
Y
BE
N
C
H
BE
N
C
H
W
E
C
Y
C
L
E
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
EX
I
S
T
.
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
SI
G
N
A
L
EX
I
S
T
.
C
R
O
S
S
I
N
G
BU
T
T
O
N
S
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
R
E
A
1
0
5
.
1
4
S
F
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
R
E
A
1
0
3
.
6
2
S
F
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
R
E
A
9
3
.
6
1
S
F
FL
E
X
I
B
L
E
DE
L
I
N
E
A
T
O
R
PO
S
T
S
DE
T
E
C
T
A
B
L
E
WA
R
N
I
N
G
DE
T
E
C
T
A
B
L
E
WA
R
N
I
N
G
FL
E
X
I
B
L
E
DE
L
I
N
E
A
T
O
R
PO
S
T
S
14
'
-
1
1
/
4
"
7'
-
0
"
8'-
0
"
6'-
1
1
/
4
"
30
2
S
F
TR
A
S
H
A
N
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
AR
E
A
10
3
1
0
'
-
0
"
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
5
'
-
0
"
8
'
-
0
"
9
'
-
4
1
/
2
"
45
'
-
9
"
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
R
E
A
17
5
S
F
54
'
-
9
"
13
'
-
0
"
HIS
T
O
R
I
C
C
O
R
T
I
N
A
LO
D
G
E
S
T
O
N
E
C
H
I
M
N
E
Y
1
9
'
-
2
3
/
4
"
SI
D
E
W
A
L
K
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
R
E
A
70
S
F
ScalePROJECT NUMBER DATE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY 1" = 10’−0"6/29/2016 5:31:04 PM232 E. MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO.A−010ProjectNumberIssue Date Author Checker SITE PLAN
1
"
=
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
NO. DATE BYDESCRIPTION 1 03.02.16 SC ISSUED TO LAND PLANNER
P154
IV.A.
DN
59
'
-
9
"
5
'
-
3
"
8
9
'
-
9
"
5
'
-
0
"
TR
A
N
S
F
O
R
M
E
R
1
0
0
'
-
0
"
AI
R
C
U
R
T
A
I
N
B
Y
TE
N
A
N
T
AI
R
C
U
R
T
A
I
N
B
Y
TE
N
A
N
T
22
'
-
5
3
/
4
"
30
'
-
3
1
/
2
"
5
'
-
0
"
8
5
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
52
'
-
9
"
7'-
0
"
54
'
-
9
"
5'-
0
"
3
2
'
-
1
0
1
/
4
"
5
6
'
-
1
0
3
/
4
"
MA
I
N
F
L
O
O
R
R
E
T
A
I
L
SP
A
C
E
10
0
30
2
S
F
TR
A
S
H
A
N
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
AR
E
A
10
3
2
'
-
4
1
/
2
"
1
1
'
-
0
3
/
4
"
1
'
-
1
1
1
/
2
"
1
1
'
-
0
3
/
4
"
1
'
-
1
1
1
/
2
"
1
1
'
-
0
3
/
4
"
1
'
-
1
1
1
/
2
"
1
1
'
-
0
3
/
4
"
2
'
-
4
1
/
2
"
2
'
-
9
"
6
'
-
0
"
EL
E
V
.
10
9
UP
UT
I
L
I
T
Y
ME
T
E
R
S
13
'
-
0
"
8'-
0
"
x
8
'
-
0
"
D
O
U
B
L
E
PO
C
K
E
T
D
O
O
R
S
OU
T
D
O
O
R
D
E
C
K
65
'
E
X
I
T
A
C
C
E
S
S
TR
A
V
E
L
D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
FR
O
M
L
E
V
E
L
2
OP
E
N
T
O
B
E
L
O
W
RO
O
F
15
4
7
S
F
2N
D
L
E
V
E
L
RE
T
A
I
L
S
P
A
C
E
10
7
EL
E
V
.
10
9
22
'
-
5
3
/
4
"
30
'
-
3
1
/
2
"
52
'
-
9
"
56'-10 3/4"32'-10 1/4"89'-9"
54
'
-
9
"
8
5
'
-
0
"
DN
LO
W
H
E
A
D
C
L
E
A
R
A
N
C
E
LO
W
H
E
A
D
C
L
E
A
R
A
N
C
E
15
4
7
/
6
0
=
2
5
O
C
C
U
P
A
N
T
S
ScalePROJECT NUMBER DATE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY 3/16" = 1’−0"6/29/2016 5:59:59 PM232 E. MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO.A−110ProjectNumberIssue Date Author Checker PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS
3
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
1
MA
I
N
F
L
O
O
R
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
P
L
A
N
3
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
2
2N
D
L
E
V
E
L
-
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
P
L
A
N
NO. DATE BYDESCRIPTION 1 03.02.16 SC ISSUED TO LAND PLANNER
P155
IV.A.
ZONING: (MU) MIXED USE NET LOT AREA: 5,976 SF (59'-9" X 100'-0")ZONING ALLOWANCE (0.75:1) 4482 SF (0.75 X 5,976 SF)(1:1) 5,976 BY SPECIAL REVIEW (1 X 5,976 SF)PROPOSED F.A.R. 5976SF / 5976SF = (1:1)ZONING INFO AND CALCS:
51
S
F
EL
E
V
.
5
'
-
3
"
8
9
'
-
9
"
5
'
-
0
"
22
'
-
5
3
/
4
"
37
'
-
3
1
/
2
"
59
'
-
9
"
5
'
-
0
"
8
5
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
54
'
-
9
"
5'
-
0
"
5
7
'
-
7
3
/
4
"
3
2
'
-
1
1
/
4
"
37
1
9
S
F
MA
I
N
F
L
O
O
R
RE
T
A
I
L
S
P
A
C
E
10
7
S
F
ST
A
I
R
UP
6
'
-
0
"
32
9
S
F
DE
C
K
35
1
S
F
TR
A
S
H
A
N
D
UT
I
L
I
T
Y
A
R
E
A
13
6
S
F
ST
A
I
R
92
S
F
ST
A
I
R
52
S
F
EL
E
V
.
16
1
2
S
F
2N
D
L
E
V
E
L
RE
T
A
I
L
S
P
A
C
E
52
'
-
9
"
52
'
-
9
"
7'-
0
"
5
6
'
-
1
0
3
/
4
"
3
2
'
-
1
0
1
/
4
"
5'-3"89'-9"5'-0"
54
'
-
9
"
5'-
0
"
8
5
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
8
5
'
-
0
"
5
'
-
0
"
RO
O
F
DN
FLOOR AREA RATIO (F.A.R.) LEGEND AREA TOWARD F.A.R.EXEMPT FROM F.A.R.
4
'
-
0
"
OP
E
N
T
O
B
E
L
O
W
ScalePROJECT NUMBER DATE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY As indicated 6/29/2016 5:31:27 PM232 E. MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO.FAR−1ProjectNumberIssue Date Author Checker FAR CALCULATIONS
3
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
1
MA
I
N
F
L
O
O
R
-
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
P
L
A
N
3
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
2
2N
D
L
E
V
E
L
-
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
P
L
A
N
FLOOR AREA SUMMARY - AREA TOWARD F.A.R.NAME AREA
L
E
V
E
L
MAIN FLOOR RETAIL SPACE
3
7
1
9
S
F
M
A
I
N
F
L
O
O
R
TRASH AND UTILITY AREA
3
5
1
S
F
M
A
I
N
F
L
O
O
R
STAIR 136 SF
M
A
I
N
F
L
O
O
R
STAIR 107 SF
M
A
I
N
F
L
O
O
R
ELEV.51 SF
M
A
I
N
F
L
O
O
R
2ND LEVEL RETAIL SPACE
1
6
1
2
S
F
2
N
D
L
E
V
E
L
5976 SF FLOOR AREA SUMMARY - EXEMPT FROM F.A.R.NAME AREA
L
E
V
E
L
DECK 329 SF
M
A
I
N
F
L
O
O
R
STAIR 92 SF
2
N
D
L
E
V
E
L
ELEV.52 SF
2
N
D
L
E
V
E
L
473 SF NO. DATE BYDESCRIPTION 1 03.02.16 SC ISSUED TO LAND PLANNER
P156
IV.A.
36
7
5
S
F
MA
I
N
F
L
O
O
R
RE
T
A
I
L
S
P
A
C
E
5
7
'
-
7
3
/
4
"
3
2
'
-
1
1
/
4
"
52
'
-
9
"
59
'
-
9
"
52
'
-
9
"
7'-
0
"
5
'
-
3
"
8
9
'
-
9
"
5
'
-
0
"
54
'
-
9
"
5'-
0
"
5
'
-
0
"
8
5
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
0
'
-
0
"
51
S
F
EL
E
V
.
10
7
S
F
ST
A
I
R
UP
31
3
S
F
TR
A
S
H
A
N
D
UT
I
L
I
T
Y
A
R
E
A
NET LEASABLE AREA LEGEND TOWARD NET LEASABLE EXEMPT FROM NET LEASABLE
32
7
S
F
DE
C
K
14
9
5
S
F
2N
D
F
L
O
O
R
RE
T
A
I
L
S
P
A
C
E
51
S
F
EL
E
V
.
84
S
F
ST
A
I
R
52
'
-
9
"
52
'
-
9
"
7'
-
0
"
5
6
'
-
1
0
3
/
4
"
3
2
'
-
1
0
1
/
4
"
5'-3"89'-9"5'-0"
54
'
-
9
"
5'-
0
"
0
"
8
5
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
8
5
'
-
0
"
5
'
-
0
"
RO
O
F
DN
OP
E
N
T
O
B
E
L
O
W
ScalePROJECT NUMBER DATE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY 3/16" = 1’−0"6/29/2016 5:31:28 PM232 E. MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO.NL−1ProjectNumberIssue Date Author Checker NET LEASABLETOWARD NET LEASABLE NAME AREA
L
E
V
E
L
MAIN FLOOR RETAIL SPACE3675 SF
M
A
I
N
F
L
O
O
R
STAIR 107 SF
M
A
I
N
F
L
O
O
R
ELEV.51 SF
M
A
I
N
F
L
O
O
R
2ND FLOOR RETAIL SPACE1495 SF
2
N
D
L
E
V
E
L
TOTAL AREA 5328 SF
3
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
1
MA
I
N
F
L
O
O
R
-
N
E
T
L
E
A
S
A
B
L
E
A
R
E
A
3
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
2
2N
D
L
E
V
E
L
-
N
E
T
L
E
A
S
A
B
L
E
A
R
E
A
EXEMPT FROM NET LEASABLE NAME AREA
L
E
V
E
L
DECK 327 SF
M
A
I
N
F
L
O
O
R
TRASH AND UTILITY AREA313 SF
M
A
I
N
F
L
O
O
R
STAIR 84 SF
2
N
D
L
E
V
E
L
ELEV.51 SF
2
N
D
L
E
V
E
L
TOTAL AREA 776 SF NO. DATE BYDESCRIPTION 1 03.02.16 SC ISSUED TO LAND PLANNER
P157
IV.A.
ME
C
H
A
N
I
C
A
L
UN
I
T
A
R
E
A
87
0
S
F
ST
E
E
L
P
L
A
T
E
R
A
I
N
S
C
R
E
E
N
PA
N
E
L
I
N
G
W
/
1
/
2
"
R
E
V
E
A
L
OV
E
R
R
O
O
F
A
T
(
9
/
1
2
)
S
L
O
P
E
.
17
9
8
S
F
RO
O
F
H
A
T
C
H
ST
E
E
L
A
W
N
I
N
G
SL
O
P
E
D
G
L
A
S
S
R
O
O
F
90
S
F
CE
D
A
R
S
H
A
K
E
S
H
I
N
G
L
E
S
OV
E
R
G
A
B
L
E
D
R
O
O
F
,
R
O
O
F
AT
(
9
/
1
2
)
S
L
O
P
E
2,
2
8
7
S
F
SN
O
W
M
E
L
T
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
N
O
W
M
E
L
T
S
Y
S
T
E
M
T
O
AL
L
E
V
I
A
T
E
S
N
O
W
S
H
E
D
D
I
N
G
B
O
T
H
I
N
T
H
E
RO
W
A
N
D
O
N
A
N
Y
A
D
J
A
C
E
N
T
L
O
T
S
SN
O
W
C
L
E
A
T
ScalePROJECT NUMBER DATE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY 3/16" = 1’−0"6/29/2016 5:31:08 PM232 E. MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO.A−131ProjectNumberIssue Date Author Checker ROOF PLAN
3
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
1
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
R
O
O
F
P
L
A
N
NO. DATE BYDESCRIPTION 1 03.02.16 SC ISSUED TO LAND PLANNER
P158
IV.A.
MA
I
N
F
L
O
O
R
0"
MA
I
N
F
L
O
O
R
0"
T/
G
A
B
L
E
0
3
28
'
-
6
3
/
4
"
T/
L
O
W
E
R
G
L
A
Z
I
N
G
10
'
-
5
"
ST
E
E
L
P
L
A
T
E
AW
N
I
N
G
WR
O
U
G
H
T
I
R
O
N
GO
O
S
E
N
E
C
K
L
I
G
H
T
FI
X
T
U
R
E
W
I
T
H
FR
O
S
T
E
D
L
E
N
S
,
T
Y
P
.
ST
E
E
L
P
L
A
T
E
PA
N
E
L
I
N
G
IN
S
U
L
A
T
E
D
S
T
O
R
E
F
R
O
N
T
WIT
H
C
A
S
T
I
R
O
N
M
U
L
L
I
O
N
S
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
C
U
R
B
W
/
WO
O
D
P
L
A
N
K
D
E
C
K
I
N
G
T/
G
A
B
L
E
0
1
24
'
-
4
"
ST
E
E
L
P
L
A
T
E
R
A
I
N
S
C
R
E
E
N
PA
N
E
L
I
N
G
W
/
1
/
2
"
R
E
V
E
A
L
OV
E
R
R
O
O
F
A
T
(
9
/
1
2
)
S
L
O
P
E
TA
P
E
R
E
D
S
T
E
E
L
PL
A
T
E
S
U
R
R
O
U
N
D
ST
E
E
L
P
L
A
T
E
R
A
I
N
S
C
R
E
E
N
PA
N
E
L
I
N
G
W
/
1
/
2
"
R
E
V
E
A
L
IN
S
U
L
A
T
E
D
S
T
O
R
E
F
R
O
N
T
WIT
H
C
A
S
T
I
R
O
N
M
U
L
L
I
O
N
S
IN
S
U
L
A
T
E
D
A
R
T
I
S
I
A
N
WIR
E
D
G
L
A
S
S
9
12
9
12
B/
G
A
B
L
E
16
'
-
1
1
/
2
"
2N
D
L
E
V
E
L
11
'
-
0
"
T/
E
L
E
V
A
T
O
R
P
A
R
A
P
E
T
25
'
-
9
1
/
2
"
EL
E
V
A
T
O
R
B
E
Y
O
N
D
1/
3
G
A
B
L
E
0
3
20
'
-
3
1
/
4
"
1/
3
G
A
B
L
E
0
1
18
'
-
1
0
1
/
4
"
SO
U
T
H
E
A
S
T
G
R
A
D
E
-6
"
SO
U
T
H
W
E
S
T
G
R
A
D
E
-1
'
-
4
3
/
4
"
NO
R
T
H
E
A
S
T
G
R
A
D
E
-2
'
-
3
"
NO
R
T
H
E
A
S
T
G
R
A
D
E
-2
'
-
3
"
SE
T
B
A
C
K
5'-
0
"
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
3/
4
"
AW
N
I
N
G
4'
-
1
1
1
/
4
"
F
R
O
M
N
O
R
T
H
E
A
S
T
G
R
A
D
E
(
M
O
S
T
R
E
S
T
R
I
C
T
I
V
E
)
2
2
'
-
6
1
/
4
"
F
R
O
M
N
O
R
T
H
E
A
S
T
G
R
A
D
E
(
M
O
S
T
R
E
S
T
R
I
C
T
I
V
E
)
2
8
'
-
0
1
/
2
"
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
N
O
W
M
E
L
T
S
Y
S
T
E
M
TO
A
L
L
E
V
I
A
T
E
S
N
O
W
S
H
E
D
D
I
N
G
BO
T
H
I
N
T
H
E
R
O
W
A
N
D
O
N
A
N
Y
AD
J
A
C
E
N
T
L
O
T
S
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
N
O
W
M
E
L
T
S
Y
S
T
E
M
TO
A
L
L
E
V
I
A
T
E
S
N
O
W
S
H
E
D
D
I
N
G
BO
T
H
I
N
T
H
E
R
O
W
A
N
D
O
N
A
N
Y
AD
J
A
C
E
N
T
L
O
T
S
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
N
O
W
M
E
L
T
S
Y
S
T
E
M
TO
A
L
L
E
V
I
A
T
E
S
N
O
W
S
H
E
D
D
I
N
G
BO
T
H
I
N
T
H
E
R
O
W
A
N
D
O
N
A
N
Y
AD
J
A
C
E
N
T
L
O
T
S
MA
I
N
F
L
O
O
R
0"
MAIN FLOOR 0"
T/
G
A
B
L
E
0
3
28
'
-
6
3
/
4
"
T/ LOWER GLAZING 10'-5"B/FACIA 13'-0"CEDAR SHAKE SHINGLES OVER GABLED ROOF,ROOF AT (9/12) SLOPE
IN
S
U
L
A
T
E
D
T
A
P
E
R
E
D
G
L
A
S
S
RO
O
F
W
/
C
A
S
T
I
R
O
N
M
U
L
L
I
O
N
S
ST
E
E
L
P
L
A
T
E
A
W
N
I
N
G
BO
A
R
D
F
O
R
M
E
D
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
WA
L
L
B
A
S
E
,
T
Y
P
.
WR
O
U
G
H
T
I
R
O
N
GO
O
S
E
N
E
C
K
L
I
G
H
T
FIX
T
U
R
E
W
I
T
H
FR
O
S
T
E
D
L
E
N
S
,
T
Y
P
.
IN
S
U
L
A
T
E
D
F
O
L
D
I
N
G
GL
A
S
S
W
A
L
L
W
I
T
H
CA
S
T
I
R
O
N
M
U
L
L
I
O
N
S
T/GABLE 02 26'-6 3/4"
ST
E
E
L
P
L
A
T
E
R
A
I
N
S
C
R
E
E
N
PA
N
E
L
I
N
G
W
/
1
/
2
"
R
E
V
E
A
L
OV
E
R
R
O
O
F
A
T
(
9
/
1
2
)
S
L
O
P
E
.
IN
S
U
L
A
T
E
D
ST
O
R
E
F
R
O
N
T
W
I
T
H
CA
S
T
I
R
O
N
M
U
L
L
I
O
N
S
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
F
U
T
U
R
E
B
L
D
'
G
SIG
N
A
G
E
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
WR
O
U
G
H
T
I
R
O
N
GO
O
S
E
N
E
C
K
L
I
G
H
T
FI
X
T
U
R
E
W
I
T
H
FR
O
S
T
E
D
L
E
N
S
,
T
Y
P
.
GL
A
S
S
E
N
T
R
Y
D
O
O
R
S
W/
C
U
S
T
O
M
C
-
C
H
A
N
N
E
L
PU
S
H
/
P
U
L
L
H
A
N
D
L
E
S
IN
S
U
L
A
T
E
D
ST
O
R
E
R
O
N
T
W
I
T
H
C
A
S
T
IR
O
N
M
U
L
L
I
O
N
S
ST
E
E
L
P
L
A
T
E
R
A
I
N
S
C
R
E
E
N
PA
N
E
L
I
N
G
W
/
1
/
2
"
R
E
V
E
A
L
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
FU
T
U
R
E
B
L
D
'
G
SI
G
N
A
G
E
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
RE
C
L
A
I
M
E
D
WO
O
D
S
I
D
I
N
G
AN
G
L
E
I
R
O
N
RE
V
E
A
L
RECLAIMED WOOD FACIA
TA
P
E
R
E
D
S
T
E
E
L
P
L
A
T
E
SU
R
R
O
U
N
D
B/G
A
B
L
E
16
'
-
1
1
/
2
"
2ND LEVEL 11'-0"T/ ELEVATOR PARAPET 25'-9 1/2"
1/
3
G
A
B
L
E
0
3
20
'
-
3
1
/
4
"
1/3 GABLE 01 18'-10 1/4"1/3 T/GABLE 02 18'-4 1/4"
SO
U
T
H
E
A
S
T
G
R
A
D
E
-6
"
SOUTHEAST GRADE -6"
NO
R
T
H
E
A
S
T
G
R
A
D
E
-2
'
-
3
"
NORTHEAST GRADE -2'-3"
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
5'-
3
"
PROPERTY LINE
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
N
O
W
M
E
L
T
S
Y
S
T
E
M
T
O
AL
L
E
V
I
A
T
E
S
N
O
W
S
H
E
D
D
I
N
G
B
O
T
H
I
N
T
H
E
RO
W
A
N
D
O
N
A
N
Y
A
D
J
A
C
E
N
T
L
O
T
S
ScalePROJECT NUMBER DATE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY 1/4" = 1’−0"6/29/2016 5:31:11 PM232 E. MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO.A−211ProjectNumberIssue Date Author Checker PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS
1
/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
1
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
O
U
T
H
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
1
/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
E
A
S
T
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
NO. DATE BYDESCRIPTION 1 03.02.16 SC ISSUED TO LAND PLANNER
P159
IV.A.
MA
I
N
F
L
O
O
R
0"
MAIN FLOOR 0"T/GABLE 03 28'-6 3/4"
PO
R
T
I
O
N
O
F
W
A
L
L
H
I
D
D
E
N
/
A
B
U
T
I
N
G
CO
R
T
I
N
A
L
O
D
G
E
T
O
B
E
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
E
D
OF
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
M
A
S
O
N
R
Y
U
N
I
T
S
TR
A
N
S
F
O
R
M
E
R
TH
I
S
W
A
L
L
A
B
U
T
S
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
C
O
R
T
I
N
A
L
O
D
G
E
CE
D
A
R
S
H
A
K
E
S
H
I
N
G
L
E
S
O
V
E
R
GA
B
L
E
D
R
O
O
F
,
R
O
O
F
A
T
(
9
/
1
2
)
S
L
O
P
E
T/
G
A
B
L
E
0
2
26
'
-
6
3
/
4
"
T/GABLE 01 24'-4"
T/
P
A
R
A
P
E
T
14
'
-
3
"
B/GABLE 16'-1 1/2"
RE
C
L
A
I
M
E
D
W
O
O
D
S
I
D
I
N
G
IN
S
U
L
A
T
E
D
T
A
P
E
R
E
D
G
L
A
S
S
RO
O
F
W
/
C
A
S
T
I
R
O
N
M
U
L
L
I
O
N
S
ST
E
E
L
P
L
A
T
E
R
A
I
N
S
C
R
E
E
N
W/
1
/
2
"
R
E
V
E
A
L
O
V
E
R
R
O
O
F
AT
(
9
/
1
2
)
S
L
O
P
E
RE
C
L
A
I
M
E
D
W
O
O
D
F
A
C
I
A
EL
E
V
A
T
O
R
S
H
A
F
T
C
L
A
D
I
N
RE
C
L
A
I
M
E
D
W
O
O
D
S
I
D
I
N
G
1/3 GABLE 03 20'-3 1/4"1/3 GABLE 01 18'-10 1/4"
1/
3
T
/
G
A
B
L
E
0
2
18
'
-
4
1
/
4
"
SOUTHWEST GRADE -1'-4 3/4"
NO
R
T
H
E
A
S
T
G
R
A
D
E
-2
'
-
3
"
NORTHEAST GRADE -2'-3"
NO
R
T
H
W
E
S
T
G
R
A
D
E
-3
'
-
3
"
PROPERTY LINE
SE
T
B
A
C
K
5'-0"
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
5'-
3
"
ST
A
I
R
B
E
Y
O
N
D
FROM NORTHEAST GRADE (MOST RESTRICTIVE)22'-6 1/4"
F
R
O
M
N
O
R
T
H
E
A
S
T
G
R
A
D
E
(
M
O
S
T
R
E
S
T
R
I
C
T
I
V
E
)
2
8
'
-
0
1
/
2
"
MA
I
N
F
L
O
O
R
0"
MA
I
N
F
L
O
O
R
0"
T/
G
A
B
L
E
0
3
28
'
-
6
3
/
4
"
TR
A
N
S
F
O
R
M
E
R
T/
L
O
W
E
R
G
L
A
Z
I
N
G
10
'
-
5
"
WR
O
U
G
H
T
I
R
O
N
GO
O
S
E
N
E
C
K
L
I
G
H
T
FI
X
T
U
R
E
W
I
T
H
FR
O
S
T
E
D
L
E
N
S
,
T
Y
P
.
RE
C
L
A
I
M
E
D
W
O
O
D
S
I
D
I
N
G
AN
G
L
E
I
R
O
N
R
E
V
E
A
L
B/
F
A
C
I
A
13
'
-
0
"
T/
G
A
B
L
E
0
2
26
'
-
6
3
/
4
"
T/
G
A
B
L
E
0
1
24
'
-
4
"
ST
E
E
L
P
L
A
T
E
R
A
I
N
S
C
R
E
E
N
PA
N
E
L
I
N
G
W
/
1
/
2
"
R
E
V
E
A
L
RE
C
L
A
I
M
E
D
W
O
O
D
F
A
C
I
A
T/
P
A
R
A
P
E
T
14
'
-
3
"
B/
G
A
B
L
E
16
'
-
1
1
/
2
"
RE
C
L
A
I
M
E
D
W
O
O
D
S
O
F
F
I
T
VE
N
T
ST
E
E
L
P
L
A
T
E
R
A
I
N
S
C
R
E
E
N
W/
1
/
2
"
R
E
V
E
A
L
O
V
E
R
R
O
O
F
AT
(
9
/
1
2
)
S
L
O
P
E
9
12
BR
E
A
K
M
E
T
A
L
C
O
P
I
N
G
9
12
CE
D
A
R
S
H
A
K
E
S
H
I
N
G
L
E
S
OV
E
R
G
A
B
L
E
D
R
O
O
F
,
R
O
O
F
AT
(
9
/
1
2
)
S
L
O
P
E
SL
I
D
I
N
G
S
T
E
E
L
PO
C
K
E
T
E
D
D
O
O
R
S
2N
D
L
E
V
E
L
11
'
-
0
"
B/
E
L
E
V
A
T
O
R
R
O
O
F
23
'
-
5
"
T/
E
L
E
V
A
T
O
R
P
A
R
A
P
E
T
25
'
-
9
1
/
2
"
EL
E
V
A
T
O
R
B
E
Y
O
N
D
1/
3
G
A
B
L
E
0
3
20
'
-
3
1
/
4
"
1/
3
G
A
B
L
E
0
1
18
'
-
1
0
1
/
4
"
1/
3
T
/
G
A
B
L
E
0
2
18
'
-
4
1
/
4
"
ST
E
E
L
LO
A
D
I
N
G
/
M
A
N
DO
O
R
NO
R
T
H
E
A
S
T
G
R
A
D
E
-2
'
-
3
"
NO
R
T
H
E
A
S
T
G
R
A
D
E
-2
'
-
3
"
NO
R
T
H
W
E
S
T
G
R
A
D
E
-3
'
-
3
"
NO
R
T
H
W
E
S
T
G
R
A
D
E
-3
'
-
3
"
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
5'-
0
"
BO
A
R
D
F
O
R
M
E
D
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
WA
L
L
B
A
S
E
,
T
Y
P
.
2
3
'
-
6
1
/
4
"
2
9
'
-
0
1
/
2
"
2
2
'
-
1
1
/
4
"
ScalePROJECT NUMBER DATE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY 1/4" = 1’−0"6/29/2016 5:31:13 PM232 E. MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO.A−212ProjectNumberIssue Date Author Checker PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS
1
/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
1
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
W
E
S
T
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
1
/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
N
O
R
T
H
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
NO. DATE BYDESCRIPTION 1 03.02.16 SC ISSUED TO LAND PLANNER
P160
IV.A.
P
1
6
1
I
V
.
A
.
P
1
6
2
I
V
.
A
.
P
1
6
3
I
V
.
A
.
P
1
6
4
I
V
.
A
.
P
1
6
5
I
V
.
A
.
P
1
6
6
I
V
.
A
.
P
1
6
7
I
V
.
A
.
P168
IV.A.
P169
IV.A.
P170
IV.A.
P171
IV.A.
P172
IV.A.
P173
IV.A.
P174
IV.A.
P175
IV.A.
P176
IV.A.
P177
IV.A.
P178
IV.A.
P
1
7
9
I
V
.
A
.
P
1
8
0
I
V
.
A
.
P
1
8
1
I
V
.
A
.
P
1
8
2
I
V
.
A
.
P
1
8
3
I
V
.
A
.
P
1
8
4
I
V
.
A
.
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
January, 2016 City of Apen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5050
ATTACHMENT 3
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM
Project: ______________________________________________________________________________
Applicant: ______________________________________________________________________________
Location: ______________________________________________________________________________
Zone District: ______________________________________________________________________________
Lot Size: __________________________________________________________________________
Lot Area: _____________________________________________________________________________
(For the purpose of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high-water
mark, easement, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal
Code.)
Commercial net leasable: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _________________________________
Number of residential units: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _________________________________
Number of bedrooms: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _________________________________
Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): ______________
DIMENSIONS:
Floor Area: Existing: _____________ Allowable: ___________Proposed ____________
Principal bldg. height: Existing: _____________ Allowable: ___________Proposed____________
Access. Bldg. height: Existing: _____________ Allowable: __________ Proposed_____________
On-Site parking: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed_____________
% Site coverage: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed_____________
% Open Space: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed_____________
Front Setback: Existing: _____________ Required ____________Proposed _____________
Rear Setback: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed _____________
Combined F/F: Existing: _____________ Required ___________ Proposed _____________
Side Setback: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed _____________
Side Setback: Existing: _____________ Required ___________ Proposed _____________
Combined Sides: Existing: _____________ Required ___________ Proposed _____________
Distance between Bldgs. Existing: _____________ Required: ___________ Proposed _____________
Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed: _____________
Existing non-conformities or encroachments: __________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Variations requested: _____________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
232 East Main Street
232 East Main Street, LLC
232 East Main Street, Lots R and S, Block 73 City and Townsite of Aspen, CO
Mixed Use Historic District
59.8' x 100'
5,981 sf
1,500 sf 5,328 sf: 3,833 ground and 1,495 sf upper floor
0 0
0 0
1,500 sf 5,981 sf total
5,976 sf total: Special Review
requested for commercial FAR of 1:1
approx. 21' to apex varied heights, max. of 20' 3.25"
measured to 1/3 point
28' - 32'
0 3.8 spaces cash in lieu by right
0% public amenity 10%10% to be met onsite and offsite
n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
about 55.8'5' - 10'5' through Special Review
16'5'5' 3"to building and 1'3" to exterior stair
n/a n/a n/a
EAST - Monarch 22'5'5' to building and 0' to awning at entrance
WEST 0.2'5'0'
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
West setback is nonconforming.
Front yard setback of 5' through Special Review; East sideyard (Monarch St.) setback of 0' for awning only;
West sideyard setback of 0'; Rear yard setback of 1'3" for exterior stair; commercial FAR of 1:1 through Special Review
P185
IV.A.
P
1
8
6
I
V
.
A
.
P
1
8
7
I
V
.
A
.
ATTACHMENT 2 - Historic Preservation Land Use Application
PROJECT:
Name:
Location:
(Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property)
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)___________________________________________________________
APPLICANT:
Name:
Address:
Phone #: _______________________Fax#:___________________E-mail:_____________________
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name:
Address:
Phone #: _______________________Fax#:___________________E-mail:______________________
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
Historic Designation
Certificate of No Negative Effect
Certificate of Appropriateness
-Minor Historic Development
-Major Historic Development
-Conceptual Historic Development
-Final Historic Development
-Substantial Amendment
Relocation (temporary, on
or off-site)
Demolition (total
demolition)
Historic Landmark Lot Split
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
Aspen Historic Preservation
Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: April 30, 2015
232 East Main Street
232 East Main Street, Lots R and S, Block 73 City and Townsite of Aspen, CO
2737-073-20-008
232 East Main Street, LLC
2001 N. Halsted St., Suite 304 Chicago, IL 60614
312-850-1680 mhunt@mdevco.com
Sara Adams, BendonAdams
300 S. Spring St., Suite 202, Aspen, CO 81611
925-2855 sara@bendonadams.com
Conceptual Commercial Design
Special Review
Conoco gas station
New 100% commercial two story building. Setback variances, special review for 1:1 FAR for commercial
use are requested modifications.
P188
IV.A.
Aspen Historic Preservation
Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: April 30, 2015
General Information
Please check the appropriate boxes below and submit this page along with your application. This
information will help us review your plans and, if necessary, coordinate with other agencies that
may be involved.
YES NO
232 E. Main Street Vicinity Map
Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO,
USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey,
Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)
Emissions Inventory Boundary (EIB)
Historic Sites
Historic Districts
Parcel Boundary
March 10, 2016
0 0.035 0.070.0175 mi
0 0.06 0.120.03 km
1:2,257
P
1
9
0
I
V
.
A
.
P
1
9
1
I
V
.
A
.
BUS_RE/5962049.1
730 East Durant Avenue, Second Floor, Aspen, Colorado 81611-1557
Telephone: 970.925.6300 Fax: 970.925.1181 www.shermanhoward.com
Curtis B. Sanders
Sherman & Howard L.L.C.
Direct Dial Number: 970.300.0114
E-mail: csanders@shermanhoward.com
March 14, 2016
City of Aspen
Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: 232 East Main Street LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; Certificate of
Ownership
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am an attorney licensed by the State of Colorado to practice law.
This letter shall confirm and certify that 232 East Main Street LLC, a Colorado limited
liability company, is the owner of certain improved real property located at 232 East Main Street,
Aspen, Colorado 81611, and legally described as follows (the "Subject Property"):
Lots R and S, Block 73, City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of
Colorado.
The Subject Property is subject to the following matters of record:
1. Restrictions as set forth in Deed recorded November 30, 1888 in Book 59 at Page 521.
2. Ordinance No. 60, Series of 1976, designating the Subject Property as within an
Historic District, recorded December 9, 1976 in Book 321 at Page 51.
3. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in the Deed of Trust,
Assignment of Leases and Rents and Security Agreement dated as of June 10, 2014 and given by
232 East Main Street LLC in favor of Jefferies LoanCore LLC recorded June 18, 2014 as
Reception No. 611183, Pitkin County, Colorado.
4. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in the Assignment of Leases
and Rents dated as of June 10, 2014 and given by 232 East Main Street LLC in favor of Jefferies
LoanCore LLC recorded June 18 2014 as Reception No. 611184, Pitkin County, Colorado.
P192
IV.A.
2
BUS_RE/5962049.1
5. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in the UCC Financing
Statement given by 232 East Main Street LLC in favor of Jefferies LoanCore LLC recorded June
18, 2014 as Reception No. 611185, Pitkin County, Colorado.
6. Assignment of Deed of Trust, Assignment of Leases and Rents and Security
Agreement dated as of August 28, 2014 between Jefferies Loancore LLC as Assignor and JLC
Warehouse V LLC as Assignee recorded August 24, 2015 as Reception No. 622650.
7. Assignment of Leases and Rents dated as of August 28, 2014 between Jefferies
Loancore LLC as Assignor and JLC Warehouse V LLC as Assignee recorded August 24, 2015
as Reception No. 622651.
8. Assignment of UCC Financing Statement between Jefferies Loancore LLC as Assignor
and JLC Warehouse V LLC as Assignee recorded August 24, 2015 as Reception No. 622652.
9. Assignment of Deed of Trust, Assignment of Leases and Rents and Security
Agreement dated as of July 22, 2015 between JLC Warehouse V LLC as Assignor and
DIVCORE CLO 2013-LTD. as Assignee recorded August 24, 2015 as Reception No. 622710.
10. Assignment of Assignment of Leases and Rents dated as of July 22, 2015 between
JLC Warehouse V LLC as Assignor and DIVCORE CLO 2013-LTD. as Assignee recorded
August 24, 2015 as Reception No. 622711.
11. Assignment of UCC Financing Statement between JLC Warehouse V LLC as
Assignor and DIVCORE CLO 2013-LTD. as Assignee recorded August 24, 2015 as Reception
No. 622711.
Sincerely,
Curtis B. Sanders
P193
IV.A.
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
January, 2016 City of Apen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5050
Agreement to Pay Application Fees
An agreement between the City of Aspen (“City”) and
Property Phone No.:
Owner (“I”): Email:
Address of Billing
Property: Address:
(Subject of (send bills here)
application)
I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No., Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications and payment
of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property owner that
I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application.
For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are
non-refundable.
$.___________flat fee for __________________. $.____________ flat fee for _____________________________
$.___`____ flat fee for __________________. $._____________ flat fee for _____________________________
For Deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not
possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that addit ional
costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete
processing, review and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project
consideration, unless invoices are paid in full.
The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to
the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of
an invoice by the City for such services.
I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for no-payment. I agree to pay
the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not
render and application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I
agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly
rates hereinafter stated.
$________________ deposit for_____________ hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time
above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour.
$________________ deposit for _____________ hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the
deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour.
City of Aspen: Property Owner:
________________________________ _______________________________________________
Chris Bendon
Community Development Director Name:
_______________________________________________
Title:
_______________________________________________
City Use:
Fees Due: $____Received $_______
2001 N. Halsted St., Suite 304
Chicago, IL 60614
975 APCHA
$4,550 14
325 1
Jessica Garrow
Mark Hunt
President
232 East Main Street, LLC
mhunt@mdevco.com
975 Parks
P194
IV.A.
P
1
9
5
I
V
.
A
.
Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius
Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web
site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to
ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic
system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral
estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County
does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners.
Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning
the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this
site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and
reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the
user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and
liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or
data obtained on this web site.
This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be
printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to
page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the
margins such that they no longer line up on the labels
sheet. Print actual size.
From Parcel: 273707320008 on 03/14/2016
Instructions:
Disclaimer:
http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com
P196
IV.A.
HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP INC
PHOENIX, AZ 85016
2710 E CAMELBACK RD STE 200
CARLS REAL ESTATE LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 1365
MINERS REAL ESTATE LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 1365
SARDY HOUSE NEW LLC
KEY BISCAYNE, FL 33149
240 CRANDON BLVD #167
CARVER RUTH A REV TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
116 S ASPEN ST
201 E MAIN LLC
PALISADE, CO 81526
PO BOX 38
232 BLEEKER LLC
BOCA RATON, FL 33431
2385 NW EXECUTIVE CTR DR #370
303 EAST MAIN LLLP
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 8016
ASPEN CORNER OFFICE LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
604 W MAIN ST
ASPEN BRANCH HOLDINGS LLC
DENVER, CO 80206
3033 E FIRST AVE
CHALAL JOSEPH B
DELRAY BEACH, FL 334836507
1005 BROOKS LN
MONARCH HOLDINGS LLC
OSPREY, FL 34229
458 WALLS WY
ASPEN COMM UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
ASPEN, CO 81611
200 E BLEEKER ST
HOFFMAN JOHN & SHARON
KANSAS CITY, MO 64105-1166
210 W 5TH ST APT 211
1543 LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1543 WAZEE ST #400
ICONIC PROPERTIES JEROME LLC
HOUSTON, TX 77077
1375 ENCLAVE PKWY
MONARCH & HOPKINS LLC 50%
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 1247
MONARCH ASPEN LLC 50%
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 1247
209 BLEEKER LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
623 E HOPKINS AVE
304 EAST HOPKINS HOLDINGS LLC
CHICAGO, IL 60614
2001 N HOLSTED #304
HODES ALAN & DEBORAH
ASPEN, CO 81611
114 N ASPEN ST
WHITMAN RANDALL A
CORAL GABLES, FL 33156
4845 HAMMOCK LAKE DR
KRIBS KAREN REV LIV TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 9994
GETTMAN ROSA H TRUST
DENVER, CO 80246
325 S FOREST
GARRETT GULCH EQUITY VENTURE LLC
GAHANNA, OH 43230
501 MORRISON RD #100
MONARCH HOUSE LLC
MIAMI, FL 331303510
120 SW 8TH ST
CJB REALTY INVESTORS LLC
MISSION HILLS, KS 66208
6544 WENONGA CIR
SEMRAU FAMILY LLC
ASPEN, CO 816112806
300 S SPRING ST #203
SEGUIN BUILDING CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
304 E HYMAN AVE
LE VOTAUX II CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
117 N MONARCH ST
P197
IV.A.
JW VENTURES LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 8769
SHVACHKO NATALIA
NEW YORK, NY 10022
35 SUTTON PL #19B
SEDOY MICHAEL
NEW YORK, NY 10022
35 SUTTON PL #19B
308 EAST HOPKINS CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
308 E HOPKINS AVE
ROCKING LAZY J PROPS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
202 E MAIN ST
PEGOLOTTI DELLA
ASPEN, CO 81611
202 E MAIN ST
4 TOOLBOX LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
208 E MAIN ST
BLEEKER MILL DEVELOPMENT LLC
NEW YORK, NY 10154
345 PARK AVE 33RD FL
NUNN RONALD FAMILY LP
BRENTWOOD, CA 94513
10500 BRENTWOOD BLVD
AJAX JMG INVESTMENTS LLC
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 902122974
9401 WILSHIRE BLVD 9TH FL
JAFFE JONATHAN & KAREN
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
88 EMERALD BAY
MONARCH BUILDING LLC
WOODY CREEK, CO 81656
PO BOX 126
PEARCE FAMILY TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
216 E MAIN ST
PEARCE MARGARET A
ASPEN, CO 81611
216 E MAIN ST
P198
IV.A.