HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20170426
AGENDA
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
April 26, 2017
4:30 PM City Council Meeting Room
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
I. 12:00 SITE VISIT
A. Please meet at 210 W. Main
II. 4:30 INTRODUCTION
A. Roll call
B. Draft minutes for 3/22/17
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. 4:40 OLD BUSINESS
A. 500 W. Main- Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design
Review, Special Review and Variations, PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED
FROM 4/12
IV. 5:40 NEW BUSINESS
A. 210 W. Main- Conceptual Major Development Review, Demolition, Special
Review, Residential Design Standard Review, Conceptual Commercial Design
Review, PUBLIC HEARING
V. 7:00 ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: 11
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.
1
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MARCH 22, 2017
Chairperson Halferty called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance
were Jeffrey Halferty, Gretchen Greenwood, Jim DeFrancia, Nora Berko and Roger Moyer.
Staff present:
James R. True, City Attorney
Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner
Cindy Klob, Records Manager
MOTION: Ms. Greenwood corrected the spelling of Patrick Rawley’s last name. Mr. DeFrancia
moved to approve the minutes from March 08, 2017, Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion
carried.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Mr. Halferty asked for public comment regarding items not listed on the
agenda and there were none.
COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Ms. Greenwood stated that her client has been involved
in the HPC process for a long time and he really appreciated the knowledge and discourse of
the board and their time and effort. He feels that the board is incredibly smart and listened
well and was a very positive experience for him all around. Mr. Halferty commended staff on
the project monitoring on one of the agenda items. The graphics were well poised and the
history was well spelled out.
DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Ms. Berko was noticed on the Red Brick.
PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon said they have one project that has been shut down at 232
E. Bleeker and are looking into the extent of demolition that has occurred and have issued a
stop work order. Mr. Blaich is the project monitor on this one.
STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon stated that she will be out of town next week.
CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Simon said there were none.
P1
II.B.
2
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MARCH 22, 2017
Mr. True stated that he has a public notice for the City projects and also has a disclosure of
conflict for the Crystal Palace project. On page 44 of the packet, there is a list of mailings to
people who are within 300 feet of the Crystal Palace and Mr. True’s name is on the list. Since
Ms. Bryan is absent, he hasn’t spoken to Chris Bendon about it yet, but Mr. Bendon could waive
his conflict of interest since he is not a decision maker regarding this project. All were
comfortable with proceeding instead of continuing.
CALL UP REPORTS: There were none.
OLD BUSINESS: There were none.
NEW BUSINESS: Item A: 300-312 E Hyman Avenue – Growth Management Review. This is the
conversion of the Crystal Palace dinner theater into a lodge. HPC has granted all the design
review, tonight is exclusively about growth management. There are a certain amount of
allotments that are allowed for new lodge rooms each year so they had to wait and are
requesting 40 pillows. The new building will be physically bigger than the current one, but will
generate less employees. There are two criteria they have to meet as far as making an
improvement operating the lodge in helping transportation issues. There will be a restaurant
on site and they will be working with employees on transportation to and from work.
Chris Bendon there representing the applicant and here to answer any questions.
Mr. DeFrancia said this is all very straightforward and Mr. Halferty agreed.
Mr. Halferty asked for public comment and there was none. He noted that this will be
Resolution #7 regarding FTE’s, areas, growth, net leasable and vested rights.
MOTION: Mr. Moyer moved to approve Resolution #7, Ms. Greenwood seconded. Roll call
vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. DeFrancia, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Halferty,
yes. Motion carried, 5-0.
NEW BUSINESS: Item B: 540 E Main St. Rescinding Designation of Historic Property.
Ms. Simon noted that this is regarding the historic structures that were previously located on
the former Zupancis property. Per HPC approval, the historic structures will be relocated to the
Holden-Marolt property and used for museum purposes. The Applicant is requesting the
historic designation be removed from the property with the removal of the historic structures.
Staff recommends delisting the property. Recommending to Council.
P2
II.B.
3
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MARCH 22, 2017
There were no questions or comments from the board and no public comment.
Alan Richman of Alan Richman Planning Services, Inc present and representing the applicant
asked for HPC’s approval.
There were no board comments or questions and no public comment.
MOTION: Mr. DeFrancia motioned to approve Resolution #8, seconded by Mr. Moyer. Roll call
vote: Mr. DeFrancia, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Halferty,
yes. 5-0 motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS: ITEM C: 110 E Hallam St., 215 N Garmisch St., 630 W Main St., 1101 E Cooper
Ave and the Aspen Pedestrian Mall: Designation of Historic Property.
Ms. Simon recommended to the commission to first discuss all the properties except 110 E
Hallam so Ms. Berko could participate.
Ms. Simon reviewed the application: These are four properties owned by the City of Aspen. She
stated that these structures reach back 50 years, some reach back to WWII.
Citizen taskforce helped develop this program and identify properties. The HPC made a motion
in 2015 asking Council to make this a priority. There was a consultant, Ron Sladic, hired and he
made recommendations for the Yellow Brick, Mountain Rescue, the Anderson Parcel and
Pedestrian Malls to be historic designations. Ms. Simon reviewed the matrix developed for each
property and discussed how the matrix is evaluated to determine how a property can be
scored.
The Yellow Brick – was built in 1960 and representative of a tremendous growth in town when
there was a deficiency in schools. Example of thinking and changes in education. The buildings
were more low lying and connected to the ground, modern features, flat roof and yellow brick.
Wheeler & Lewis, architects from Denver, designed this building among many other schools
across Colorado.
Mountain Rescue – Community members willing to help rescue people going out of their
bounds into the backcountry. This was founded by Fred Braun. The building is important
because it is a great example of Panabode (kit log buildings) which cost about $30.00 per
square foot per research.
Anderson Property – This property has a log cabin on it which was built in 1949 and was a
vacation home for a family from Denver and was subsequently sold to the Andersons and was
used to support their business for 15-20 years. This is a rustic hand built log home from the
P3
II.B.
4
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MARCH 22, 2017
mid-century and there are also Victorian era structures on site that have been moved there.
This property scored 19 out of 20 and very little that has been changed.
Pedestrian Mall – There is an incredible amount of history here. It took 20 years to build the
mall. The community discussed this starting in the 1950’s. There were temporary malls
created in the 1970’s when funding was available and Colorado laws allowing it to be built.
There were high school students involved in planning.
Staff memo notes the City of Aspen wants the following rights and terms:
Yellow Brick – ability to expand structure in the future. It asks for HPC to allow expansion on
the basketball courts in future applications. HPC does not have purview over the interior of the
property.
Anderson Property – The City of Aspen would like to move the Victorian structures in the
future, but not sure where just yet and HPC can help evaluate where they go. They also may
want to put a basement underneath the house.
Pedestrian Mall – There are numerous items here: mall leases, trees, maintenance, special
events. HPC would only be involved with important and permanent changes.
Staff recommends that HPC recommend Historic designation to Council
Ms. Greenwood asked if there are any requirements to remove the non-historic amendments?
Ms. Simon stated that the scoring forms for each property are attached. Mr. Halferty noted
page 172 of the packet.
Jeff Woods, Parks & Recreation Director spoke and said he strongly supports this historic
designation. They are currently conducting a master plan and this is the perfect time to have
this designation met. As far as the Pedestrian Mall, it’s a simple landscape that has survived 40
years and noted Tina Bishop, who is on the team to redesign the malls. He wants to continue
including HPC in the process. As for Anderson Park, he mentioned that Bob Bowden is
developing next to this park and is anxious for the park master plan to be completed and
executed. Mr. Woods feels that the additional structures have changed the property.
Mr. Moyer asked if the building is currently being used? Mr. Woods said yes, employee housing
and someone is currently living there. Mr. Moyer asked if the public goes there right now and
Mr. Woods said not much at this time. Ms. Greenwood asked about the desired future use and
P4
II.B.
5
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MARCH 22, 2017
Mr. Woods said they would like it returned to the original state and would like the river to be
more accessible with no playground or courts, etc. Ms. Greenwood said the open space there
feels so good in that congested part of town and then asked how long the City has owned the
property. Mr. Woods believed that it was purchased in the mid 1990’s and Parks took
possession in 2003 or 2004.
Mr. Halferty asked if there will be access planned other than vehicular. Mr. Woods stated they
would like to add access, but need to work with the neighbors. He stressed that they want to
keep it quiet and simple.
Mr. Moyer asked where Bob Bowden’s development is planned and Mr. Bowden stated that it
is to the east of the property. Mr. Woods stated that they are working with Mr. Bowden
regarding the property. They are looking how they can jointly get construction done all at once.
Ms. Simon stated that the Yellow Brick is the next topic of conversation.
Shirley Ritter present speaking from Kid’s First.
Mr. Halferty asked who identified the location of the additional structure. Ms. Ritter stated
that this was identified by City staff and community leaders. She stated that the basketball
court is the one amenity that has the least fit with the children who are there using. Mr.
Woods feels the basketball court is the least impactful for the area.
Mr. Bill Stirling commented from the public: Aspen is unique in that we have two significant
types of architectural eras. 1. Victorian – required to be preserved. 2. Post WWII buildings.
He noted that the Bow House and Log House is typical of this area. The Panabode, typical of
Jack Holtz or Lefty Brinkman, like linkin logs were going up all over town and the thought was to
be low scale and fit in with neighboring properties. The board met and was divided between
voluntary vs carrot & stick approach. City Council chose to make it voluntary so this is a good
opportunity for the City to stand up and be a good steward to maintain these as public and
significant structures. He noted that most people who come in want the perks from historic
designation, for instance, the Lundy house application. He noted how the Marolt property is a
gathering place for people to take advantage of and sees this property in the same light. He is
concerned that what Mr. Bowden is building could dwarf this area. He suggested the City work
with him to ensure this property works in harmony with Mr. Bowden.
Mr. Bob Bowden commented: I am very much in support of this. When it was purchased, they
reached out to Mr. Woods and the Parks dept to see how they could help and work together.
They have worked with staff to design the house to be low and not impact the park. They have
donated money to plan the park and are interested in continuing to work with the City and to
be good neighbors. They also hired Design Workshop to work with the City on the landscaping
P5
II.B.
6
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MARCH 22, 2017
between the house and the park. They would like to see the roof color changed and he
anticipates a basement would have water issues, but he supports the historic designation.
Ms. Greenwood asked about the location of the project and Mr. Bowden stated it is on the bluff
and is about 50 ft back from the highway. Ms. Greenwood asked how far the residence would
be from the cabin and Mr. Woods estimated about 50 more feet. Mr. Woods noted the
vegetation between the house and the cabin cannot be removed.
Ms. Simon read a letter from Barbara Reed, which was entered into the record.
Ms. Berko feels this has been a long time coming and is very exciting. The presentation and
packet is a nutshell of Aspen history. She also mentioned that her teacher was Ms. Anderson
and remembered carrying their desks in the snow to move into the Yellow Brick as a student.
Ms. Greenwood feels that the Andersons would enjoy their property being designated.
MOTION: Mr. DeFrancia moved to approve Resolution #9, Ms. Berko and Mr. Moyer seconded.
Roll Call Vote: Mr. DeFrancia, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr.
Halferty, yes. 5-0 motion carried.
Ms. Berko recused herself from the discussion of 110 E Hallam.
Ms. Greenwood believes there is a need to protect the areas around the historic sites. There
should be public input and guidelines on developing next to a historic site. Ms. Simon said they
would need direction from City Council, not sure they can protect sites like this. Mr. Moyer
noted an example and agrees with Ms. Greenwood. Ms. Simon said this would require a lot of
further discussion. Ms. Greenwood suggested the entire town be designated as historic and
she asked Ms. Simon to bring it up with staff. Mr. Halferty said this puts a lot of extra stress on
staff and feels the City is on the cusp of moving to another era. He agrees with Ms. Greenwood
and Mr. Moyer and noted that Telluride has designated their entire town as historic and
doesn’t think their agenda is that much larger.
Red Brick – Ms. Simon said this is the oldest of the properties being discussed tonight being
built in 1941. There were 1000 kids in schools during the silver boom and after, the state
inspectors condemned the older school structures. They started using the brick, but by the
time they started using it, it was too small so they started making additions. This was designed
by an architect from Grand Junction who introduced very modern design with steel windows.
P6
II.B.
7
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MARCH 22, 2017
Sam Caudil designed the gym in 1953 and used steel trusses. The community voted (very
tightly) to designate this building. Glen Rappaport designed the log entry to the gym and Mr.
Pember did the west addition. Ms. Greenwood asked if there are any plans and Ms. Simon
stated not specifically, but the back of the building has been designated as potential area to be
developed in the parking area so this is a suggested term of approval.
Mr. Moyer stated that he has been going to yoga there for the past 20 years.
There was no public comment
Angie Cowen, Executive Director of the Red Brick was present to speak. They are a non profit
organization that manages the Red Brick for the City. She stated the parking lot would be the
only area that may be used for an addition. A new roof is planned for this summer and already
go through Ms. Simon for approval for permits. There are no major projects planned, but they
want to continue to operate it as an art center and she and her board wonder about placing art
in front of the building and she feels it is culturally significant to the community.
Mr. Moyer asked where the heating is located. Ms. Cowen stated that a boiler room was added
in 2001 and the original boiler was on the roof. There was a new boiler added six years ago.
Mr. Moyer commented how cold the gym is during the winter.
MOTION: Mr. Moyer moves to approve Resolution #10, seconded by Mr. DeFrancia. Roll call
vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. DeFrancia, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes. 4-0 motion
carried.
Mr. Moyer motioned to adjourn at 6:10 p.m.
___________________________
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
P7
II.B.
8
P8
II.B.
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 500 W. Main Street– Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial
Design, Special Review and Variations, PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED
FROM APRIL 12, 2017
DATE: April 26, 2017
______________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY: 500 W. Main is located in the Main Street
Historic District and contains an 1890 false front building,
the largest remaining in Aspen. The structure was built as
a grocery store and later operated as The Mesa Store
Bakery. Since then, it has been occupied by a number of
office and retail uses.
On October 12, 2016, HPC reviewed and approved a
proposal to make the property home to Rowland +
Broughton Architects. HPC granted Conceptual design
approval, Special Review related to floor area, and
Variations to Parking and Setback requirements generated
by a proposed addition to the historic structure.
Subsequently, the applicant decided to scale back the
project, eliminating the basement that was to be built
below the addition, and eliminating the second floor of the
addition, which was to have contained a free market apartment. Although the changes reduced
the size of the proposal, they also changed the form from what HPC reviewed. Staff determined
that a new Conceptual review was required to ensure that HPC still finds that the project meets
the design guidelines. The review is conducted under the land use regulations and design
guidelines which were in place at the time of the original 2016 submittal.
HPC is asked to review the revised project in terms of site plan, architectural design, public
amenity, utility/delivery/trash and mitigation of transportation impacts. Once again, variations
for floor area, parking and setbacks are requested.
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. Council did not elect to Call-Up
the 2016 approval.
APPLICANT: Rowland+Broughton.
ADDRESS: 500 W. Main Street, Lots R and S, Block 30, City and Townsite of Aspen.
P9
III.A.
2
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-43-007
ZONING: MU, Mixed Use.
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 “old” Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines; Main
Street Historic District chapter. This project is subject to the “new” City of Aspen Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines. The applicable guidelines are attached as “Exhibit A.”
The historic structure on this site will remain in place, directly along, and even slightly past the
south and east property lines. The applicant plans to reinforce the existing foundation from
within and continue to use the existing basement for commercial purposes.
The applicant proposes to make an addition along the west side of the property, an area which is
currently vacant except for parking. The connector between the historic structure and new
2016 PROPOSAL
2017 PROPOSAL
P10
III.A.
3
addition will attach to the historic resource for a length of approximately 45’ along the west side
of the building, below an exterior stairway that existed historically but has been reconfigured
over the years. At Conceptual review there was some discussion about the size of the connector,
which is a functional space, not merely a hallway linking the two masses. Staff finds that the
size of the connector will be hard to discern from the ground and helps to absorb some of the
program that is needed without requiring a second floor addition as originally planned. The
south face of the connector is setback significantly. Along the alley the connector is placed so
that the northwest corner of the historic structure is revealed.
HPC will note that the roof of the proposed addition is a flat green roof for about 60’ in depth,
then pitches up for the last 20.’ This is done to improve exposure for proposed solar panels and
also to help direct drainage onto the green roof. The applicant has provided a second option
wherein the roof pitches back down towards
the alley as a means to reduce the scale of that
façade. Staff supports the simpler form, with
only one pitch. This is the applicant’s
preferred option as well.
Staff finds the proposal is sympathetic to the
historic structure and the adjacent miner’s
cottage to the west, even more so now that the
addition is entirely one story. As can be seen
from the 1893 Bird’s Eye View of Aspen at
right in red, in the Victorian era there were
three small storefronts directly alongside 500
W. Main. Their date of demolition is
unknown.
SPECIAL REVIEW FOR FLOOR AREA
Staff finds the project is a good fit with the scale of the surrounding development. The proposed
addition is lower in height than the historic building and meets all setback requirements. The
width of the addition, not including the recessed connector, is 20’. Materials and windows will
be discussed at Final, but the project appears to be compatible while still being architecturally
interesting itself.
While the project is approximately 300 square feet below the 6,000 square foot total maximum
floor area allowed for the lot, commercial use is limited to 0.75:1, or 4,500 square feet of floor
area. Anything in excess would have to be residential or another use. The applicant does not wish
to construct a residence and is asking to be allowed to use almost all of the allowable floor area
on the site for commercial purposes. At 5,689 square feet of commercial floor area, the project
exceeds the stated cap on commercial by just less than 1,200 square feet.
HPC has the authority to allow the additional space devoted to commercial floor area, so long as
the total project remains below 6,000 square feet of floor area, as follows:
P11
III.A.
4
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 and supports the
requested variation. Granting this approval does not allow the building to be any larger than it
could be otherwise. It allows the applicant to use the interior space in a way that supports the
success of their local business.
SETBACK VARIATIONS
The applicant is not lifting the historic structure. Encroachment licenses have been issued in the
past to recognize that the building, particularly the entry porch, sits well past the front lot line.
The building is also slightly past the east lot line. Staff recommends setback variations be
granted as part of this process to note that the building sits within required setbacks and that is
accepted.
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’.
In order to grant a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance:
a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or
district; and/or
b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or
architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic
property or historic district.
Staff recommends that HPC grant a waiver of the 10’ front yard setback and a waiver of the 5’
east yard setback.
PARKING VARIATIONS
With regard to parking, the project requires 1 space per 1,000 square feet of net leasable. The
total net leasable of the proposed project is approximately 6,415 square feet, so 6.4 parking
spaces are needed. 1 space is provided in the proposal. The space is required to be accessible, so
it consumes a fairly large footprint through the creation of a parking area and access aisle.
P12
III.A.
5
It is difficult to accommodate more parking on the site because of required walkways, proposed
bike storage, and a new transformer, which the applicant has been told must be included.
The applicant has the right to pay cash in lieu for the unmet parking, 5.4 spaces at $30,000 per
space. HPC also has the authority to waive the mitigation fee as part of the benefits for landmark
properties, upon a finding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the
historic significance or architectural character of a designated historic property, an adjoining
designated property or a historic district. Staff supports the waiver of the cash-in-lieu fee as
Section 26.415.110 of the Land Use Code establishes benefits for historic properties and states:
“The City is committed to providing support to property owners to assist their efforts to
maintain, preserve and enhance their historic properties. Recognizing that these properties are
valuable community assets is the basic premise underlying the provision of special procedures
and programs for designated historic properties and districts. Benefits to encourage good historic
preservation practices by the owners of historic properties are an important aspect of Aspen's
historic preservation program. Historic resources are a valuable community asset and their
continued protection is the basic premise supporting the creation of an innovative package of
preservation tools that are unlike any other in the country.”
The proposed elevations include several restoration actions, which will be reviewed in more
detail at Final. A number of the original upper floor windows have been changed from paired
double hungs into tripartite windows that are architecturally inappropriate to the building. The
historic window design is to be restored. The front porch of the building was altered in the
1980s, removing a beadboard skirt along the eave and adding a much more bulky detail
wrapping around this element. The applicant hopes to reconstruct the original design. Finally,
the applicant is representing a shed roof over the exterior stairway, like the original design,
instead of the flat roof over that element that is in place today. These efforts are listed in the
resolution as conditions of approval.
UTILITIES, TRASH AND RECYCLING
P13
III.A.
6
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.
The application provides about 1/4th of the 200 square foot area that is required to be devoted to
these purposes. Environmental Health had indicated during the previous review that approval is
possible if the bins are enclosed with walls. For Final review a plan which has been formally
accepted by Environmental Health must be provided.
The standards are:
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
P14
III.A.
7
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.
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).
PUBLIC AMENITY
Redevelopment requires the applicant to at least maintain the current amount of on-site public
amenity, which amounts to 648 square feet. The parking area does not count as public amenity.
The proposal actually exceeds the requirement by increasing qualifying public amenity to
approximately 1,057 square feet. 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.
P15
III.A.
8
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.
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT
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.” After reviewing the draft submitted by the applicant, it
appears that they are overestimating their obligation by not giving themselves credit for the
existing space. Only the new net leasable area being constructed must be addressed. 500 W.
Main currently has about 4,230 square feet of net leasable, which is to be increased by about
2,185 square feet. Staff recommends the applicant continue to work with the Engineering, Parks
and Transportation Departments for an approved plan for Final review.
REFERRAL COMMENTS
In fall 2016, Staff and the applicant met with other City Departments to discuss any conditions for
the redevelopment of this property. At the time the group was reviewing the previous, larger
proposal. 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 comments, which are attached as
Exhibit B. No conditions of approval are required at this time.
______________________________________________________________________________
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 grant approval as follows:
1. HPC grants Special Review approval to allow the commercial floor area on the property
to be up to 1:1.
2. HPC grants a waiver of the 10’ front yard setback and a waiver of the 5’ east yard
setback.
3. HPC grants a waiver of the cash in lieu fee required for all parking above and beyond the
one space provided on the site plan.
4. The Final review application must include restoration of the upper floor windows, the
porch, and a pitched roof over the exterior staircase on the historic resource.
P16
III.A.
9
5. A utilities, trash and recycling plan approved by Environmental Health, must be included
in the Final application.
6. A revised TIA plan must be included in the Final application.
7. 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.
Exhibits:
Resolution #__, Series of 2017
A. Design Guidelines
B. DRC Comments
C. Application
Exhibit A- Relevant Design Guidelines
HPC Guidelines
1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block,
neighborhood or district.
· Building footprint and location should reinforce the traditional patterns of the
neighborhood.
· Allow for some porosity on a site. In a residential project, setback to setback
development is typically uncharacteristic of the historic context. Do not design a project
which leaves no useful open space visible from the street.
1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces.
· Reflect the established progression of public to private spaces from the public sidewalk
to a semi-public walkway, to a semi private entry feature, to private spaces.
1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry
on residential projects.
· Meandering walkways are not allowed, except where it is needed to avoid a tree or is
typical of the period of significance.
· Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style and
install them in the manner that they would have been used historically. For example on
an Aspen Victorian landmark set flagstone pavers in sand, rather than in concrete. Light
grey concrete, brick or red sandstone are appropriate private walkway materials for most
landmarks.
· The width of a new entry sidewalk should generally be three feet or less for residential
properties. A wider sidewalk may be appropriate for an AspenModern property.
1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site.
P17
III.A.
10
· Ensure that open space on site is meaningful and consolidated into a few large spaces
rather than many small unusable areas.
· Open space should be designed to support and complement the historic building.
1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process.
· When included in the initial planning for a project, stormwater quality facilities can be
better integrated into the proposal. All landscape plans presented for HPC review must
include at least a preliminary representation of the stormwater design. A more detailed
design must be reviewed and approved by Planning and Engineering prior to building
permit submittal.
· Site designs and stormwater management should provide positive drainage away from
the historic landmark, preserve the use of natural drainage and treatment systems of the
site, reduce the generation of additional stormwater runoff, and increase infiltration into
the ground. Stormwater facilities and conveyances located in front of a landmark should
have minimal visual impact when viewed from the public right of way.
· Refer to City Engineering for additional guidance and requirements.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one’s ability to interpret the historic character of
the primary building is maintained.
· A new addition must be compatible with the historic character of the primary building.
· An addition must be subordinate, deferential, modest, and secondary in comparison to
the architectural character of the primary building.
· An addition that imitates the primary building’s historic style is not allowed. For
example, a new faux Victorian detailed addition is inappropriate on an Aspen Victorian
home.
· An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
· Proposals on corner lots require particular attention to creating compatibility.
10.4 The historic resource is to be the focus of the property, the entry point, and the
predominant structure as viewed from the street.
· The historic resource must be visually dominant on the site and must be distinguishable
against the addition.
· The total above grade floor area of an addition may be no more than 100% of the above
grade floor area of the original historic resource. All other above grade development
must be completely detached. HPC may consider exceptions to this policy if two or more
of the following are met:
o The proposed addition is all one story
o The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of the historic
resource and the proposed design is particularly sensitive to the scale and
proportions of the historic resource
o The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older addition that is
considered to have been particularly detrimental to the historic resource
o The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable
floors as existed historically
P18
III.A.
11
o The project is on a large lot, allowing the addition to have a significant setback
from the street
o There are no variance requests in the application other than those related to
historic conditions that aren’t being changed
o The project is proposed as part of a voluntary AspenModern designation, or
o The property is affected by non-preservation related site specific constraints such
as trees that must be preserved, Environmentally Sensitive Areas review, etc.
10.6 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
· An addition shall be distinguishable from the historic building and still be visually
compatible with historic features.
· A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in
material, or a modern interpretation of a historic style are all techniques that may be
considered to help define a change from historic construction to new construction.
· Do not reference historic styles that have no basis in Aspen.
· Consider these three aspects of an addition; form, materials, and fenestration. An
addition must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements.
Departing from the historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and
a contemporary design response.
· Note that on a corner lot, departing from the form of the historic resource may not be
allowed.
· There is a spectrum of appropriate solutions to distinguishing new from old portions of a
development. Some resources of particularly high significance or integrity may not be
the right instance for a contrasting addition.
10.7 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic
alignments on the street.
· Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings may align at approximately the
same height. An addition can not be placed in a location where these relationships would
be altered or obscured.
10.8 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
· An addition that is lower than, or similar to the height of the primary building, is
preferred.
10.10 Place an addition at the rear of a primary building or set it back substantially from
the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original
proportions and character to remain prominent.
· Locating an addition at the front of a primary building is inappropriate.
· Additions to the side of a primary building are handled on a case-by-case basis and are
approved based on site specific constraints that restrict rear additions.
· Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will
not alter the exterior mass of a building.
10.11 Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building.
· A simple roof form that does not compete with the historic building is appropriate.
P19
III.A.
12
· On Aspen Victorian properties, a flat roof may only be used on an addition to a gable
roofed structure if the addition is entirely one story in height, or if the flat roofed areas
are limited, but the addition is primarily a pitched roof.
10.12 Design an addition to a historic structure that does not destroy or obscure
historically important architectural features.
· Loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices, and eavelines must be avoided.
Commercial Design Standards
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:
q Parking shall be placed underground or in a structure wherever possible.
q Where surface parking must be provided, it shall be located to the rear or the interior of the
property, behind the structure.
q Surface parking shall be externally buffered with landscaping, and internally planted and
landscaped to soften parking areas.
7.5 Respect historic settlement patterns.
q 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.
7.8 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.
q The building should be oriented parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern
of the block.
q 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.
q These include front yard , side yard and rear yard setbacks.
q Setbacks vary in some areas, but generally fall within an established range. A greater variety
in setbacks is inappropriate in this context.
q Consider locating within the average range of setbacks along the block.
7.12 A new structure should step down in scale where it abuts a single story historic
structure.
7.13 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of
the Main Street Historic District.
q Refer to the zone district regulations to determine the maximum height limit on the subject
property.
q A minimum second story floor to ceilling height of 9 ft. should be used in a method that is
respectful to historic buildings.
q 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.)
P20
III.A.
13
- 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.
- 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.
q 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.
q Other subordinate modules may be attached to the primary building form.
P21
III.A.
Historic Preservation Commission
Resolution #__, Series 2017
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION #__
(SERIES OF 2017)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, CONCEPTUAL
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL REVIEW AND VARIATIONS FOR 500
W. MAIN STREET, LOTS R AND S, BLOCK 30, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
Parcel ID: 2735-124-43-007
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
Rowland+Broughton for the following land use review approvals:
· 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,
· Benefits for Landmarks pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415; 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
September 21, 2016, the Community Development Department received referral comments from
the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Parks Department, Environmental
Health and Zoning; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed
Application and recommended approval with conditions, and,
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the Application at a duly
noticed public hearing on October 16, 2016 and granted approval. Subsequently the applicant
revised the design in a manner which the Community Development Director determined required
a new Conceptual Review. HPC reviewed the revised Application at duly noticed public hearing
on April 27, 2017, 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 2017, 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 Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual
P22
III.A.
Historic Preservation Commission
Resolution #__, Series 2017
Page 2 of 2
Commercial Design, Special Review and Variations for the version of the project labeled as
“Preferred Design” with the following conditions:
1. HPC grants Special Review approval to allow the commercial floor area on the property to
be up to 1:1.
2. HPC grants a waiver of the 10’ front yard setback and a waiver of the 5’ east yard setback.
3. HPC grants a waiver of the cash in lieu fee required for all parking above and beyond the one
space provided on the site plan.
4. The Final review application must include restoration of the upper floor windows, the porch,
and a pitched roof over the exterior staircase on the historic resource.
5. A utilities, trash and recycling plan approved by Environmental Health, must be included in
the Final application.
6. A revised TIA plan must be included in the Final application.
7. 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 2:
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 3:
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4:
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 26th day of April, 2017.
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
__________________________ ______________________________
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Jeffrey Halferty, Chair
Attest:
_______________________________
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
P23
III.A.
REFERRAL COMMENTS
Engineering Department, PJ Murray
These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the project packet
submitted for purpose of the DRC meeting.
ROW Improvements:
§ Bring alley into compliance with the COA Engineering Design Standards, include
walkway.
§ Replace C&G along Main and 4th Streets if in poor condition.
§ If trees along 4th St are removed: detached 6’ wide sidewalk with 5’ buffer and new tree
plantings.
§ Design and implement a new unidirectional ADA ramp at corner of Main and 4th to cross
east/west.
§ Provide adequate width/landings/cross slopes for the covered ADA ramp to the Mesa
Store Building.
§ The sidewalk adjacent to the addition shall be aligned along the property line to provide
maximum buffer width for the existing cotton wood and to remove the jog in the
sidewalk. This sidewalk shall be 6’ width with the remainder ROW as a buffer.
TIA Analysis:
§ MMLOS:
o “New Large-scale landscaping” credit does not apply. Applicable to large campus
like sites only.
o Enhanced pedestrian access points credit does not apply to access from the
sidewalk to the building but does count for the improved ADA ramp at the corner,
and the improved alley walkway. (Access to the “site” not the building itself).
§ TIA: no comments.
Utilities:
§ Is a new transformer required? If so, it must be located within property boundaries with
proper easements.
§ Call out water service line location, size and type on the plans. Will one service line be
utilized?
§ Provide fire suppression calculations if fire suppression is proposed. Clarify if fire
suppression will be used in the existing building and in the addition.
Stormwater Requirements:
§ Capture and treat the WQCV for the entire site and route to the City’s storm system. If
this is not achievable then full detention must be provided.
P24
III.A.
______________________________________________________________________________
ACSD, Tom Bracewell
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.
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).
P25
III.A.
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 Department, Dave Radeck
Sidewalk alignment will need to match property on west.
Any trees that will be removed will require a tree removal permit from the Parks Department.
There may be an opportunity to install 1 tree along Main Street, depending on sight triangle.
Zoning, Jim Pomeroy
1. Floor Area:
a. As per 25.575.020.D.14, Allocation of non-unit Space, garages are always
considered non-unit space in a mixed-use building. You do however still enjoy
the residential garage exemption.
b. A portion of the basement is exposed to daylight where the exterior stairs go
down to the basement, therefore a portion of the basement commercial and non-
unit space will count towards FA for those uses. Please show exterior subgrade
walls, and the percentage of exposed wall, and then the percentage of commercial
and non-unit space that counts as FA.
c. For calculating non-unit space allocation, as per 26.575.020.D.14, when
calculating the percent of non-unit being allocated to use, use gross square
footage (including the basement), and then use FA later to figure out what percent
of non-unit FA counts towards each use. I gave Dana a mock-up on how to chart
out all of this properly.
2. Height:
a. According to the survey, there is a 2’ drop across the east side of the property, and
a 2.5’ drop from the sw to the ne corners of the property. Please show these drops
in existing/natural grade on the relevant elevations.
b. Add the elevator overrun to the elevations.
c. Show lines for existing and proposed grades with labels
d. Please add a height over topography chart
3. Site plan: Please include any exterior AC units, air handlers, etc. It may be that you
might just show where they would go if wanted in the future.
4. Lighting: Please include a detailed exterior lighting plan with the permit.
P26
III.A.
______________________________________________________________________________
Building Department, Nick Thompson
1. 2015 IBC allows exit access stairs as both exits from a story but only if the two
connected stories
aren’t open to any other stories. Will need to work out the means of egress system. If any of the
stairs need to be enclosed as interior exit stairs or the exterior stairs need to become exterior
exit stairs, fire ratings could affect the exterior look of the building.
2. If indoor garage is non-unit space it must be van-accessible (including 98” headroom). If
residential, one of the other spaces will need to be van-accessible. Accessible connecting route
required.
3. 60% of entrances must be accessible.
Environmental Health, Liz Chapman
1. The application does not meet the 200 sq. ft. space requirements for a Commercial
building
(Municipal Code 12.10.030(A) a.)
a. The applicant has indicated they would consider enclosing the space in lieu of providing
the full space required.
b. Applicant was informed that an electric barrier would be considered and enclosure and
would not require a solid roof.
2. Access to all trash and recycling areas must be ADA compliant. And not encroach upon the
right of
way.
P27
III.A.
P28
III.A.
P29
III.A.
P30
III.A.
P31
III.A.
P32
III.A.
P33
III.A.
P34
III.A.
P35
III.A.
P36
III.A.
P37
III.A.
P38
III.A.
P39
III.A.
P40III.A.
P41III.A.
P42III.A.
P43III.A.
P44III.A.
P45III.A.
P46III.A.
P47III.A.
P48III.A.
P49III.A.
P50III.A.
P51III.A.
P52III.A.
P53III.A.
P54III.A.
P55III.A.
P56III.A.
210 W. Main Street
Staff memo
4.26.2017
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Justin Barker, Senior Planner
THRU: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 210 W. Main Street- Major Development (Conceptual), Demolition, Residential
Design Standard Review, Commercial Design Review, Special Review, Public
Hearing
DATE: April 26, 2017 (Site visit at 12:00 PM day of hearing)
________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY: 210 W. Main is a 6,000 square foot parcel, zoned Mixed Use (MU) and located in
the Main Street Historic District. The site currently contains 6 free market residential units, 1
affordable housing unit, and one commercial/residential unit. The surrounding development
includes a mix of residential, commercial and lodging.
The applicant proposes to redevelop the site with eight (8) affordable housing units to create
affordable housing credits. The applicant requests the following reviews from HPC:
1. Major Development Conceptual review
2. Demolition of a building within a historic district
3. Special Review for an FAR increase from 1:1 to 1.25:1
4. Special Review for a reduction of 1 parking space (7 required and 6 proposed)
5. Residential Design Standard review for multi-family buildings
6. Conceptual Commercial Design Review to allow a height of 32 ft.
Staff recommends continuation to restudy the layout, mass, and scale of the project to
better relate to the historic district.
APPLICANT: King Louise, LLC, PO Box 1467, Basalt, CO 81621, represented by
BendonAdams.
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-40-009.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots P & Q, Block 51, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONE DISTRICT: MU, Mixed Use.
P57
IV.A.
210 W. Main Street
Staff memo
4.26.2017
2
Figure 1 – Locator and Zoning Map
Proposal:
The proposed project includes demolishing the existing building and constructing a new structure
containing eight affordable housing units. Following are the proposed unit descriptions:
Table 1: Unit breakdown
Unit # Bedrooms Net livable area
(sf)
Storage outside
unit (sf)
Total area
(sf)
Number of
FTEs
101 2 845 80 925 2.25
102 2 870 80 950 2.25
201 2 840 80 920 2.25
202 2 850 80 930 2.25
203 2 870 80 950 2.25
301 2 870 80 950 2.25
302 2 850 80 930 2.25
303 2 840 80 920 2.25
Totals 16 6835 640 7475 18
P58
IV.A.
210 W. Main Street
Staff memo
4.26.2017
3
CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW:
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC 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. A list of the relevant HPC design guidelines is attached as “Exhibit A.”
Development in the Main Street Historic District began with primarily residential buildings
constructed during the early mining era with only a handful of other uses mixed in, such as
churches and a grocery store. More than 50% of the lots in the district contain Victorian-era
structures1, which justified naming it a historic district in 1976. Starting in the 1930s, lodging
development occurred, first as small scale cabins and bed and breakfasts, then as larger hotels.
Only about 12% of the properties on Main Street are lodges. While some of these more recent
buildings may be of significance, they do not establish the historic context for Main Street.
Figure 2 – Proposed design, viewed from southwest
1 This block face contains no historic structures.
P59
IV.A.
210 W. Main Street
Staff memo
4.26.2017
4
The proposed design is three-stories with a flat roof. In the Main Street Historic District,
buildings are generally one to two stories in height. Where a third story is present, it is typically
set back on the site and in limited areas. Most of the historic development in the district were
wood frame with gable roof forms (see Figure 3 below). Even the non-historic development,
such as the various lodges and 7th & Main affordable housing, often contain sloped roof forms
and varied heights to relate to the context of the Victorian era buildings. Incorporating some
sloped roof forms or more variation in height would better relate to the historic development.
Figure 3 – 1893 Birdseye view. Sloped roof forms were prominent during the mining era.
Overall, staff is concerned that the form and layout of the proposed project do not relate to the
Main Street Historic District. The Main Street Historic District Guidelines state:
“A similarity of building forms also contributes to a sense of visual continuity
along Main Street. In order to maintain this feature, a new building should have
basic roof and building forms that are similar to those seen traditionally. Overall
facade proportions also should be in harmony with the context. The character of
the roof is a major feature of historic buildings in the Main Street District. The
similar roof forms contribute to the sense of visual continuity when repeated
along the street. In each case, the roof pitch, its materials, size and orientation
are all important to the overall character of the building. New construction
should not break from this continuity. New structures and their roofs should be
similar in character to their historic neighbors.”
The mass of the building includes two large rectangular forms with a separate circulation tower
connected to the front mass by exterior walkways. Although the application notes there are
several larger buildings within the vicinity that the proposed design relates to, the guidelines call
for design that appears similar in scale to the mining era buildings. Most of the larger buildings
are small lodges that were constructed as a response to the tourist boom following World War II.
P60
IV.A.
210 W. Main Street
Staff memo
4.26.2017
5
These are considered “anomalies” and even have their own design guidelines to address how they
are treated differently. The proposed massing and layout contribute to a design that appears
significantly larger than what would traditionally be seen in the Victorian era buildings. The 1893
Sanborn map is shown below as reference. Although staff recognizes some of the historic
buildings have been modified and added onto over time, the map is helpful in representing the
historic scale of building modules. Staff suggests that the circulation tower should be relocated
and overall mass should be broken down to reduce the apparent scale of the development.
Figure 4 – 1893 Sanborn Map. Massing is typically smaller for historic buildings (purple).
Staff finds the following guidelines are not met:
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.
A front yard is a typical feature that is consistent with historic development in the district.
Generally, the only properties that don’t have front yards are the larger lodge projects, which are
not from the mining era. The proposal includes open space, however the three-story circulation
tower and walkways block the space from Main Street. Staff recognizes the desire to reduce
sound and dust from Main Street, but this element makes the building appear more massive and
does not reflect the open space character of the historic district. A desirable outdoor space could
still be accommodated through landscaping and a low fence, which is typical for historic Main
P61
IV.A.
210 W. Main Street
Staff memo
4.26.2017
6
Street. Larger balconies and porches could also be an appropriate way to provide outdoor space
which relate to the historic district.
Figure 5 – 1893 Sanborn Map. Historically, setbacks are more consistent.
Staff finds the following guidelines are not met:
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.
7.10 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.
The applicant is also requesting design approval to increase the height to 32 ft. The Code this
project was submitted under limits height to 28 ft. for multi-family residential uses, or up to 32 ft.
through Commercial Design review2. Increased height may be permitted to benefit the livability
of affordable housing units or if the project makes demonstrable contributions to the building’s
overall energy efficiency. Although an increased height would allow taller ceiling heights which
benefits the livability of the units, the guidelines also call for new buildings to reflect the range
and variation in building height. The existing development is approximately 24 ft., while must of
the surrounding development varies between 20-27 ft. A height of 32 ft. for a large mass of this
project is out of scale with the rest of the block and would be inappropriate.
Staff finds the following guideline is not met:
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:
2 The ability to increase height through design review has been removed in the current Code.
P62
IV.A.
210 W. Main Street
Staff memo
4.26.2017
7
- 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.
- 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.
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW (EXHIBIT B):
The proposed project is a multi-family residential building, which is subject to Residential
Design Standards. Generally, staff finds that the proposal meets the applicable standards.
However, staff does not believe that the proposed “entry door” meets the standard. The proposed
design includes one street-facing, ground level unit, requiring either one street-oriented entrance
or open front porch. There is one proposed door, however it enters into the common outdoor
space and not the unit itself. The intent of the standard is to promote both a physical and visual
connection between the building and the street and to provide a sense that one can directly enter
into the building from the street.
W. MAIN STREET
Figure 6 – Proposed RDS Entry Connection
DEMOLITION (EXHIBIT C):
The existing building is not historic, however the location within a historic district requires HPC
review for demolition. Staff finds that the review criteria are met to demolish a non-historic
building in a historic district.
SPECIAL REVIEW (EXHIBIT D):
The Mixed Use (MU) zone district has a maximum allowable FAR of 1:1 (6,000 sq. ft.) for the
Main Street Historic District. HPC may approve an increase up to 1.25:1 (7,500 sq. ft.) through
Special Review. The proposed project has a Floor Area of 7,362 sq. ft. and is therefore
requesting Special Review approval. In general, staff is not fundamentally opposed to an increase
P63
IV.A.
210 W. Main Street
Staff memo
4.26.2017
8
in allowable Floor Area as an incentive for the development of affordable housing. However,
staff believes that the proposed project is not designed in a manner that is compatible with the
surrounding land uses and is out of scale with most of the development in the Main Street
Historic District, as discussed above. Staff does not support granting a Floor Area increase at this
time.
Additionally, the Applicant is requesting Special Review approval for a reduction of one parking
space. The Land Use Code requires one space per unit. The current development includes 7
spaces for 8 units, a deficit of one space. The current deficit may be maintained, however the
proposal only includes 6 spaces. As a multi-family development in the Aspen Infill Area, Special
Review approval may be granted for a reduction in parking spaces. Staff recognizes that
providing the additional parking space on-site is not feasible or appropriate given the size of the
lot and proposed use. However, staff does not support a full waiver of the space and recommends
that mitigation be provided as a cash-in-lieu payment as a way to help offset the potential parking
impacts of increased density and to help further improve other transportation facilities and
services.
REFERRALS (EXHIBIT E):
Comments from the DRC are attached. The Applicant will require Special Review approval from
Environmental Health for the trash and recycle area. The Applicant also needs to determine if a
new or upgraded transformer is required, which may have significant impacts on the parking area
and building layout. The APCHA Board is scheduled to review this project on their May 17th
regular meeting.
RECOMMENDATION:
Overall, staff believes that there may be too much development proposed for this site. A potential
reduction in programming, such as changing some of the 2-bedroom units into 1-bedroom units
or eliminating one unit entirely, could help remedy several concerns including massing,
compatibility and parking. Staff recommends a continuation to restudy the layout, mass and scale
of the project to better relate to the historic district.
Alternatively, a draft resolution has been included in the packet if HPC supports the project as
presented.
EXHIBITS:
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. Residential Design Standards
C. Demolition Review Criteria
D. Special Review Criteria
E. DRC comments
F. Application
P64
IV.A.
Historic Preservation Commission
Resolution No. -, Series 2017
Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. -
(SERIES OF 2017)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
GRANTING DEMOLITION, CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT,
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW, SPECIAL REVIEW AND
CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR 210 W. MAIN
STREET, LOTS P & Q, BLOCK 51, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel ID: 2735-124-40-009
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
King Louise, LLC (Applicant), represented by BendonAdams, for the following land use review
approvals:
· Demolition pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415,
· Major Development, Conceptual pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415,
· Residential Design Standard Review pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.410,
· Special Review pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.430,
· Conceptual Commercial Design Review pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412; and,
WHEREAS, all code citation references are to the City of Aspen Land Use Code in
effect on the day of initial application, February 21, 2017, as applicable to this Project; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.304.060 of the Land Use Code, the Community
Development Director may combine reviews where more than one (1) development approval is
being sought simultaneously; and,
WHEREAS, as a result of a Development Review Committee meeting held March 29,
2017, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Environmental Health Department, Parks
Department, and Zoning; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed
Application and recommended continuation; and,
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the Application at a duly
noticed public hearing on April 26, 2017, 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 No. -, Series of 2017, by a - to - (- - -) vote, granting approval with the
conditions listed hereinafter.
P65
IV.A.
Historic Preservation Commission
Resolution No. -, Series 2017
Page 2 of 3
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1:Approvals
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Historic Preservation Commission hereby grants Demolition, Relocation, Conceptual Major
Development, Residential Design Standard Review, Special Review and Commercial Design
Review approval for the project as presented to HPC on April 26,2017, with the following
conditions:
1. HPC grants Special Review approval to increase the maximum allowable cumulative
FAR to 1.25:1.
2. HPC grants Special Review approval for the reduction of one (1) parking space on-site.
Six (6) parking spaces shall be provided on-site.
3. HPC grants a maximum allowable height of 32 feet, pursuant to Section 26.412,
Commercial Design Review.
4. HPC grants a variation from Residential Design Standard Section 26.410.040.D(1), Entry
Connection, for the door facing Main Street.
5. 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 2:
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 3:
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4:
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
P66
IV.A.
Historic Preservation Commission
Resolution No. -, Series 2017
Page 3 of 3
deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 26th day of April, 2017.
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
__________________________ ______________________________
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Jeffrey Halferty, Chair
Attest:
_______________________________
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
P67
IV.A.
210 W. Main Street
Exhibit A – Design Guidelines
Page 1 of 6
EXHIBIT A
DESIGN GUIDELINES
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block,
neighborhood or district.
· Building footprint and location should reinforce the traditional patterns of the
neighborhood.
· Allow for some porosity on a site. In a residential project, setback to setback
development is typically uncharacteristic of the historic context. Do not design a project
which leaves no useful open space visible from the street.
1.2 Preserve the system and character of historic streets, alleys, and ditches.
· When HPC input is requested, the following bullet points may be applicable.
· Retain and preserve the variety and character found in historic alleys, including retaining
historic ancillary buildings or constructing new ones.
· Retain and preserve the simple character of historic ditches. Do not plant flower or add
landscape.
· Abandoning or re-routing a street in a historic area is generally discouraged.
· Consider the value of unpaved alleys in residential areas.
· Opening a platted right of way which was abandoned or never graded may be
encouraged on a case by case basis.
1.3 Remove driveways or parking areas accessed directly from the street if they were not
part of the original development of the site.
· Do not introduce new curb cuts on streets.
· Non-historic driveways accessed from the street should be removed if they can be
relocated to the alley.
1.4 Design a new driveway or improve an existing driveway in a manner that minimizes its
visual impact.
· If an alley exists at the site, the new driveway must be located off it.
· Tracks, gravel, light grey concrete with minimal seams, or similar materials are
appropriate for driveways on Aspen Victorian properties.
1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces.
· Reflect the established progression of public to private spaces from the public sidewalk
to a semi-public walkway, to a semi private entry feature, to private spaces.
1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on
residential projects.
P68
IV.A.
210 W. Main Street
Exhibit A – Design Guidelines
Page 2 of 6
· Meandering walkways are not allowed, except where it is needed to avoid a tree or is
typical of the period of significance.
· Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style and
install them in the manner that they would have been used historically. For example on
an Aspen Victorian landmark set flagstone pavers in sand, rather than in concrete. Light
grey concrete, brick or red sandstone are appropriate private walkway materials for most
landmarks.
· The width of a new entry sidewalk should generally be three feet or less for residential
properties. A wider sidewalk may be appropriate for an AspenModern property.
1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site.
· Ensure that open space on site is meaningful and consolidated into a few large spaces
rather than many small unusable areas.
· Open space should be designed to support and complement the historic building.
1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process.
· When included in the initial planning for a project, stormwater quality facilities can be
better integrated into the proposal. All landscape plans presented for HPC review must
include at least a preliminary representation of the stormwater design. A more detailed
design must be reviewed and approved by Planning and Engineering prior to building
permit submittal.
· Site designs and stormwater management should provide positive drainage away from
the historic landmark, preserve the use of natural drainage and treatment systems of the
site, reduce the generation of additional stormwater runoff, and increase infiltration into
the ground. Stormwater faciltiies and conveyances located in front of a landmark should
have minimal visual impact when viewed from the public right of way.
· Refer to City Engineering for additional guidance and requirements.
1.14 Minimize the visual impacts of landscape lighting.
· Landscape and pathway lighting is not permitted in Zone A (refer to diagram) on Aspen
Victorian properties unless an exception is approved by HPC based on safety
considerations.
· Landscape, driveway, and pathway lighting on AspenModern properties is addressed on
a case-by-case basis.
· Landscape light fixtures should be carefully selected so that they are compatible with the
building, yet recognizable as a product of their own time.
· Driveway lighting is not permitted on Aspen Victorian properties.
· Uplighting is not allowed.
1.17 No fence in the front yard is often the most appropriate solution.
Reserve fences for back yards and behind street facing façades, as the best way to preserve the
character of a property.
P69
IV.A.
210 W. Main Street
Exhibit A – Design Guidelines
Page 3 of 6
1.26 Preserve the historic circulation system.
· Minimize the impact of additional vehicular circulation.
· Minimize the visual impact of additional parking.
· Maintain the separation of pedestrian and vehicle which occurred historically.
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.
12.3 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.
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 that a wall,
in a manner that has the least visual impact possible.
· Avoid surface mounted conduit on historic structures.
P70
IV.A.
210 W. Main Street
Exhibit A – Design Guidelines
Page 4 of 6
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.
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.
Main Street Historic District
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 it’s narrow with.
· Paving alleys is strongly discouraged.
· Closing an alley is inappropriate.
7.3 Parking shall not be positioned between the building and the streets. Visual impacts
shall be minimized in one or more of the following ways:
· Parking shall be placed underground or in a structure wherever possible.
P71
IV.A.
210 W. Main Street
Exhibit A – Design Guidelines
Page 5 of 6
· Where surface parking must be provided, it shall be located to the rear or the interior of
the property, behind the structure.
· Surface parking shall be externally buffered with landscaping, and internally planted and
landscaped to soften parking area.
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 materials 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.
7.11 Locate a new secondary structure in a manner that is similar to those seen
historically in the district.
· Secondary structures should be placed along the alley edge.
7.12 A new structure should step down in scale where it abuts a single story historic
structure.
P72
IV.A.
210 W. Main Street
Exhibit A – Design Guidelines
Page 6 of 6
7.13 A new building of addition should reflect the range and variation in building height
of the Main Street Historic District.
· Refer to the zone district regulation 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:
o The primary function of the building is civic. (i.e. the building is a Museum
Performance Hall, Fire Station, etc.)
o 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 inappropriate.
o To benefit the livability of Affordable Housing units.
o 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.
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.
P73
IV.A.
210 W. Main Street
Exhibit B – Residential Design Standards
Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT B
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
26.410.040. Multi-family standards
A. Applicability. Unless stated otherwise below, the design standards in this section shall apply
to all multi-family development.
B. Design standards.
1. Building Orientation (Flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except:
(1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or
below street grade.
b) Intent. This standard seeks to establish a relationship between buildings and streets to
create an engaging streetscape and discourage the isolation of homes from the
surrounding neighborhood. The placement of buildings should seek to frame street
edges physically or visually. Buildings should be oriented in a manner such that they
are a component of the streetscape, which consists of the street itself and the
buildings that surround it. Building orientation should provide a sense of interest and
promote interaction between buildings and passersby. Building orientation is
important in all areas of the city, but is particularly important in the Infill Area where
there is a strong pattern of buildings that are parallel to the street. Designs should
prioritize the visibility of the front façade from the street by designing the majority of
the front façade to be parallel to the street or prominently visible from the street.
Front facades, porches, driveways, windows, and doors can all be designed to have a
strong and direct relationship to the street.
c) Standard. The front façade of a building shall be oriented to face the street on which
it is located.
d) Options. Fulfilling one of the following options shall satisfy this standard:
(1) Strong Orientation Requirement. The front
façade of a building shall be parallel to the
street. On a corner lot, both street-facing
façades of a building shall be parallel to each
street. See Figure 30.
(2) Moderate Orientation Requirement. The front
façade of a building shall face the street. On a
corner lot, one street-facing façade shall face
each intersecting street.
The availability of these options shall be determined according to the following
lot characteristics:
Figure 30
P74
IV.A.
210 W. Main Street
Exhibit B – Residential Design Standards
Page 2 of 5
Staff Findings: The proposed design is oriented parallel to Main Street. Staff
finds this standard to be met.
2. Garage Access (Non-flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard is required for all lots that have vehicular access from an
alley or private street.
b) Intent. This standard seeks to minimize potential conflicts between pedestrians and
vehicles by concentrating parking along
alleys and away from the street where
pedestrian activity is highest. This standard
also seeks to minimize the visibility of plain,
opaque and unarticulated garage doors from
streets by placing them in alleys wherever
possible. Properties with alleys shall utilize
the alley as an opportunity to place the
garage in a location that is subordinate to the
principal building, further highlighting the primary building from
the street. This standard is important for any property where an alley is available,
which is most common in the Infill Area.
c) Standard. A multi-family building that has access from an alley or private street shall
be required to access parking, garages and carports from the alley or private street.
See Figure 31.
Staff Findings: The proposed design provides vehicular access from the alley.
There is an existing curb cut on Main Street that will be removed. Staff finds this
standard to be met.
3. Garage Placement (Non-flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard is required for all lots that do not have vehicular access
from an alley or private street.
b) Intent. This standard seeks to prevent large expanses of unarticulated facades close to
the street and ensure garages are subordinate to the principal building for properties
that feature driveway and garage access directly from the street. Buildings should
seek to locate garages behind principal
buildings so that the front façade of the
principal building is highlighted. Where
Figure 31
Figure 32
P75
IV.A.
210 W. Main Street
Exhibit B – Residential Design Standards
Page 3 of 5
locating the garage behind the front façade of the principal building is not feasible or
required, designs should minimize the presence of garage doors as viewed from the
street. This standard is important in all areas of the city where alley access is not an
option.
c) Standard. The front of a garage or the front-most supporting column of a carport shall
be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front façade of the
principal building. See Figure 32.
Staff Findings: This property has access from an alley. Staff finds this standard to
be not applicable.
4. Entry Connection (Non-flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except:
(1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or
below street grade.
b) Intent. This standard seeks to promote visual and physical connections between
buildings and the street. Buildings should use architectural and site planning features
to establish a connection between these two elements. Buildings shall not use features
that create barriers or hide the entry features of the house such as fences, hedgerows
or walls. Buildings and site planning features should establish a sense that one can
directly enter a building from the street through the use of pathways, front porches,
front doors that face the street and other similar methods. This standard is critical in
all areas of the city.
c) Standard. A building shall provide a visual and/or physical connection between a
primary entry and the street. On a corner lot, an entry connection shall be provided to
at least one (1) of the two intersecting streets.
d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard:
(1) Street Oriented Entrance. There shall be at
least one (1) entry door that faces the street for
every four (4) street-facing, ground-level units
in a row. Fencing, hedgerows, walls or other
permitted structures shall not obstruct
visibility to the entire door. See Figure 33.
(2) Open Front Porch. There shall be at least one
(1) porch or ground-level balcony that faces
the street for every street-facing, ground-level
unit. Fencing, hedgerows, walls or other
permitted structures shall not obstruct
Figure 33
P76
IV.A.
210 W. Main Street
Exhibit B – Residential Design Standards
Page 4 of 5
visibility to the porch or the demarcated pathway. See Figure 34.
Staff Findings: The proposed design includes one street-facing, ground level
unit, requiring either one street-oriented entrance or open front porch. There is
one proposed door, however it enters into the common outdoor space and not
the unit itself. The intent of the standard is to promote both a physical and
visual connection between the building and the street and to provide a sense
that one can directly enter into the building from the street. Staff finds this
standard to not be met.
5. Principal Window (Flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except:
(1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or
below street grade.
b) Intent. This standard seeks to prevent large expanses of blank walls on the front
façades of principal buildings. A building should incorporate significant transparency
on the front façade. Designs should include prominent windows or groups of
windows on the front façade to help promote connection between the residence and
street. This standard is important in all areas of the city.
c) Standard. At least one (1) street-facing principal window or grouping of smaller
windows acting as a principal window shall be provided for each unit facing the
street. On a corner unit with street frontage on two streets, this standard shall apply to
both street-facing façades.
d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following
options shall satisfy this standard:
(1) Street-Facing Principal Window. The front façade
shall have at least one (1) window with dimensions
of three (3) feet by four (4) feet or greater for each
dwelling unit. See Figure 35.
(2) Window Group. The front façade shall have at
least one (1) group of windows that when
measured as a group has dimensions of three (3)
feet by four (4) feet or greater for each dwelling
unit. See Figure 36.
Figure 34
Figure 35
Figure 36
P77
IV.A.
210 W. Main Street
Exhibit B – Residential Design Standards
Page 5 of 5
Staff Findings: The proposed design includes one street-facing, ground level
unit, requiring either one principal window or window group. The proposed
design includes several windows and window groups that exceed the minimum
dimensions. Staff finds this standard to be met.
P78
IV.A.
210 W. Main Street
Exhibit C – Demolition
Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT C
DEMOLITION
26.415.080.A. Procedures for considering requests for demolition of designated properties
or properties within a Historic District.
4. The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the
property owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the
standards for demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is
demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria:
a) The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public
safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely
manner,
b) The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to
properly maintain the structure,
c) The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen
or
d) No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and
Staff Findings: There is no documentation to support or demonstrate that the property
has significance as listed above. Staff finds this criterion to be 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.
Staff Findings: There are two designated properties on the opposite side of Main Street
and several across the alley to the north. The existing structure was built around 1960
and does not contribute to the Historic District or parcel. The loss of the building
would not adversely affect the integrity of the District or the nearby resources and
demolition of the structure is inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the
area. Staff finds these criteria to be met.
P79
IV.A.
210 W. Main Street
Exhibit D – Special Review
Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT D
SPECIAL REVIEW
26.430.040.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.
Staff Findings: The applicant is requesting Special Review approval to increase the
allowable Floor Area from 1:1 to 1.25:1. In general, staff is not fundamentally opposed
to an increase in allowable Floor Area as an incentive for the development of
affordable housing. Affordable housing on this site supports the purpose of the zone
district to provide for a variety of uses to occur within a single block. However, staff
believes that the proposed project is out of scale with the historic development in the
Main Street Historic District. Most of the development in the district contains sloping
roof forms and more varied heights, which are not present in this design. The proposed
open space is blocked off from view, which is not typical for Main Street. The three-
story stair tower and walkways adds to the perceived mass and does not relate to
historic buildings in the district. The applicant is also requesting to increase the height
to 32 ft. for a large portion of the structure, which is taller than any other structure on
the block and many within the district. Staff does not believe that it would be
appropriate to grant a Floor Area increase as well as a height increase for a project
that is not compatible with the historic district. Staff finds this criterion to not be met.
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.
Staff Findings: The existing development is approximately 24 ft. tall. The proposed
design increases the height to 32 ft. for a large portion of the structure. This is
significantly taller than the rest of the development on the block, which according to
the application varies between 20-27 ft., and will have an impact on shading these
properties as well as the residential properties north of the alley. A height of 32 ft. may
be appropriate in select areas, but the current proposed height serves as an adverse
impact to surrounding properties and does not justify an increase in Floor Area. See
discussion on parking impacts in Section 26.515.040 below. Staff finds this criterion to
not be met.
26.515.040. Special review standards
Whenever the off-street parking requirements of a proposed development are subject to special
review, an application shall be processed as a special review in accordance with the common
P80
IV.A.
210 W. Main Street
Exhibit D – Special Review
Page 2 of 3
development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304 and be evaluated according to the
following standards. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
If the project requires review by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Community
Development Director has authorized consolidation pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.B, the
Historic Preservation Commission shall approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the
special review application.
A. A special review for establishing, varying or waiving off-street parking requirements may be
approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria:
1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have
been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation
of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands,
the projected impacts on the on-street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass
transit routes and the downtown area and any special services, such as vans, provided for
residents, guests and employees.
Staff Findings: The Land Use Code requires 1 space per unit. The existing property
contains 7 spaces for 8 units, although only six spaces have been functionally used.
The applicant is proposing 6 parking spaces on site. The close proximity to downtown,
bus service and bike share stations provide transportation services that can help
alleviate the parking needs. The applicant is also proposing one of the spaces be
dedicated for Car-to-Go, which could serve as a shared use vehicle for multiple
tenants. The surrounding neighborhood appears to have capacity to accommodate the
additional required parking for the development, however staff has concerns about the
potential parking that will be needed by the development (see discussion in subsection 3
below). Staff finds this criterion to be met, with conditions.
2. An on-site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in
an undesirable development scenario.
Staff Findings: Current ADA regulations require an accessible parking space, which is
wider than a typical parking space. This makes it physically impossible to fit 7 parking
spaces across the width of the property. A reconfiguration of the parking plan would
require a much larger surface area, which is an undesirable solution, particularly in
the historic district. A subgrade parking garage is a cost prohibitive option considering
the size of the development and use as affordable housing, particularly to only
accommodate one additional parking space. Given these constraints, staff finds this
criterion to be met.
3. Existing or planned on-site or off-site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the
development, including the availability of street parking.
Staff Findings: The applicant is proposing to use one of the on-site spaces as a Car-to-
Go space, which could potentially serve multiple tenants of the new development.
Although the existing development has functioned with only 6 resident space, the
number of FTEs housed by the proposed project increases from 11 to 18. This will
P81
IV.A.
210 W. Main Street
Exhibit D – Special Review
Page 3 of 3
likely increase the number of vehicles associated with the new development. Although
it appears that there is capacity in the adjacent neighborhood to accommodate the one
additional required space, these potential impacts are not accounted for on-site. Staff
recognizes the inability to feasibly or appropriately fit the additional space on-site, but
recommends that the space not be waived, but provided as a cash-in-lieu payment
($30,000) to help further improve other transportation facilities and services in town.
P82
IV.A.
210 W. Main Street
Exhibit E – DRC Comments
Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT E
DRC COMMENTS
Engineering
These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the project packet
submitted for purpose of the DRC meeting.
Information needed prior to Final Review:
1. Transformer
a. No information is provided on the current or proposed electric source. Prior to
Final review determine if the current transformer has adequate capacity or if a
new or upgraded transformer is required. If a new transformer and associated
easement is needed on the site this will have significant impacts to the parking
area and building layout.
Information to be provided at Final Review:
Public Improvements:
2. Conceptual Review Item 1.3 requires removal of curb cuts and access to be located off
the alley. The response states this item is not applicable to the site. However, there is a
curb cut on Main St that is required to be removed clear to the back of curb with any new
development.
3. The sidewalk shall meet current standards with a 6’ width and 2% cross slope. Sidewalk
construction will need Parks Department approval due to the close proximity to the street
trees. To protect tree roots there shall be no depth excavation beyond what is existing for
the current sidewalk.
Drainage:
1. At detailed review a Conceptual Drainage Plan and report shall be submitted as outlined
in the checklist in Appendix A of the URMP.
2. The application mentions the potential use of drywells. Drywells are viewed as the BMP
of last resort. Other BMP options need to be pursued, including green roofs, rain gardens,
pervious pavers, planters etc. Drywells should only be incorporated if no other options
exist.
3. The gravel alley cannot be used for conveyance. The property should drain to Main St or
provide detention. The project will need to show runoff makes it to the City system
without impacting neighboring properties. The system also needs to be designed to
prevent runoff and icy issues from happening on the sidewalk.
Utilities:
4. No information is provided stating the need for a water service upgrade. Provide this
information at Final Review. At building permit, fire flow calculations are required to
verify the requested service line size is appropriate.
TIA:
P83
IV.A.
210 W. Main Street
Exhibit E – DRC Comments
Page 2 of 3
5. TDM measure for end of trip facilities is not applicable. This measure is only applicable
to non-residential projects. The placement of Bike parking already receives credit in the
MMLOS section. Another TIA option needs to be pursued.
Sanitation District
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.
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
P84
IV.A.
210 W. Main Street
Exhibit E – DRC Comments
Page 3 of 3
District would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the
material cost difference for larger line).
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.
Zoning
1. Please provide roof top mechanical plan compliant with height, screening and setback from
street façade, see chapter 26.575 Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations.
2. Please provide Site Plan information; include outdoor lighting, mail box location, electrical
vault location, and other structures or equipment located on the ground. The exceptions are
also located in chapter 26.575 Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations.
3. Courtesy note, ZCV policy (Zoning Compliance Verification policy) will be required to
verify setbacks and height for the construction of this project
Environmental Health
1. Applicant has requested Special Review by the Environmental Health department because
there is not direct alley access and the proposal is below the space requirements (Municipal
Code 12.10.080).
a. The trash and recycling space will be accessed via the open space next to the ADA
accessible parking.
b. The proposed space is 112 square feet which is less than the required 120 square feet.
2. The trash and recycling space will be fully enclosed and impervious to wildlife which
exceeds code requirements.
3. Given the above conditions, approval through Special Review is anticipated.
Parks
1. A cottonwood tree will be required in the ROW on Main Street to the east of the existing
cottonwood.
2. Irrigation of ROW will be required.
3. Any code sized tree removals will require a Tree Removal Permit from the Parks
Department.
P85
IV.A.
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
April 12, 2017
Justin Barker
Senior Planner
City of Aspen
130 So. Galena St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: 210 West Main Street – revised application
Mr. Barker :
The applicant has made some revisions to the application based on Planning Staff and Referral Department
Feedback. In addition to an outline of these changes, please find a more detailed description of the
existing onsite parking and the 1995 Land Use approval to establish a total of 6 existing onsite parking
spaces. Following is an updated application.
Please accept this request to redevelop the property located at 210 West Main Street (Lots P & Q, Block
51, Parcel ID 2735-124-40-009). The 6,000 square foot site is located in the Mixed Use Zone District/Main
Street Historic District. The property is not an historic resource.
Exemption from Moratorium: The proposal is exempt from the current moratorium on new development
applications. Section 3 of Ordinance 7, Series of 2016 states: “The following land use applications shall be
exempt from this temporary moratorium…2. Any land use application seeking a Development Order for a
project consisting of 100% Affordable Housing as that term is defined at Section 26.104.100 of the Aspen
Municipal Code.” This application is submitted pursuant to the Land Use Code is place at the time of land
use application submittal.
Existing Conditions: The property was originally developed with eight studio apartments and is currently
developed with 7 studio apartments and 1 live/work space. The main building houses six studios, all free-
market, averaging just under 400 sq. ft. apiece. The alley building houses Suzanne’s Haircutting in
apartment 7, a 435 sq. ft. space, and a Category 1 rental unit in apartment 8, which is 260 sq. ft. The site
has six legal parking spaces, along the alleyway, two short of the current requirement. An existing curb cut
along Main Street provides access to the property in addition to alley access.
Parking: The site plan shows six legal parking spaces along the alleyway. The 1995 Planning &
Zoning Commission approval make note of commercial spaces along the alley being reorganized
to accommodate 8 spaces. The Planning & Zoning meeting minutes are a little confusing; however
it is clear that not all residential units have a parking space. The 1995 land use file includes a memo
P86
IV.A.
210 West Main Street
Conceptual HPC Review
Revised 4/17/17
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
from the Engineering Department that calls attention to the absence of the dumpster on the site
plan. The dumpster was required to be located on private property. The parking situation and
accommodation for the dumpster was handled by stacking parking spaces along the side setback,
which is the current situation. Stacked spaces do not count as legal parking spaces for multi-family
developments under the Land Use Code. There are currently 6 legal parking spaces along the
alley, which are proposed to be replaced with the redevelopment. Planning Staff has indicated
that there are in fact 7 legal parking spaces approved for the development. While we do not agree,
considering the current condition of 6 legal spaces and a dumpster along the alley, we have
provided a response to the Special Review criteria for a reduction of the parking requirement from
7 spaces to 6 spaces. We have amended our proposal to provide a car-to-go parking space in lieu
of one of the assigned unit spaces. The car share program allows tenants to have easy access to
a shared car onsite rather an own a car.
Existing configuration of units is provided below:
Table 1: Existing units
Unit Bedrooms Total Net
livable Area
Minimum Size
Requirement
1 studio 343 500
2 studio 453.5 500
3 1 460.8 500
4 1 399.9 500
5 studio 369.9 500
6 studio 362.5 500
7 studio 435.1 500
8 studio 260.2 500
TOTAL 8 3084.9
Previous Approvals: The Planning and Zoning Commission, via Resolution 39-1995, approved apartment 7
to function as a “mixed commercial/residential use.” The staff report described the use as a live/work
space – “The unit will remain a residential unit as the salon will operate only during business hours.” As
noted above, apartment 8 was required mitigation for the live/work unit. The deed restriction (Reception
#386545) for apartment 8 was a condition of the change-in-use approval. Exhibit 14 includes meeting
minutes from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting in 1995. As highlighted in the meeting
minutes:
“Ted Guy, the applicant, stated, we agree with the conditions and restrictions outlined in the
memorandum. The deed restriction that has been presented to us by the Housing Authority does
allow us, if we terminate the commercial use of this Unit #7, to apply to the Housing Authority to
remove the deed restriction on Unit #8, since it is no longer required. So, we have no problem with
staff’s recommendations.”
P87
IV.A.
210 West Main Street
Conceptual HPC Review
Revised 4/17/17
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
Removal of the live/work space and in turn, the deed restriction on apartment 8, is proposed. In addition,
a Land Use Code Interpretation was rendered by the City in January of 2015, which ties use and the
mitigation together within a project: effectively, if the use is removed, then the mitigation is no longer
required. The Interpretation is included as Exhibit 13 for easy reference.
Proposal: The application proposes redevelopment of the site as 100% affordable housing, eight two-
bedroom apartments, in exchange for Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. Removal of the live/work
space and lifting the Category designation of apartment 8 is proposed, thereby returning all eight units to
free-market status prior to redevelopment.
A three story building with surface parking along the alley is proposed to contain eight two-bedroom units.
Open space is proposed through an internal courtyard and required setbacks. The internal courtyard
provides residents with protection from the noise and commotion of Main Street. As a residential project,
the public amenity requirement is not applicable. Category 3 rental units are proposed with the ability to
convert to “for sale” units in the future. Units are proposed as shown below:
Table 2 : Proposed unit sizes and configurations
Unit Bedrooms Unit Net livable
Assigned
Storage Outside
Unit
Total Net livable Area
(including storage)
Minimum Size
Requirement FTEs
101 2 846.1 80 926.1 900 2.25
102 2 868.9 80 948.9 900 2.25
201 2 839.3 80.5 919.8 900 2.25
202 2 848.8 80.5 929.3 900 2.25
203 2 868.9 80.1 949 900 2.25
301 2 868.9 80.9 949.8 900 2.25
302 2 848.8 81 929.8 900 2.25
303 2 839.3 81 920.3 900 2.25
TOTALS 16 7,473 18
The proposed building reuses existing material from the current building. A trombe wall solar collecting
system is proposed for the front façade. This is an active system where the glass protects the pipes and
increases heat gain. A heat exchanger and storage tanks are used to preheat returning water for heat and
domestic hot water. Horizontal lap siding is proposed, which is consistent with the primarily wood 19th
century landmarks within the Historic District.
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.515.030 Required number of off-street parking spaces, an existing
deficit of parking may be maintained when a property is redeveloped. The existing deficit of two parking
spaces is proposed to be maintained in the redevelopment. Six surface parking spaces are proposed. The
side streets have ample parking, as demonstrated with the current condition and through other similar
affordable housing projects such as 518 West Main Street. Planning Staff has indicated that seven spaces
are required to be provided onsite. As such, the applicant requests approval to reduce the onsite parking
P88
IV.A.
210 West Main Street
Conceptual HPC Review
Revised 4/17/17
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
requirement from 7 spaces to 6 spaces – which is what currently exists today. Special Review criteria for
Parking is provided as Exhibit 3.
Required trash area for multi-family residential of less than 10 units is 12 ft. wide by 10 ft. deep by 10 ft.
high or 120 sq. ft. in size. The proposed trash area, accessed off the alley is 14 ft. 7 in. by 7 ft. 8.5 in. by
8.5 ft. for a total of 112 sq. ft. We look forward to discussing the alternate dimensions with Environmental
Health as part of the review process.
Due to location within 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.
This application requests the following reviews of the Historic Preservation Commission:
• Conceptual Major Development Review (Exhibit 1)
• Demolition for properties within the Main Street Historic District (Exhibit 1)
• Residential Design Standard Review (Exhibit 2)
• Special Review for 1.25:1 FAR and for Parking (Exhibit 3)
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, ensures that the property remains multi-
family housing, and provides affordable housing units within walking distance to downtown. Please
contact me with any questions or concerns: 925-2855 or sara@bendonadams.com
Kind Regards,
Sara Adams, AICP
BendonAdams, LLC
Attachments:
1 –Major Development Conceptual Review and Demolition
2 – Residential Design Standards – Multi-family Buildings
3 – Special Review
4 – TIA
5 - Pre-Application conference summary
6 - Vicinity Map
7 – Land Use Application and Dimensional Requirements Form
8 – Authorization to represent
9 – Disclosure of ownership
10 – Agreement to pay form
11 – HOA compliance form
12 – list of owners within 300 ft.
P89
IV.A.
210 West Main Street
Conceptual HPC Review
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
13 – City of Aspen Land Use Code Interpretation dated January 30, 2015
14 – Planning and Zoning Resolution 39, Series of 1995 and meeting minutes
15 - Context photographs
16 - Drawings, survey, (rendering to be produced prior to public hearing)
P90
IV.A.
Exhibit 1
210 W. Main Street
Conceptual Design Reviews & Demolition
Page 1 of 15
Exhibit 1
HPC Major Development Conceptual Review
Demolition
Updated 4.17.17
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 an analysis of the Main Street Historic District Design Guidelines and Objectives. The project
conforms with the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines including Chapters 1 & 12.
Chapter 1 – Site Planning and Landscape Design:
1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood
or district.
• Building footprint and location should reinforce the traditional patterns of the neighborhood.
• Allow for some porosity on a site. In a residential project, setback to setback development is
typically uncharacteristic of the historic context. Do not design a project which leaves no useful
open space visible from the street.
The building and circulation tower are oriented to parallel to Main Street. The building is L-shaped to allow
porosity and open space on the site for residents, while defining a street edge that reinforces the pattern
of development in the Historic District.
1.2 Preserve the system and character of historic streets, alleys, and ditches.
When HPC input is requested, the following bullet points may be applicable.
• Retain and preserve the variety and character found in historic alleys, including retaining historic
ancillary buildings or constructing new ones.
• Retain and preserve the simple character of historic ditches. Do not plant flowers or add
landscape.
• Abandoning or re-routing a street in a historic area is generally discouraged.
• Consider the value of unpaved alleys in residential areas.
• Opening a platted right of way which was abandoned or never graded may be encouraged on
a case by case basis.
Not applicable.
1.3 Remove driveways or parking areas accessed directly from the street if they were not part of the
original development of the site.
• Do not introduce new curb cuts on streets.
P91
IV.A.
Exhibit 1
210 W. Main Street
Conceptual Design Reviews & Demolition
Page 2 of 15
• Non-historic driveways accessed from the street should be removed if they can be relocated to
the alley.
Not applicable.
1.4 Design a new driveway or improve an existing driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual
impact.
• If an alley exists at the site, the new driveway must be located off it.
• Tracks, gravel, light grey concrete with minimal seams, or similar materials are appropriate for
driveways on Aspen Victorian properties.
Not applicable.
1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces.
• Reflect the established progression of public to private spaces from the public sidewalk to a semi-
public walkway, to a semi private entry feature, to private spaces.
A walkway is provided from Main Street sidewalk to the project.
1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on residential
projects.
• Meandering walkways are not allowed, except where it is needed to avoid a tree or is typical of
the period of significance.
• Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style and install
them in the manner that they would have been used historically. For example on an Aspen
Victorian landmark set flagstone pavers in sand, rather than in concrete. Light grey concrete,
brick or red sandstone are appropriate private walkway materials for most landmarks.
• The width of a new entry sidewalk should generally be three feet or less for residential
properties. A wider sidewalk may be appropriate for an AspenModern property.
A perpendicular walkway is provided from the Main Street sidewalk to the project.
1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site.
• Ensure that open space on site is meaningful and consolidated into a few large spaces rather
than many small unusable areas.
• Open space should be designed to support and complement the historic building.
Open space is provided within the project site, behind the circulation tower.
1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process.
• When included in the initial planning for a project, stormwater quality facilities can be better
integrated into the proposal. All landscape plans presented for HPC review must include at least
P92
IV.A.
Exhibit 1
210 W. Main Street
Conceptual Design Reviews & Demolition
Page 3 of 15
a preliminary representation of the stormwater design. A more detailed design must be
reviewed and approved by Planning and Engineering prior to building permit submittal.
• Site designs and stormwater management should provide positive drainage away from the
historic landmark, preserve the use of natural drainage and treatment systems of the site, reduce
the generation of additional stormwater runoff, and increase infiltration into the ground.
Stormwater facilities and conveyances located in front of a landmark should have minimal visual
impact when viewed from the public right of way.
• Refer to City Engineering for additional guidance and requirements.
The project shall comply with City Engineering stormwater requirements. At a conceptual level, onsite
drywells are proposed to handle drainage.
1.9 Landscape development on AspenModern landmarks shall be addressed on a case by case basis.
Not applicable.
1.10 Built-in furnishings, such as water features, fire pits, grills, and hot tubs, that could interfere
with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate.
• Site furnishings that are added to the historic property should not be intrusive or degrade the
integrity of the neighborhood patterns, site, or existing historic landscape.
• Consolidating and screening these elements is preferred.
Not applicable.
1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees
and shrubs.
• Retaining historic planting beds and landscape features is encouraged.
• Protect historically significant vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Removal of
damaged, aged, or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department.
• If a significant tree must be removed, replace it with the same or similar species in coordination
with the Parks Department.
• The removal of non-historic planting schemes is encouraged.
• Consider restoring the original landscape if information is available, including original plant
materials.
Not applicable.
1.12 Provide an appropriate context for historic structures. See diagram.
• Simplicity and restraint are required. Do not overplant a site, or install a landscape which is
overtextured or overly complex in relationship to the historic resource, particularly in Zone A. In
Zone A, new planting shall be species that were used historically or species of similar attributes.
• In areas immediately adjacent to the landmark, Zone A and Zone B, plants up 42” in height, sod,
and low shrubs are often appropriate.
P93
IV.A.
Exhibit 1
210 W. Main Street
Conceptual Design Reviews & Demolition
Page 4 of 15
• Contemporary planting, walls and other features are not appropriate in Zone A. A more
contemporary landscape may surround new development or be located in the rear of the
property, in Zone C.
• Do not cover areas which were historically unpaved with hard surfaces, except for a limited patio
where appropriate.
• Where residential structures are being adapted to commercial use, proposals to alter the
landscape will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The residential nature of the building must
be honored.
• In the case of a historic landmark lot split, careful consideration should be given so as not to over
plant either property, or remove all evidence of the landscape characteristics from before the
property was divided.
• Contemporary landscapes that highlight an AspenModern architectural style are encouraged.
Not applicable.
1.13 Additions of plant material to the landscape that could interfere with or block views of historic
structures are inappropriate.
• Low plantings and ground covers are preferred.
• Do not place trees, shrubs, or hedgerows in locations that will obscure, damage, or block
significant architectural features or views to the building. Hedgerows are not allowed as fences.
• Consider mature canopy size when planting new trees adjacent to historic resources. Planting
trees too close to a landmark may result in building deteriorate or blocked views and is
inappropriate.
• Climbing vines can damage historic structures and are not allowed.
Not applicable.
1.14 Minimize the visual impacts of landscape lighting.
• Landscape and pathway lighting is not permitted in Zone A (refer to diagram) on Aspen Victorian
properties unless an exception is approved by HPC based on safety considerations.
• Landscape, driveway, and pathway lighting on AspenModern properties is addressed on a case-
by-case basis.
• Landscape light fixtures should be carefully selected so that they are compatible with the
building, yet recognizable as a product of their own time.
• Driveway lighting is not permitted on Aspen Victorian properties.
• Landscape uplighting is not allowed.
Landscape lighting will be addressed during Final Design Review.
1.15 Preserve original fences.
• Fences which are considered part of the historic significance of a site should not be moved,
removed, or inappropriately altered.
P94
IV.A.
Exhibit 1
210 W. Main Street
Conceptual Design Reviews & Demolition
Page 5 of 15
• Replace only those portions of a historic fence that are deteriorated beyond repair.
• Replacement elements must match the existing.
Not applicable.
1.16 When possible, replicate a missing historic fence based on photographic evidence.
Not applicable.
1.17 No fence in the front yard is often the most appropriate solution.
Reserve fences for back yards and behind street facing façades, as the best way to preserve the character
of a property.
Not applicable.
1.18 When building an entirely new fence, use materials that are appropriate to the building type
and style.
• The new fence should use materials that were used on similar properties during the period of
significance.
• A wood fence is the appropriate solution in most locations.
• Ornate fences, including wrought iron, may create a false history are not appropriate for Aspen
Victorian landmarks unless there is evidence that a decorative fence historically existed on the
site.
• A modest wire fence was common locally in the early 1900s and is appropriate for Aspen
Victorian properties. This fence type has many desirable characteristics including transparency,
a low height, and a simple design. When this material is used, posts should be simply detailed
and not oversized.
Not applicable.
1.19 A new fence should have a transparent quality, allowing views into the yard from the street.
• A fence that defines a front yard must be low in height and transparent in nature.
• For a picket fence, spacing between the pickets must be a minimum of 1/2 the width of the
picket.
• For Post-WWII properties where a more solid type of fence may be historically appropriate,
proposals will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
• Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment.
Not applicable.
1.20 Any fence taller than 42” should be designed so that it avoids blocking public views of important
features of a designated building.
P95
IV.A.
Exhibit 1
210 W. Main Street
Conceptual Design Reviews & Demolition
Page 6 of 15
• A privacy fence should incorporate transparent elements to minimize the possible visual impacts.
Consider staggering the fence boards on either side of the fence rail. This will give the
appearance of a solid plank fence when seen head on. Also consider using lattice, or other
transparent detailing on the upper portions of the fence.
• A privacy fence should allow the building corners and any important architectural features that
are visible from the street to continue to be viewed.
• All hedgerows (trees, shrub bushes, etc.) are prohibited in Zones A and B.
Not applicable.
1.21 Preserve original retaining walls
• Replace only those portions that are deteriorated beyond repair. Any replacement materials
should match the original in color, texture, size and finish.
• Painting or covering a historic masonry retaining wall or covering is not allowed.
• Increasing the height of a retaining wall is inappropriate.
Not applicable.
1.22 When a new retaining wall is necessary, its height and visibility should be minimized.
• All wall materials, including veneer and mortar, will be reviewed on a case by case basis and
should be compatible with the palette used on the historic structure.
Not applicable.
1.23 Re-grading the site in a manner that changes historic grade is generally not allowed and will be
reviewed on a case by case basis.
Not applicable.
1.24 Preserve historically significant landscapes with few or no alterations.
• An analysis of the historic landscape and an assessment of the current condition of the landscape
should be done before the beginning of any project.
• The key features of the historic landscape and its overall design intent must be preserved.
Not applicable.
1.25 New development on these sites should respect the historic design of the landscape and its built
features.
• Do not add features that damage the integrity of the historic landscape.
• Maintain the existing pattern of setbacks and siting of structures.
• Maintain the historic relationship of the built landscape to natural features on the site.
• All additions to these landscapes must be clearly identifiable as recent work.
• New artwork must be subordinate to the designed landscape in terms of placement, height,
material, and overall appearance. Place new art away from significant landscape features.
P96
IV.A.
Exhibit 1
210 W. Main Street
Conceptual Design Reviews & Demolition
Page 7 of 15
• Avoid installing utility trenches in cultural landscapes if possible.
Not applicable.
1.26 Preserve the historic circulation system.
• Minimize the impact of new vehicular circulation.
• Minimize the visual impact of new parking.
• Maintain the separation of pedestrian and vehicle which occurred historically.
Parking is proposed along the alley
1.27 Preserve and maintain significant landscaping on site.
• Protect established vegetation during any construction.
• If any tree or shrub needs to be removed, replace it with the same or similar species.
• New planting should be of a species used historically or a similar species.
• Maintain and preserve any gardens and/or ornamental planting on the site.
• Maintain and preserve any historic landscape elements.
Not applicable.
Chapter 12 – Accessibility, Architectural Lighting, Mechanical Equipment, Service Areas, &
Signage
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.
P97
IV.A.
Exhibit 1
210 W. Main Street
Conceptual Design Reviews & Demolition
Page 8 of 15
• 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.
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.
• 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 generally located in the basement.
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.
Awnings are not proposed at this time.
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.
P98
IV.A.
Exhibit 1
210 W. Main Street
Conceptual Design Reviews & Demolition
Page 9 of 15
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.
12.9 Preserve historic signs.
As a residential building, signage is not proposed.
Main Street Historic District Guidelines - Conceptual
Street & Alley Systems:
7.1 Preserve the historic district’s street plan.
7.2 Maintain the traditional character and function of an alley where it exists.
The proposed building is perpendicular to Main Street which is consistent with historic development
patterns.
Parking:
7.3 Parking shall not be positioned between the building and the street. Visual impacts shal be
mnimized in one or more of the following ways:
• Parking shall be placed undergoround or in a structure wherever possible.
• Where surgace parking must be provided, it shall be located to the rear of the interior of the
property, hebind the structure.
• Surface parking shall be externally buffered with landscpaing and internally planted and
landscpaed to soften parkign areas.
7.4 Underground parking access shall nto have a negative impact on the characer of the street.
Underground parking access shall be:
• Located on a secondary street where feasible – except where alley access is feasible.
• Deisgned with the same attention to detail and materials as the primary building façade.
• Integrated into tehbuilding design.
Surface parking is proposed off the alley.
Building Placement:
7.5 Respect historic settlement patterns.
• Site a new building in a way similar to historic buildings in the area. This includes consideration
fo 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.
P99
IV.A.
Exhibit 1
210 W. Main Street
Conceptual Design Reviews & Demolition
Page 10 of 15
• Provide auto access along an alley wherever
possible.
• New curb cuts are not permitted.
• Whenever possible, remove an existing curb
cut.
The proposed building complies with the required
setbacks within the Main Street Historic District.
Curb cuts are not proposed. The existing Main Street
curb cut, shown at right, will be abandoned.
Site:
7.8 Provide a walk to the primary building entry, perpendicular from the public sidewalk.
A sidewalk from Main Street is proposed to access the project.
Orientation:
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 multi-family structure, should have a primary
entrance that faces the street. The entrance ot the structure should be at an appropriate
residential scale and visible from the street.
The building is oriented parallel to lots lines. The units are accessed from a ground-level courtyard.
Building Alignment:
7.10 When cosntructing a new building, locate it to fit within the range of yard dimensions seen in the
block historically during the mining era.
The proposed building meets the 10 ft. setback requirement for Main Street, which repeats the pattern of
setbacks within the Historic District.
Secondary Structures:
7.11 Locate a new secondary structure in a manner that is similar to those seen historically in the
district.
• Secondary structures should be placed along the alley edge.
Not applicable.
Building Height, Mass & Scale
7.12 A new structure should step down in scale where it abuts a single story historic structure.
Not applicable. A single story historic structure is not adjacent to this property as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 1: Current curb cut along Main Street.
P100
IV.A.
Exhibit 1
210 W. Main Street
Conceptual Design Reviews & Demolition
Page 11 of 15
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.
- To make a demonstrable (to be verified by the Building Department) contribution To
the building's overall energy efficiency, for instance b y providing improved
daylighting.
A three story 100% affordable housing building is proposed. 8 ft. floor to ceiling heights are proposed for
all units. The proposed building is 28 ft. at Main Street The Commercial Design Standards allow an increase
in height from 28 ft.4 in. at Main Street and steps up to 32 ft. toward the rear of the property. As noted
above, height up to 32 ft. may be added based on specific review criteria. The ability to increase to 32 ft.
benefits the livability of the affordable housing units by allowing taller floor to ceiling heights within the
units. The height and mass of the building allows enough surface area to facilitate a passive solar collector
on the front façade that greatly contributes to the building’s overall energy efficiency. Existing heights
Figure 2: Proposed street elevation. Subject property is indicated with arrow. Note – the streetscape has not been updated to reflect the lower height along Main St.
Figure 3: Streetscape with building heights. Note: larger image is included in the drawing set.
P101
IV.A.
Exhibit 1
210 W. Main Street
Conceptual Design Reviews & Demolition
Page 12 of 15
within the block, based on the City’s SketchUp model, are shown in the graphic above: (from west to east)
Innsbruck 27.5 ft; office building 21.75 ft; current 210 Main building 23.75 ft., Tyrolean Lodge 27.25 ft.
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.
A three story building with a flat roof is proposed to accommodate 8 affordable housing units. The
surrounding context of large two story buildings supports a three story building in this location. See
streetscape in Figures 2 and 3 above.
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.
In order to accommodate 8 affordable housing units and to provide some open space on the site, the
project is three stories. The circulation is separate from the building into a separate tower which breaks
up the mass on the site and provides surface area for the proposed trombe wall passive solar collector.
The proposed separate veritical modules are connected with an outdoor walkway, similar to the massing
of the adjacent Tyrolean Lodge, an AspenModern property.
Building Height, Mass and Scale:
7.13 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of the Main
Street Historic District.
The proposed building reflects the range of heights and variation within the block along Main Street. The
buildings within the blockface are all two stories in height. A range of building modules are found as shown
below. The proposed building fits within the context of the neighboring buildings.
Figure 4: Analysis of building modules Annabelle Inn
P102
IV.A.
Exhibit 1
210 W. Main Street
Conceptual Design Reviews & Demolition
Page 13 of 15
Figures 5 & 6: Analysis of building modules. Top: adjacent building. Bottom: Tyrolean Lodge adjacent to property.
P103
IV.A.
Exhibit 1
210 W. Main Street
Conceptual Design Reviews & Demolition
Page 14 of 15
7.14 Design a new building to appear similar in scale to those in the district during the mining era.
The proposed building has a flat roof which relates to the range of building forms within the block. The
proposed building has strong ties to the Tyrolean Lodge (shown above) which is vertically oriented and
broken into two masses with a connecting passageway. Modules of 25 ft., 13 ft. 9 in., and 7 ft. 9 in. are
proposed facing Main Street to break up the mass. Vertical elements are proposed on the front façade to
accommodate the Trombe Wall solar collection system and to relate to the adjacent Tyrolean Lodge, and
the verticality of the larger 19th Century residences found on Main Street. The solar collection system is 28
ft. 10 in. tall, which steps up to 32 ft.
Demolition of properties located within a Historic District
26.415.080. Demolition of designated historic properties or properties within a historic district.
It is the intent of this Chapter to preserve the historic and architectural resources that have demonstrated
significance to the community. Consequently no demolition of properties designated on the Aspen
Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures or properties within a Historic District will be allowed
unless approved by the HPC in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section.
4. The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the property
owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the standards for
demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the
application meets any one of the following criteria:
a) The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety and
the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner,
b) The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly
maintain the structure,
c) The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen or
d) No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met:
a) The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic District in which
it is located and
b) The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the
Historic District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated
properties and
c) Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the
area.
P104
IV.A.
Exhibit 1
210 W. Main Street
Conceptual Design Reviews & Demolition
Page 15 of 15
No documentation exists to support that the property has historic significance. The loss of this building
will not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District: the building does not contribute to the
significance of the District.
Figures 7 & 8: Current photographs of 210 West Main St.
P105
IV.A.
Exhibit 2-
210 W. Main Street
RDS
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit 2
Residential Design Standards
(Multi-family Residential)
26.410.010.B Applicability. Except as outlined in Section 26.410.010.C, Exemptions, this Chapter applies
to all residential development in the City, except for residential development within the R-15B zone
district. Specific applicability for each standard is identified within each standard.
26.410.040 Multi-family standards
A. Applicability. Unless states otherwise below, the design standards in this section shall apply to all
multi-family development.
B. Design standards.
1. Building Orientation (Flexible).
(c) Standard. The front façade of a building shall be oriented to face the street on which it is located.
The front façade faces Main Street.
2. Garage Access (Non-flexible).
(c) Standard. A multi-family building that has access from an alley or private street shall be
required to access parking, garages and carports from the alley or private street.
The parking is accessed along the alley.
3. Garage Placement (Non-flexible).
(c) Standard. The front of a garage or the front-most supporting column of a carport shall be set
back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front façade of the principal building.
Not applicable. The parking is accessed along the alley.
4. Entry Connection (Non-flexible).
(c) Standard. A building shall provide a visual and/or physical connection between a primary entry
and the street. On a corner lot, an entry connection shall be provided to at least on (1) of the two
intersecting streets.
A walkway, perpendicular to Main Street, is proposed to create a physical and visual connection between
the project and the street.
5. Principal Window (Flexible).
(c) Standard. At least one (1) street-facing principal window or grouping of smaller windows acting
as a principal window shall be provided for each unit facing the street. On a corner unit with
street frontage on two streets, this standard shall apply to both street-facing facades.
P106
IV.A.
Exhibit 2-
210 W. Main Street
RDS
Page 2 of 2
Each street facing unit has a group of windows facing the street to enhance a pedestrian friendly
environment and to contribute to the residential character of the Main Street Historic District.
P107
IV.A.
Exhibit 3 –
Special Review
210 W. Main St.
Page 1 of 4
Exhibit 3
Special Review
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.
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.
The proposed project requests Special Review approval to increase the floor area from 1:1 to 1.25:1 as
permitted within the Main Street Historic District. The application proposes about a 1.23:1 FAR; however
the full 1.25:1 is requested to cover any errors in floor area calculations. The entire project includes 8
affordable housing units with an emphasis on livability and high quality: each two-bedroom unit provides
over 900 square feet of living space, two bathrooms, and ample storage. The units are arranged around
a common courtyard, providing social opportunities for the residents and open space that allows
additional windows for the units.
The floor area increase enables 8 spacious units of deed restricted affordable rental housing. As
demonstrated in Exhibit 1, the proposed mass is consistent with the existing buildings in the blockface and
across the street namely, the Tyrolean Lodge, Annabelle Inn and the Innsbruck. The proposed mass is
similar to the Tyrolean Lodge massing, an AspenModern property. The proposed building is broken into
two vertical modules facing Main Street. The modules are connected with exterior hallways. The proposed
height is within the allowances of the Main Street Historic District through Commercial Design Standard
review.
Minimum setbacks are met. A figure ground diagram of the existing buildings is shown below in Figure 1.
The black line delineates front property lines. The proposed building will be placed in a similar location to
the current condition. The building face of 210 W. Main Street is about 23 ft. from the property line;
however decks and steps are around 15 ft. from the property line. The proposed location of the building is
about 10 ft. from the property line, which is the minimum front yard setback for Main Street. Bringing the
building to the 10 ft. setback will soften the adjacent Annabelle Inn which sits on the property line.
P108
IV.A.
Exhibit 3 –
Special Review
210 W. Main St.
Page 2 of 4
The proposed density of 8 units replaces the existing 8 units on the site. Multi-family housing is identified
within the purpose of the Mixed Use zone district and consistent with the existing use on the property.
Multi-family residential uses are found throughout the Historic District, for example: 518 W. Main Street,
7th and Main Affordable Housing, and the Ullr to name a few. The property has historically been used for
multi-family residential units and has consistently served a local population. The replacement units will
continue this use pattern, and the new building will improve the overall aesthetics of the block.
D. Off-street parking requirements. Whenever a special review is conducted to determine a change in
the off-street parking requirements, it shall be considered in accordance with the standards set forth at
Chapter 26.515.
See below.
26.515.040. Special Review standards
Whenever the off-street parking requirements of a proposed development are subject to special
review, an application shall be processed as a special review in accordance with the common
development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304 and be evaluated according to the
following standards. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
A. A special review for establishing, varying or waiving off-street parking requirements may be
approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria:
Figure 1: Existing setbacks within blockface. Arrow indicates subject property.
P109
IV.A.
Exhibit 3 –
Special Review
210 W. Main St.
Page 3 of 4
1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have
been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of
the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the
projected impacts on the on-street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit
routes and the downtown area and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents,
guests and employees.
2. An on-site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an
undesirable development scenario.
3. Existing or planned on-site or off-site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the
development, including the availability of street parking.
The neighborhood has on-street parking available on the side streets on a regular basis. The project
proposes to maintain the existing deficit of 2 parking spaces. Currently, the 8 residential units only have 6
parking spaces which has been adequate for the residents. The proposal is to maintain the density and
the parking configuration.
A shared car to go is proposed for one of the 6 onsite parking spaces to provide transportation options to
tenants of the building and to encourage car-free living and alternate transportation. The width of the lot,
60 feet, restricts the number of surface parking spaces that fit with alley access. The trash area is
incorporated into the building and an accessible space is provided along the alley that meets Building Code
requirements. A subgrade garage is cost prohibitive considering the size of the lot and that the
development is 100% deed restricted affordable housing.
The project is located on Main Street with numerous bus stops. Street parking is readily available at
nighttime. Photographs below show available parking during the week on side streets within a block of
the property.
The applicant requests approval for six onsite parking spaces, one of which is a designed car to go space,
and a waiver of the cash in lieu payment fee of $30,000.
P110
IV.A.
Exhibit 3 –
Special Review
210 W. Main St.
Page 4 of 4
Figures 2 – 4: Available parking on surrounding side streets in
early February.
P111
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 5.3 10 0.06 10.06 0.00
A driveway curbcut on Main Street is proposed to be removed. The pedestrian experience along Main Street will be greatly improved by the
removal of this curb.
Include any additional information that pertains to the MMLOS plan in the space provided below.
Enter Text Here
TDM
Explain the proposed end of trip facilities strategy below. The provision of convenient facilities for pedestrians and cyclists encourages
these types of alternative modes, thus reducing SOV trips. Non-residential projects may provide facilities such as showers, secure bicycle
lockers, personal lockers, changing spaces, etc.
Project Description
In the space below provide a description of the proposed project.
Replacement of an existing multi-family building with a new multi-family building. No increase in unit density is proposed.
MMLOS
Explain what driveways are removed and how this benefits the pedestrian experience.
Chris Bendon
BendonAdams
300 S. Spring St. #202, Aspen, CO
970-925-2855
chris@bendonadams.com
Summary and Narrative:
Narrative:
2/15/2017
King Louise
210 West Main Street
Trip Generation
SUMMARY
Trip Mitigation NET TRIPS TO BE
MITIGATED
Click on the "Generate Narrative" Button to the right.
Respond to each of the prompts in the space provided.
Each response should cover the following:
1. Explain the selected measure.
2. Call out where the measure is located.
3. Demonstrate how the selected measure is appropriate to enhance the project site
and reduce traffic impacts.
4. Explain the Enforcement and Financing Plan for the selected measure.
5. Explain the scheduling and implementation responsibility of the mitigation measure.
6. Attach any additional information and a site map to the narrative report.
Exhibit 4
P112
IV.A.
APCHA and the City may decide to audit the HOA to determine the effectiveness of the proposed measures.
Scheduling and Implementation Responsibility of Mitigation Measures
Provide an overview of the scheduling and implementation responsibility for the proposed transportation mitigation measures.
Transportation mitigation measures are the responsibility of the HOA.
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.
Pedestrian Directness Factor (See callout number 9 on the MMLOS sheet for an example)
Bicycle Parking
Enforcement and Financing
Provide an overview of the Enforcement and Financing plan for the proposed transportation mitigation measures.
There is no enforcement required for the proposed measures.
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.
Slopes Between Back of Curb and Sidewalk
Removed Driveway(s)
2% Slope at Pedestrian Driveway Crossings
Extra storage to store bicycles and other alternative modes of transportation.
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.
Bus routes, bike routes, and other similar programs that relate to in town residents will be provided in the HOA packet for future tenants or
purchasers.
Include any additional information that pertains to the TDM plan in the space provided below.
P113
IV.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)-435.0 sf -0.68 -0.31 -0.99 -0.72 -1.08 -1.80
Free-Market Housing (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Affordable Housing (Units)8 Units 2.88 3.12 6.00 3.92 3.20 7.12
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
2.20 2.81 5.01 3.20 2.12 5.32
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
Chris Bendon
BendonAdams
300 S. Spring St. #202, Aspen, CO
970-925-2855
chris@bendonadams.com
Trip Generation
2/15/2017
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?
210 West Main Street
King Louise
Net New
Units/Square Feet of
the Proposed ProjectProposed Land Use
*For mixed-use (at least two of the established land uses) sites, a 4% reduction for AM Peak-Hour and a 14% reduction for PM Peak-Hour is applied to
the trip generation.
Instructions:
IMPORTANT: Turn on Macros: In order for code to run correctly the security settings need to be altered. Click "File"
and then click "Excel Options." In the "Trust Center"category, click "Trust Center Settings", and then click the "Macro
Settings"category. Beneath "Macro Settings" select "Enable all Macros."
Sheet 1. Trip Generation: Enter the project's square footage and/or unit counts under Proposed Land Use. The
numbers should reflect the net change in land use between existing and proposed conditions. If a landuse is to be
reduced put a negative number of units or square feet.
Sheet 2. MMLOS: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable under each of the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections.Points
are only awarded for proposed (not existing) and confirmed aspects of the project.
Sheet 3. TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project.
Sheet 4. Summary and Narrative: Review the summary of the project's mitigated trips and provide a narrative which
explains the measures selected for the project. Click on "Generate Narrative" and individually explain each measure
that was chosen and how it enhances the site or mitigates vehicle traffic. Ensure each selected measure make sense
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
P114
IV.A.
= input
= calculation
10
Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points
1
Does the project propose a detached sidewalk where an attached
sidewalk currently exists? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer
meet standard minimum widths?
0
2 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width greater than the standard
minimum width?0
3 Does the project propose a landscape buffer greater than the
standard minimum width?0
0
4
Does the project propose a detached sidewalk on an adjacent
block? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer meet standard
minimum widths?
0
5 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width on an adjacent block
greater than the standard minimum width?0
6 Is the proposed landscape buffer on an adjacent block greater than
the standard minimum width?0
0
7 Are slopes between back of curb and sidewalk equal to or less than
5%?Yes 0
8 Are curbs equal to (or less than) 6 inches?Yes 0
9
Is new large-scale landscaping proposed that improves the
pedestrian experience? Properties within the Core do not have ample
area to provide the level of landscaping required to receive credit in
this category.
0
10 Does the project propose an improved crosswalk? This measure must
get City approval before receiving credit. 0
0
11 Are existing driveways removed from the street?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.
0
15 Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian or bicyclist
interaction with vehicles at driveway areas?0
5
16 Is the project's pedestrian directness factor less than 1.5?Yes 0
17
Does the project propose new improvements which reduce the
pedestrian directness factor to less than 1.2? A site which has an
existing pedestrian directness factor less than 1.2 cannot receive
credit in this category.
0
18 Is the project proposing an off site improvement that results in a
pedestrian directness factor below 1.2?* 0
19 Are traffic calming features proposed that are part of an approved
plan (speed humps, rapid flash)?*0
0
20
Are additional minor improvements proposed which benefit the
pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of
Aspen staff?
0
21
Are additional major improvements proposed which benefit the
pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of
Aspen staff?
0
0
5Pedestrian Total*
MMLOS Input Page
Subtotal
SubtotalSidewalk Condition on Adjacent BlocksSidewalk Condition on Project FrontageSubtotal
Instructions: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable to each measure under the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections.
Subtotal
Subtotal
PedestriansSubtotalAdditional Proposed ImprovementsTOTAL NUMBER OF TRIPS MITIGATED:Pedestrian RoutesTraffic Calming and Pedestrian NetworkDriveways, Parking, and Access ConsiderationsP115
IV.A.
Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points
22 Is a new bicycle path being implemented with City approved design?0
23 Do new bike paths allow access without crossing a street or
driveway?0
24 Is there proposed landscaping, striping, or signage improvements to
an existing bicycle path?0
25 Does the project propose additional minor bicycle improvements
which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?0
26 Does the project propose additional major bicycle improvements
which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?0
0
Bicycle Parking27 Is the project providing bicycle parking?Yes 5
5
5
Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points
28 Is seating/bench proposed?0
29 Is a trash receptacle proposed?0
30 Is transit system information (signage) proposed?0
31 Is shelter/shade proposed?0
32 Is enhanced pedestrian-scale lighting proposed?0
33 Is real-time transit information proposed?0
34 Is bicycle parking/storage proposed specifically for bus stop use?0
35 Are ADA improvements proposed?0
0
36 Is a bus pull-out proposed at an existing stop?0
37 Is relocation of a bus stop to improve transit accessibility or roadway
operations proposed?0
38 Is a new bus stop proposed (with minimum of two basic amenities)?0
0
0
Bicycles Total*
Transit Total*BicyclesModifications to Existing Bicycle PathsTransitBasic AmenitiesSubtotal
Subtotal
Enhanced AmenitiesSubtotal
Subtotal
P116
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?
Will a shared shuttle service strategy be implemented?NA
What is the degree of implementation?
What is the company size?
What percentage of customers are eligible?
3 Nonmotorized Zones Will a nonmotorized zones strategy be implemented?0.00%
0.00%
Category Measure
Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT
Reductions
Will a network expansion stragtegy be implemented?
What is the percentage increase of transit network coverage?
What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips?
Will a service frequency/speed strategy be implemented?
What is the percentage reduction in headways (increase in frequency)?
What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips?
What is the level of implementation?
Will a transit access improvement strategy be implemented?
What is the extent of access improvements?
7 Intercept Lot Will an intercept lot strategy be implemented?0.00%
0.00%
Category Measure
Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT
Reductions
Will there be participation in TOP?
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a transit fare subsidy strategy implemented?
What percentage of employees are eligible?
What is the amount of transit subsidy per passenger (daily equivalent)?
Is an employee parking cash-out strategy being implemented?
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a workplace parking pricing strategy implemented?
What is the daily parking charge?
What percentage of employees are subject to priced parking?
Is a compressed work weeks strategy implemented?
What percentage of employees are participating?
What is the workweek schedule?
Is an employer sponsered shuttle program implemented?
What is the employer size?
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a carpool matching strategy implemented?
What percentage of employees are eligble?
Is carshare participation being implemented?
How many employee memberships have been purchased?
What percentage of employees are eligble?
Is participation in the bikeshare program WE-cycle being implemented?
How many memberships have been purchased?
What percentage of employees/guests are eligble?
Is an end of trip facilities strategy being implemented?Yes
What is the degree of implementation? Low
What is the employer size? Small
Is a self-funded emergency ride home strategy being implemented?
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a carpool/vanpool priority parking strategy being implemented?
What is the employer size?
What number of parking spots are available for the program?
Is a private employer shuttle strategy being implemented?
What is the employer size?
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a trip reduction marketing/incentive program implemented?Yes
What percentage of employees/guests are eligible?100%
1.08%
0.00%
1.08%
1. 22% work trips represents a mixed-used site (SF Bay Area Travel Survey). See Assumptions Tab for more detail.
Maximum Reduction Allowed in CategoryTransit System Improvements Strategies1
2
4
5
6
8
9
10
4.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category
Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Bikeshare Program
0.00%
TDM Input Page
0.00%
1.00%
0.00%Commute Trip Reduction Programs StrategiesOnsite Servicing
Shared Shuttle Service
Neighborhood/Site Enhancements Strategies0.00%
0.00%
Network Expansion
Service Frequency/Speed
Transit Access Improvement
Participation in TOP
Transit Fare Subsidy
Employee Parking Cash-Out
Workplace Parking Pricing
Compressed Work Weeks
Employer Sponsored Vanpool
Carpool Matching
Carshare Program
Self-funded Emergency Ride Home
Carpool/Vanpool Priority Parking
Private Employer Shuttle
Trip Reduction Marketing/Incentive
Program
End of Trip Facilities
Cross Category Maximum Reduction, Neighborhood and Transit
Global Maximum VMT Reductions
11
12
13
14
15
21
16
17
18
19
20
Instructions TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project. Proposed TDM or
MMLOS measures should be new and/or an improvement of existing conditions. A project will not receive credit
for measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense in the context of
project location and future use.
P117
IV.A.
Directness Factor: 1.3
Walking Distance: 54 ft
Crow Flies Distance: 41 ft Crow Flies Distance: 41 fttf 45 :ecnatsiD gniklaWAccess Point
Bicycle Parking
6’
< 5%P118IV.A.
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Justin Barker, 970.429.2797 DATE:
6/28/16
PROJECT: 210 W. Main Street
UPDATED: 2/8/17
REPRESENTATIVE: Chris Bendon, BendonAdams
REQUEST: Major Development for property within a Historic District, Residential Design
Review, Demolition
DESCRIPTION:
The Applicant would like to demolish the existing development located at 210 W. Main Street and redevelop the
property. It is a 6,000 Sq. ft. lot in the Mixed Use (MU) zone district. Although the property is not designated, it is
located within the Main Street Historic District. The current development contains one commercial space, one (1)
deed-restricted AH unit, and six (6) free market units. The Applicant would like to develop the entire site with
affordable housing to create Affordable Housing Credits.
The maximum cumulative FAR in the MU Zone District is 1:1; which may be increased to 1.25:1 by Special
Review. The criteria outlined in Sec. 26.430.040.A Dimensional Requirements shall be addressed for any FAR
increase.
In terms of design, the Applicant shall address the requirements in Chapters 1 & 12 of the recently adopted
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The proposed development will need to meet the requirements for
residential multi-family development of Chapter 26.515, Off Street Parking, or will otherwise require Special
Review. The project is also subject to the Residential Design Standard requirements for multi-family
development, Section 26.410.040. Other issues that will need to be addressed are current requirements for on-
site trash, utility and recycling areas, and the City’s guidelines for Traffic Impact mitigation.
The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) reviews all development within the Historic District and will perform
all reviews for this project. There will be two steps; Conceptual Review and Final Review.
Both the demolition of existing multi-family housing and the development of affordable housing require Growth
Management review. GMQS may be reviewed after Conceptual Review is granted. A separate pre-application
addressing Final HPC Review of a Major Development and GMQS review will be required. The establishment
of Affordable Housing Credits will be reviewed concurrently with the development of affordable housing at Final.
Affordable housing units developed by, or in association with: the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, or similar government or non-governmental organization (NGO) that
receives public funds for the purpose of building affordable housing are not eligible for Affordable Housing
Credits.
REVIEW PROCESS:
Step 1: HPC Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, Residential Design Standard Review,
Special Review (if needed)
City Council has an optional call-up of the consolidated application.
Step 2: HPC Final Major Development, GMQS, Establishment of Affordable Housing Credits
Exhibit 5
P119
IV.A.
Below are links to the Land Use Application form and Land Use Code for your convenience:
Land Use App:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/Apps%20and%20Fees/2013%20land%20use%20app%20fo
rm.pdf
s Land Use Code:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Title-26-Land-Use-Code/
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/HPC/New%20Historic%20Preservation%20Guideli
nes.pdf
Transportation Impact Analysis Requirements:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Current-Planning/
Land Use Code Section(s)
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.410 Residential Design Standards
26.415.070(D) Historic Preservation – Major Development Review
26.415.080 Demolition of properties within a historic district
26.430 Special Review
26.515 Off-street Parking
26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements
26.610 Impact Fees
26.630 Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
26.710.180 Mixed Use zone district
and Municipal Code Section
12.10 Space Allotment for Trash and Recycling Storage
Review by: Staff for complete application
Review agencies for recommendation
Historic Preservation Commission for decisions
Public Hearing: Yes, at HPC
Planning Fees: $1,950 for 6 hours of staff time
Referral Fees: $325 deposit – Engineering
$975 flat fee – Parks
$975 flat fee – Environmental Health
Total Deposit: $4,225 (additional planning hours over deposit amount are billed at a rate
of $325/hour; additional engineering hours over deposit are billed at a rate
of $325/hour)
P120
IV.A.
To apply, submit the following information:
Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement.
Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).
Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur,
consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an
ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing
the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts
and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the
Development Application.
Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the
name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the
applicant.
HOA Compliance form (Attached)
Documentation showing the proposal meets all Transportation Mitigation Requirements as outlined
in the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines and Mitigation Tool, available online at:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Recent-
Code-Amendments/. A copy of the tool showing trips generated and the chosen mitigation measures
should be included with the application.
A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the
proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application
and relevant land use approvals associated with the property.
A site improvement survey (no older than a year from submittal) including topography and vegetation
showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor by licensed in the
State of Colorado.
Written responses to all review criteria.
An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
List of adjacent property owners within 300’ for public hearing.
A proposed site plan.
Scaled drawings of all proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their form, including their height,
massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the primary features of all elevations.
Preliminary selection of primary exterior building materials.
P121
IV.A.
Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the designated
historic property or historic district including at least one (1) of the following: diagrams, maps,
photographs, models or streetscape elevations.
1 Complete Copy of all application materials. If the copy is deemed complete by staff, the
following items will then need to be submitted:
1 digital PDF copy of the complete application packet
12 sets of all graphics printed at 11x17
Total deposit for review of the application.
A sketch up model will be required for the public hearing.
Disclaimer:
The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on
current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may
not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right.
P122
IV.A.
Exhibit 6
210 West Main Street – Vicinity Map
P123
IV.A.
City of Aspen Community Development Department
Aspen Historic Preser��� Land Use Packet
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Applica�on Requirements, Updated: March 2016
ATTACHMENT 3 - Dimensional Requirements Form
(Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.)
Project:
Applicant:
Project
Location:
Zone District:
Lot Size:
Lot Area:
(For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high
water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the
Municipal Code.)
Commercial net leasable: Existing:__________Proposed:_________________
Number of residential units: Existing:__________Proposed:_________________
Proposed % of demolition: __________
DIMENSIONS: (write N/A where no requirement exists in the zone district)
Floor Area:
Height
Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________
Principal Bldg.: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:_ ____
Accessory Bldg.: 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 Front/Rear:
Indicate N, S, E, W Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Combined Sides: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Distance between
buildings:
Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued:
210 W Main Street
King Louise, LLC
210 W Main Street, Aspen CO
Mixed Use
6,000 sf
6,000 sf
435 0
7-8 8
100
3,282 sf
23.75’28’_
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a
_________none ____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
Variations requested (identify the exact variances needed): ______________________________
_________Special re______view r_____eques__ted f_________or 1:25:1 F______AR and for 6 onsite Parking Spaces
n/a n/a
5’ (E)5’5’
5’ (W)5’5’
10’10’10’
5’5’5’
6 6 6
about 7361 sf7500 sf
special
review
Exhibit 7
28'4" - 32
P124
IV.A.
City of Aspen Community Development Department
Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016
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
King Louise Affordable Housing
210 West Main Street, Block 51, Lots P and Q City and Townsite of Aspen
King Louise, LLC
Chris Bendon, BendonAdams
300 So Spring Street, Suite 202, Aspen CO 81611
925-2855 chris@bendonadams.com
X
X
X Conceptual Residential Design
X Special Review
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
_________Eight resident____ i________al apartments wi________th smal____l hai____r sal____on__________________________________________________________________
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
_______Eight resi_____denti______al apartments______________________________________________________________________________________
27 351 244 0009
PO Box 1467, Basalt, Colorado 81621
970 927 3167 tkga@tkga.net
P125
IV.A.
City of Aspen Community Development Department
Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016
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
Does the work you are planning include exterior work; including additions, demolitions,
new construction, remodeling, rehabilitation or restoration?
Does the work you are planning include interior work, including remodeling,
rehabilitation, or restoration?
Do you plan other future changes or improvements that could be reviewed at this time?
In addition to City of Aspen approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness or No Negative
Effect and a building permit, are you seeking to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Rehabilitation or restoration of a National Register of Historic Places
Property in order to qualify for state or federal tax credits?
If yes, are you seeking federal rehabilitation investment tax credits in
Conjunction with this project? (Only income producing properties listed
on the National Register are eligible. Owner-occupied residential
properties are not.)
If yes, are you seeking the Colorado State Income Tax Credit for
Historical Preservation?
Please check all City of Aspen Historic Preservation Benefits which you plan to use:
Rehabilitation Loan Fund Conservation Easement Program Dimensional Variances
Increased Density Historic Landmark Lot Split Waiver of Park Dedication Fees
Conditional Uses Tax Credits
Exemption from Growth Management Quota System
X
X
X
X
P126
IV.A.
Exhibit 8P127IV.A.
Form 5011000 (6-22-10) Page 1 of 2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment (6-17-06)
Title Insurance Commitment
ISSUED BY
First American Title Insurance Company
Commitment
INFORMATION
The Title Insurance Commitment is a legal contract between you and the
Company. It is issued to show the basis on which we will issue a Title
Insurance Policy to you. The Policy will insure you against certain risks to the
land title, subject to the limitations shown in the Policy.
The Company will give you a sample of the Policy form, if you ask.
The Policy contains an arbitration clause. All arbitrable matters when the
Amount of Insurance is $2,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of
either the Company or you as the exclusive remedy of the parties. You may
review a copy of the arbitration rules at http://www.alta.org/.
The Commitment is based on the land title as of the Commitment Date. Any
changes in the land title or the transaction may affect the Commitment and
the Policy.
The Commitment is subject to its Requirements, Exceptions and Conditions.
THIS INFORMATION IS NOT PART OF THE TITLE INSURANCE
COMMITMENT. YOU SHOULD READ THE COMMITMENT VERY
CAREFULLY.
If you have any questions about the Commitment, contact:
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
1 First American Way, Santa Ana, California 92707
TABLE OF CONTENTS
AGREEMENT TO ISSUE POLICY 1
CONDITIONS 2
SCHEDULE A Insert
1. Commitment Date
2. Policies to be Issued, Amounts
and Proposed Insureds
3. Interest in the Land and Owner
4. Description of the Land
SCHEDULE B-I - REQUIREMENTS Insert
SCHEDULE B-II - EXCEPTIONS Insert
AGREEMENT TO ISSUE POLICY
We agree to issue policy to you according to the terms of the Commitment. When we show the policy amount and your name as the proposed insured in Schedule A,
this Commitment becomes effective as of the Commitment Date shown in Schedule A.
If the Requirements shown in this Commitment have not been met within six months after the Commitment Date, our obligation under this Commitment will end. Also,
our obligation under this Commitment will end when the Policy is issued and then our obligation to you will be under the Policy.
Our obligation under this Commitment is limited by the following:
The Provisions in Schedule A.
The Requirements in Schedule B-I.
The Exceptions in Schedule B-II.
The Conditions on Page 2.
This Commitment is not valid without SCHEDULE A and Sections I and II of SCHEDULE B.
(This Commitment is valid only when Schedules A and B are attached) This jacket was created electronically and constitutes an original document
Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date
of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
[[
Exhibit 9
P128
IV.A.
Form 5011000 (6-22-10) Page 2 of 2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment (6-17-06)
CONDITIONS
1.DEFINITIONS
(a) "Mortgage" means mortgage, deed of trust or other security instrument. (b) "Public Records" means title records
that give constructive notice of matters affecting your title according to the state statutes where your land is
located.
2.LATER DEFECTS
The Exceptions in Schedule B - Section II may be amended to show any defects, liens or encumbrances that appear
for the first time in the public records or are created or attached between the Commitment Date and the date on which
all of the Requirements (a) and (c) of Schedule B - Section I are met. We shall have no liability to you because of this
amendment.
3.EXISTING DEFECTS
If any defects, liens or encumbrances existing at Commitment Date are not shown in Schedule B, we may amend
Schedule B to show them. If we do amend Schedule B to show these defects, liens or encumbrances, we shall be
liable to you according to Paragraph 4 below unless you knew of this information and did not tell us about it in writing.
4.LIMITATION OF OUR LIABILITY
Our only obligation is to issue to you the Policy referred to in this Commitment, when you have met its Requirements.
If we have any liability to you for any loss you incur because of an error in this Commitment, our liability will be limited
to your actual loss caused by your relying on this Commitment when you acted in good faith to:
Comply with the Requirements shown in Schedule B - Section I
or
Eliminate with our written consent any Exceptions shown in Schedule B - Section II.
We shall not be liable for more than the Policy Amount shown in Schedule A of this Commitment and our liability is
subject to the terms of the Policy form to be issued to you.
5.CLAIMS MUST BE BASED ON THIS COMMITMENT
Any claim, whether or not based on negligence, which you may have against us concerning the title to the land must
be based on this Commitment and is subject to its terms.
P129
IV.A.
Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All right reserved.
The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use.
All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
16003520 - B
American Land Title Association ALTA Commitment Form
Adopted 6-17-06
First American Title Insurance Co.
Commitment No.: 16003520
SCHEDULE A
1. Effective Date: February 7, 2017 at 07:45 AM
2. Policy or Policies to be issued:Amount Premium
A. ALTA Owners Policy (06/17/06)TBD $0.00
Proposed Insured: TBD
Certificate of Taxes Due $0.00
Endorsements:
Additional Charges:$0
Total $0.00
3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment is Fee simple.
4. Title to the Fee simple or interest in the land is at the Effective Date vested in:
KING LOUISE LLC, a Colorado limited liability company
5. The land referred to in the Commitment is described as follows:
SEE EXHIBIT A ATTACHED HERETO
For informational purposes only, the property address is: 210 West Main Street, Aspen, CO 81611.
Attorneys Title Insurance Agency of Aspen, LLC
By:
Winter VanAlstine
Authorized Officer or Agent
FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES OR SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THIS COMMITMENT, CONTACT:
Attorneys Title Insurance Agency of Aspen, LLC, 715 West Main Street, Suite 202, Aspen, CO 81611, Phone: 970
925-7328, Fax: 970 925-7348.
P130
IV.A.
Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All right reserved.
The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members
in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
16003520 - B
American Land Title Association ALTA Commitment Form
Adopted 6-17-06
First American Title Insurance Co.
Commitment No.: 16003520
SCHEDULE B
1. Requirements:
1. Pay the agreed amounts for the interest in the land and/or the mortgage to be insured.
2. Pay us the premiums, fees and charges for the policy.
3. Documents satisfactory to us creating the interest in the land and/or the mortgage to be insured must be signed,
delivered and recorded.
4. You must tell us in writing the name of anyone not referred to in this Commitment who will get an interest in the
land or who will make a loan on the land. We may then make additional requirements or exceptions.
5. Payment of all taxes, charges and assessments, levied and assessed against the subject premises which are due
and payable.
6. A Certification of Taxes due listing each taxing jurisdiction shall be obtained from the County Treasurer or an
authorized agent (pursuant to Senate Bill 92-143, CRS 10-11-122).
7. Receipt by the Company of the appropriate affidavit as to new construction and indemnifying the Company against
any unfiled materialmen's or mechanic's liens.
8. Warranty Deed must be sufficient to convey the fee simple estate or interest in the land described or referred to
herein, from King Louise, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, to TBD, the proposed insured, Schedule A,
item 2A. NOTE: C.R.S. Section 38-35-109(2) required that a notation of the purchaser's legal address, (not
necessarily the same as the property address) be included on the face of the Deed to be recorded.
9. Record a Statement of Authority to provide prima facie evidence of existence of KING LOUISE LLC, a Colorado
limited liability company, an entity capable of holding property, and the name of the person authorized to execute
instruments affecting title to real property as authorized by C.R.S. Section 38-30-172.
10. Certificate of Good Standing from the Colorado Secretary of State for KING LOUISE LLC, a Colorado limited
liability company.
11. A copy of the properly signed and executed Operating Agreement if written, for KING LOUISE LLC, a Colorado
limited liability company, to be submitted to the Company for review.
12. Additional Requirements may be included once the name of the Buyer is provided.
13. Improvement Survey Plat sufficient in form, content and certification acceptable to the Company. Exception will be
taken to adverse matters disclosed thereby. (REQUIREMENT SATISFIED).
14. This Title Commitment is subject to underwriter approval.
P131
IV.A.
American Land Title Association ALTA Commitment Form
Adopted 6-17-06
First American Title Insurance Co.
Commitment No.: 16003520
SCHEDULE B
(Continued)
Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All right reserved.
The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use.
All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
16003520 - B
2. Schedule B of the policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following matters unless the same are
disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company:
1. Any facts, rights, interests or claims which are not shown by the Public Records, but which could be ascertained
by an inspection of the Land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof.
2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the Public Records.
3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey
and inspection of the Land would disclose, and which are not shown by the Public Records.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not
shown in the Public Records.
5. Any and all unpaid taxes, assessments and unredeemed tax sales.
6. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof;
(c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) are shown by the
Public Records.
7. Taxes and assessments for the year 2016 and 2017, and subsequent years, a lien not yet due or payable.
8. Reservations and exceptions as set forth in the Deed from the City of Aspen providing as follows: "That no title
shall be hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar or copper or to any valid mining claim or possession
held under existing laws", dated October 7, 1887, and recorded October 7, 1887, in Book 59 at Page 12, as
Reception No. 020679.
9. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under the Patent, dated January 29, 1897,
and recorded March 1, 1897, in Book 139 at Page 216, as Reception No. 060156.
10. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under An Ordinance Designating As An
Historic District all of those Properties Abutting (on the North and South) Main Street Between Monarch and
Seventh Streets, andall of Paepcke Park, Within the City of Aspen: Which Area is More Particularly Described as
Lots K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R and S of Block 18, 24, 30, 37, 44, 51, 58, 66, 73; Lots A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and J of
Blocks 19, 25, 31, 38, 45, 52, 59, 71; and all of Block 67 of the Original Aspen Townsite (Ordinance No. 60, Series
of 1976), dated October 25, 1976, and recorded December 9, 1976, in Book 321 at Page 51, as Reception No.
189906.
11. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under the Occupancy Deed Restriction and
Agreement for an Employee Dwelling Unit Approved Pursuant to Section 3-1510 of the Pitkin County Land Use
Code, dated September 5, 1995, and recorded October 18, 1995, in Book 797 at Page 119, as Reception No.
386545.
P132
IV.A.
American Land Title Association ALTA Commitment Form
Adopted 6-17-06
First American Title Insurance Co.
Commitment No.: 16003520
SCHEDULE B
(Continued)
Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All right reserved.
The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use.
All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
16003520 - B
12. Any existing leases or tenancies, and any and all parties claiming by, through or under said lessees.
13. Any and all notes, easements and recitals as disclosed on the Improvement Survey Plat, provided by Sopris
Engineering - LLC, dated May 2007.
14. Deed of Trust from King Louise LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County for
the benefit of Alpine Bank, a Colorado Banking Corporation, to secure an indebtedness in the principal sum of
$250,000.00, and any other amounts and/obligations secured thereby, dated May 20, 2016, and recorded June 7,
2016, as Reception No. 629837.
P133
IV.A.
ALTA Commitment 16003520 - B
Exhibit A
First American Title Insurance Co.
Commitment No.: 16003520
EXHIBIT A
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows:
Lots P&Q, Block 51, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, Pitkin County, Colorado.
P134
IV.A.
First American Title Insurance Company
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Pursuant to C.R.S. 30-10-406(3)(a) all documents received for recording or filing in the Clerk and Recorder’s office shall
contain a top margin of at least one inch and a left, right and bottom margin of at least one-half of an inch. The Clerk and
Recorder will refuse to record or file any document that does not conform to the requirements of this section.
NOTE: If this transaction includes a sale of the property and the price exceeds $100,000.00, the seller must comply with
the disclosure/withholding provisions of C.R.S. 39-22-604.5 (Nonresident withholding).
NOTE: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-2 requires that “Every title insurance company shall be responsible
to the proposed insured(s) subject to the terms and conditions of the title commitment, other than the effective date of the
title commitment, for all matters which appear of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title insurance
company, or its agent, conducts the closing and settlement service that is in conjunction with its issuance of an owner’s
policy of title insurance and is responsible for the recording and filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction
which was closed.
Pursuant to C.R.S. 10-11-122, the company will not issue its owner’s policy or owner’s policies of title insurance
contemplated by this commitment until it has been provided a Certificate of Taxes due or other equivalent documentation
from the County Treasurer or the County Treasurer’s authorized agent; or until the Proposed Insured has notified or
instructed the company in writing to the contrary.
The subject property may be located in a special taxing district. A Certificate of Taxes due listing each taxing jurisdiction
shall be obtained from the County Treasurer or the County Treasurer’s authorized agent. Information regarding special
districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board of County Commissioners, the County Clerk
and Recorder, or the County Assessor.
NOTE: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-123, notice is hereby given:
This notice applies to owner’s policy commitments containing a mineral severance instrument exception, or
exceptions, in Schedule B, Section 2.
A. That there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased, or otherwise conveyed
from the surface estate and that there is a substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all
interest in oil, gas, other minerals, or geothermal energy in the property; and
B. That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owner’s
permission. NOTE: Pursuant to Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-2, Affirmative mechanic’s
lien protection for the Owner may be available (typically by deletion of Exception no. 4 of Schedule B,
Section 2 of the Commitment from the Owner’s Policy to be issued) upon compliance with the following
conditions:
NOTE: Pursuant to Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-2, Affirmative mechanic’s lien protection for
the Owner may be available (typically by deletion of Exception no. 4 of Schedule B, Section 2 of the Commitment
from the Owner’s Policy to be issued) upon compliance with the following conditions:
A. The land described in Schedule A of this commitment must be a single family residence which includes a
condominium or townhouse unit.
B. No labor or materials have been furnished by mechanics or material-men for purposes of construction on
the land described in Schedule A of this Commitment within the past 6 months.
C. The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against un-filed
mechanic’s and material-men’s liens.
D. The Company must receive payment of the appropriate premium.
E. If there has been construction, improvements or major repairs undertaken on the property to be
purchased within six months prior to the Date of the Commitment, the requirements to obtain coverage
for unrecorded liens will include: disclosure of certain construction information; financial information as
to the seller, the builder and or the contractor; payment of the appropriate premium, fully executed
Indemnity Agreements satisfactory to the company, and, any additional requirements as may be
necessary after an examination of the aforesaid information by the Company.
No coverage will be given under any circumstances for labor or material for which the insured has contracted for
or agreed to pay.
P135
IV.A.
First American Title Insurance Company
NOTE: Pursuant to C.R.S. 38-35-125(2) no person or entity that provides closing and settlement services for a real estate
transaction shall disburse funds as a part of such services until those funds have been received and are available for
immediate withdrawal as a matter of right.
NOTE: C.R.S. 39-14-102 requires that a real property transfer declaration accompany any conveyance document
presented for recordation in the State of Colorado. Said declaration shall be completed and signed by either the grantor or
grantee.
NOTE: Pursuant to CRS 10-1-128(6)(a), It is unlawful to knowingly provide false, incomplete, or misleading facts
or information to an insurance company for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the company.
Penalties may include imprisonment, fines, denial of insurance and civil damages. Any insurance company or
agent of an insurance company who knowingly provides false, incomplete, or misleading facts or information to a
policyholder or claimant for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the policyholder or claimant with
regard to a settlement or award payable from insurance proceeds shall be reported to the Colorado division of
insurance within the department of regulatory agencies.
NOTE: Pursuant to Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-3, notice is hereby given of the availability of an ALTA
Closing Protection Letter which may, upon request, be provided to certain parties to the transaction identified in the
commitment.
Nothing herein contained will be deemed to obligate the company to provide any of the coverages referred to herein unless
the above conditions are fully satisfied.
P136
IV.A.
ATTORNEYS TITLE INSURANCE AGENCY OF ASPEN, LLC
715 West Main Street, Suite 202
Aspen, CO 81611
Attorneys Title Insurance Agency of Aspen, LLC
Privacy Policy Notice
PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE
Title V. of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) generally prohibits any financial institution, directly or through it affiliates,
from sharing non-public personal information about you with a nonaffiliated third party unless the institution provides you
with a notice of its privacy policies and practices, such as the type of information that it collects about you and the
categories of persons or entities to whom it may be disclosed. In compliance with the GLBA, we are providing you with
this document, which notifies you of the privacy policies and practices of Attorneys Title Insurance Agency of Aspen,
LLC.
We may collect nonpublic personal information about you from the following sources:
Information we receive from you, such as on application or other forms.
Information about your transactions we secure from out files, or from our affiliates or others.
Information we receive from a consumer reporting agency.
Information that we receive from others involved in your transaction, such as the real estate agent or lender.
Unless it is specifically stated otherwise in an amended Privacy Policy Notice, no additional nonpublic personal information
will be collected about you.
We may disclose any of the above information that we collect about our customers or former customer to our affiliates or
to nonaffiliated third parties as permitted by law.
We also may disclose this information about our customers or former customers to the following types of nonaffiliated
companies that perform marketing services on our behalf or with whom we have joint marketing agreements:
Financial service providers such as companies engaged in banking, consumer finance, securities and insurance.
Non-financial companies such as envelope stuffers and other fulfillment service providers.
WE DO NOT DISCLOSE ANY NONPUBLIC PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOU WITH ANYONE FOR ANY
PURPOSE THAT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED BY LAW.
We restrict access to nonpublic personal information about you to those employees who need to know that information in
order to provide products or services to you. We maintain physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards that comply with
federal regulations to guard your nonpublic personal information.
TELEPHONE 970 925-7328 FACSIMILE 970 925-7348
P137
IV.A.
Exhibit 10P138IV.A.
P139IV.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: 273512440009 on 02/13/2017
Instructions:
Disclaimer:
http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com
Exhibit 12
P140
IV.A.
212 WEST HOPKINS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
212 W HOPKINS AVE
ASPEN HOUSE LLC
CHICAGO, IL 60601
225 N COLUMBUS DR #100
GUNNING RALPH
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 11912
ASPEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
ASPEN, CO 81611
311 W MAIN ST
GUNNING JANINE L
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 11705
PRICE DOUGLAS
CABIN JOHN, MD 20818
PO BOX 220
MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST # 2
CRETE ASSOCIATES LP
BRYN MAWR, PA 19010
1062 E LANCASTER AVE #30B
HEINEMAN S MARLENE
DALLAS, TX 753810323
PO BOX 810323
BROWDE DAVID A
CHAPPAQUA, NY 10514
604 QUAKER RD
TEMPKINS HARRY & VIVIAN
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139
605 LINCOLN RD #301
CHAMBERS PETE
CABIN JOHN, MD 20818
PO BOX 220
SILVERSTEIN PHILIP & ROSALYN
BRONX, NY 10463
25 KNOLLS CRESCENT APT 81
JACOBY FAMILY LP
VERO BEACH, FL 32960
700 20TH ST
KARP MICHAEL
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
1630 LOCUST ST #200
SHEEHAN WILLIAM J & NANCY E
FRANKFORT, IL 60423
10 GOLF VIEW LN
RICKEL DAVID
LANDSDALE, PA 19446
275 GOLDENROD DR
SNYDER GARY
ELKINS PARK, PA 19027
8324 BROODSIDE RD
BOOKBINDER FISHDANCE & DELANEY LLC
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81503
164 LITTLE PARK RD
WEST HOPKINS LLC
POTOMAC, MD 20859
PO BOX 61510
BERGHOFF KRISTIN TRUST
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46236
9112 WALNUT GROVE DR
BERGHOFF MICHAEL R TRUST
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46236
9112 WALNUT GROVE DR
2401 BLAKE LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
132 W MAIN LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
MONARCH I LLC
LEAWOOD, KS 66211
4601 COLLEGE BLVD #350
DH ASE LLC
WILMINGTON, DE 19808
2711 CENTERVILLE RD # 400
SEVEN SEAS INVESTMENT LLC
WILMETTE, IL 60091
1120 MICHIGAN AVE
118 NORTH FIRST LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
623 E HOPKINS AVE
TYROL APARTMENTS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
200 W MAIN ST
TYROLEAN LODGE LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
200 W MAIN ST
P141
IV.A.
SKILOFT LLC
HOUSTON, TX 77046
11 GREENWAY PLAZA #2000
HITE HENRY HARRIS REVOC TRUST
WOODY CREEK, CO 81656
PO BOX 155
HITE ANGELA R FAMILY TRUST
WOODY CREEK, CO 81656
PO BOX 155
CHISHOLM EDITH S
ASPEN, CO 81611
205 W MAIN ST
STEVENSON KAREN H
ASPEN, CO 81611
205 W MAIN ST
CHISHOLM HEATHER M
ASPEN, CO 81611
205 W MAIN ST
212 N SECOND ST LLC
TAMPA, FL 33613
509 GUISANDO DE AVILA #201
ELKINS LESLIE KEITH TRUST
HOUSTON, TX 77002
1001 FANNIN #700
233 WEST BLEEKER LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
400 E MAIN ST #2
CHOOKASZIAN DENNIS
WILMETTE, IL 60091
1100 MICHIGAN AVE
MARTIN SCOTT M
ASPEN, CO 81611
PO BOX 51
SAND KATHERINE M
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 51
GUNN ROBERT W FAMILY TRST
MARBLEHEAD, MA 01945
409 OCEAN AVE
GUERRA DONNA
DALLAS, TX 75205
3622 SPRINGBROOK ST
MAYER KEVIN
ASPEN, CO 81611
222 W HOPKINS AVE #2
GROSVENOR DENIS
TAOS, NM 875716922
209 CAMINO DE LA MERCED UNTI C
FCB LLC
SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615-6622
PO BOX 6622
GASTON JOHN & KATHERINE
GREENWICH, CT 06831
16 BRYNWOOD LN
GREENASPEN LLC
KEY BISCAYNE, FL 33149
30 ISLAND DR
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
TWIN COASTS LTD
BOCA RATON, FL 33432
433 PLAZA REAL #275
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
233 W MAIN ST
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC
BOCA RATON, FL 33431
4960 CONFERENCE WY N #100
HOTEL ASPEN CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
110 W MAIN ST
ASPEN MEDICAL CENTER CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
W MAIN ST
NORTHSTAR OFFICE BUILDING CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
122 W MAIN ST
DIMITRIUS RALLI TRUST
PASADENA, CA 91103
535 FREMONT DR
HAYMAX LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
JES 2002 GRANTOR TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
221 N STARWOOD DR
SHIELD JULIET E
ASPEN, CO 81611
221 N STARWOOD DR
P142
IV.A.
STEVENS BRUCE
ASPEN, CO 81611
214 W BLEEKER ST
STEVENS LESLEY
ASPEN, CO 81611
214 W BLEEKER ST
CITY OF ASPEN
ASPEN, CO 81611
130 S GALENA ST
KETTELKAMP GRETTA M
PUEBLO, CO 81008
3408 MORRIS AVE
LADA COMMUNITY PROPERTY TRUST
LAS VEGAS, NV 89109
2860 AUGUSTA DR
MELTON DAVID
ASPEN, CO 81611
135 W MAIN ST
GLICKMAN ADAM
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 1207
RILEY AMY CLARK
ASPEN, CO 81611
129 W BLEEKER ST
NEWKAM PATRICK C
ASPEN, CO 81611
211 W MAIN ST
GUENTHER TODD
ASPEN, CO 81611
121 W BLEEKER LLC
NIMMO GUENTHER KELLY
ASPEN, CO 81611
121 W BLEEKER ST
PESIKOFF DAVID
HOUSTON, TX 77098
1811 NORTH BLVD
ROMANUS RAYMOND
CALUMET CITY, IL 60409
19 RIVER OAKS DR
TACO 2 LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
220 W MAIN ST #202
SPERAW ENDEAVORS LLC
SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615
PO BOX 6575
WEST MAIN VENTURES
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 11977
ASPEN MAIN OFFICE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
220 W MAIN ST
AJAX VIEW COMMERCIAL/NORTH STAR OFFICE
ASPEN, CO 81611
132 W MAIN ST
ASPEN CONDOS ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
311 W MAIN ST
WEST SIDE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
234 W HOPKINS AVE
GARET CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
400 E MAIN ST #2
P143
IV.A.
Exhibit 13P144IV.A.
P145IV.A.
P146IV.A.
Exhibit 14
P147
IV.A.
P148
IV.A.
P149
IV.A.
P150
IV.A.
P151
IV.A.
P152
IV.A.
P153
IV.A.
P154
IV.A.
P155
IV.A.
Exhibit 15
P156IV.A.
P157IV.A.
P158IV.A.
P159IV.A.
TYROLEAN LODGE LLC200 W MAIN STASPEN, CO 81611PARCEL NUMBER 273512440010SEVEN SEAS INVESTMENT LLC1120 MICHIGAN AVEWILMETTE, IL 60091PARCEL NUMBER 273512440007MAIN STREETFIRST STR
E
E
T S75°09'11"E60.00'N14°50'49
"
E
100.00'N75°09'11"W60.00'S14°50'49"
W
100.00'GRAVEL ALLEYBASIS OF B
E
A
R
I
N
G100.0' R.O.W.(ASPHALT SURFACE)75.45' R.O
.
W
.(ASPHALT
S
U
R
F
A
C
E
)20.40' R.O.W.(GRAVEL SURFACE)LOTS P & QSURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATEI hereby state that this Improvement Survey Plat was prepared by SoprisEngineering, LLC (SE) for King Louise LLC .I furthermore state that the improvements on the above described parcel onthis date, February 3, 2017, except utility connections are entirely within theboundaries of the parcel except as shown, that there are no encroachmentsupon the described premises by improvements on any adjoining premises,except as indicated, and that there is no apparent evidence or sign of anyeasement crossing or burdening any part of said parcel, except as noted. Ifurthermore state that this property is subject to reservations, restrictions,covenants and easements of record or in place. I furthermore state,the relative positional accuracy of this survey does not exceed 1:15,000.______________________________________Mark S. Beckler L.S. #28643IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT MAP OF:SHEET 1 OF 1LOTS P AND Q BLOCK 51A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE NW14 OF SECTION 7TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6th P.M.COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADONOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGALACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARSAFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTIONBASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TENYEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLCCIVIL CONSULTANTS502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623(970) 704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG.COMKK 27113 02/14/17 27113 ISP 2017.DWGVICINITY MAPSCALE: 1" = 2000'GENERAL UTILITY NOTES:1. The locations of underground utilities have been plotted based onutility maps, construction/design plans, other information provided byutility companies and actual field locations in some instances. Theseutilities, as shown, may not represent actual field conditions. It is theresponsibility of the contractor to contact all utility companies for fieldlocation of utilities prior to construction.GAS VALVECURB STOPELECTRIC METERTELEPHONE PEDESTALCATV PEDESTALEXISTING CONDITIONS LEGEND1 inch = ft.( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALE010102010405LOTS P AND Q,BLOCK 51,CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPENCOUNTY OF PITKINSTATE OF COLORADOPROPERTY DESCRIPTIONLIGHT POLEWOODEN FENCENOTES1) Date of Survey: May 2007, January 2011,Updated: February 3, 20172) Date of Preparation: February 8, 2017.3) Basis of Bearing: A bearing of S 14°50'49" W between the found #5 rebarand 1.25" plastic cap L.S. 2547 monumenting the Northeast boundary corner ofLot Q, and the set 1.50" brass disk L.S. 28643 2' witness corner monumentingthe Southeast boundary corner of Lot Q, as shown .4) Basis of Survey: Basis of Survey: The Plat of The City of Aspen, PitkinCounty Colorado by G.E. Buchanan dated December 15, 1959, variousdocuments of record and the found monuments, as shown.5) This survey does not constitute a title search by Sopris Engineering, LLC (SE)to determine ownership or easements of record. For all information regardingeasements, rights of way and/or title of record, SE relied upon the above saidplats described in note 4. And the title commitment prepared by Pitkin CountyTitle, Inc., Effective date: February 07, 1994 Case No. PCT-8342C2. No new titlework was supplied for this update.SITEP160IV.A.
TYROLEAN LODGE LLC200 W MAIN STASPEN, CO 81611PARCEL NUMBER 273512440010SEVEN SEAS INVESTMENT LLC1120 MICHIGAN AVEWILMETTE, IL 60091PARCEL NUMBER 273512440007MAIN ST
R
E
E
T FIRST STREETS75°09'
1
1
"
E
60.00'N14°50'49"E100.00'N75°09'
1
1
"
W
60.00'S14°50'49"W100.00'GRAVEL
A
L
L
E
Y
BASIS OF BEARING100.0' R.
O
.
W
.(ASPHAL
T
S
U
R
F
A
C
E
)75.45' R.O.W.(ASPHALT SURFACE)20.40' R
.
O
.
W
.(GRAVE
L
S
U
R
F
A
C
E
)
LOTS P & Q
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
I hereby state that this Improvement Survey Plat was prepared by Sopris
Engineering, LLC (SE) for King Louise LLC .
I furthermore state that the improvements on the above described parcel on
this date, February 3, 2017, except utility connections are entirely within the
boundaries of the parcel except as shown, that there are no encroachments
upon the described premises by improvements on any adjoining premises,except as indicated, and that there is no apparent evidence or sign of any
easement crossing or burdening any part of said parcel, except as noted. I
furthermore state that this property is subject to reservations, restrictions,
covenants and easements of record or in place. I furthermore state,the relative positional accuracy of this survey does not exceed 1:15,000.
______________________________________
Mark S. Beckler L.S. #28643
IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT MAP OF:
SHEET 1 OF 1
LOTS P AND Q BLOCK 51
A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE NW1 4 OF SECTION 7TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6th P.M.
COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO
NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGALACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARSAFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTIONBASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TENYEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.
SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC
CIVIL CONSULTANTS502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623
(970) 704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG.COM
KK 27113 02/14/17 27113 ISP 2017.DWG
VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 1" = 2000'
GENERAL UTILITY NOTES:
1. The locations of underground utilities have been plotted based on
utility maps, construction/design plans, other information provided byutility companies and actual field locations in some instances. These
utilities, as shown, may not represent actual field conditions. It is the
responsibility of the contractor to contact all utility companies for field
location of utilities prior to construction.
GAS VALVE
CURB STOP
ELECTRIC METER
TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
CATV PEDESTAL
EXISTING CONDITIONS LEGEND
1 inch = ft.( IN FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
010 10 20
10
405
LOTS P AND Q,BLOCK 51,CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
COUNTY OF PITKINSTATE OF COLORADO
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
LIGHT POLE
WOODEN FENCE
NOTES
1) Date of Survey: May 2007, January 2011,Updated: February 3, 2017
2) Date of Preparation: February 8, 2017.
3) Basis of Bearing: A bearing of S 14°50'49" W between the found #5 rebarand 1.25" plastic cap L.S. 2547 monumenting the Northeast boundary corner ofLot Q, and the set 1.50" brass disk L.S. 28643 2' witness corner monumentingthe Southeast boundary corner of Lot Q, as shown .
4) Basis of Survey: Basis of Survey: The Plat of The City of Aspen, PitkinCounty Colorado by G.E. Buchanan dated December 15, 1959, variousdocuments of record and the found monuments, as shown.
5) This survey does not constitute a title search by Sopris Engineering, LLC (SE)to determine ownership or easements of record. For all information regardingeasements, rights of way and/or title of record, SE relied upon the above saidplats described in note 4. And the title commitment prepared by Pitkin CountyTitle, Inc., Effective date: February 07, 1994 Case No. PCT-8342C2. No new titlework was supplied for this update.
SITE
TRASH AREA WITH
2 YD DUMPSTER
MOTORCYCLE
PARKING AREA
ALLEY PARKING SPACES
8'-6" X 18'-0"
SIX TOTAL
3 TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE
PARKING SPACES
STACKED IN OLD DRIVEWAY
P161IV.A.
EXISTING
LIVABLE AREA
970.927.3167 | tkga@tkga.net
TKGA
KALH/TKG
Theodore K Guy Associates PC
REMARKS
JOB #:
SHEET TITLE:
COPYRIGHT
THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC
DRAWN:
PRINTED:
CHECKED:
DATE
originalKING LOUISE210 W MAIN STASPEN, COLORADOTKG
16103
KingLouiseRestored021317 JAJS.vwx
2/17/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016
cP162 IV.A.
EXISTING
LIVABLE AREA
970.927.3167 | tkga@tkga.net
TKGA
KALH/TKG
Theodore K Guy Associates PC
REMARKS
JOB #:
SHEET TITLE:
COPYRIGHT
THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC
DRAWN:
PRINTED:
CHECKED:
DATE
originalKING LOUISE210 W MAIN STASPEN, COLORADOTKG
16103
KingLouiseRestored021317 JAJS.vwx
2/17/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016
cP163
IV.A.
EXISTING
LIVABLE AREA
970.927.3167 | tkga@tkga.net
TKGA
KALH/TKG
Theodore K Guy Associates PC
REMARKS
JOB #:
SHEET TITLE:
COPYRIGHT
THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC
DRAWN:
PRINTED:
CHECKED:
DATE
originalKING LOUISE210 W MAIN STASPEN, COLORADOTKG
16103
KingLouiseRestored021317 JAJS.vwx
2/17/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016
Concrete side walk (typ)Bike RackP164IV.A.
EXISTING
LIVABLE AREA
970.927.3167 | tkga@tkga.net
TKGA
KALH/TKG
Theodore K Guy Associates PC
REMARKS
JOB #:
SHEET TITLE:
COPYRIGHT
THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC
DRAWN:
PRINTED:
CHECKED:
DATE
originalKING LOUISE210 W MAIN STASPEN, COLORADOTKG
16103
KingLouiseRestored021317 JAJS.vwx
2/17/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016
Concrete side walk (typ)Bike RackNET LIVABLE FLOOR AREAUNIT 101846.2 SFUNIT 102868.9 SFP165IV.A.
970.927.3167 | tkga@tkga.net
TKGA
KALH/TKG
Theodore K Guy Associates PC
REMARKS
JOB #:
SHEET TITLE:
COPYRIGHT
THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC
DRAWN:
PRINTED:
CHECKED:
DATE
originalKING LOUISE210 W MAIN STASPEN, COLORADOTKG
16103
KingLouiseRestored021317 JAJS.vwx
2/17/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016
ALLEY BUILDING
FLOOR PLANP166IV.A.
970.927.3167 | tkga@tkga.net
TKGA
KALH/TKG
Theodore K Guy Associates PC
REMARKS
JOB #:
SHEET TITLE:
COPYRIGHT
THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC
DRAWN:
PRINTED:
CHECKED:
DATE
originalKING LOUISE210 W MAIN STASPEN, COLORADOTKG
16103
KingLouiseRestored021317 JAJS.vwx
2/17/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016
FRONT
BUILDING
GARDEN LEVEL
cP167
IV.A.
970.927.3167 | tkga@tkga.net
TKGA
KALH/TKG
Theodore K Guy Associates PC
REMARKS
JOB #:
SHEET TITLE:
COPYRIGHT
THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC
DRAWN:
PRINTED:
CHECKED:
DATE
originalKING LOUISE210 W MAIN STASPEN, COLORADOTKG
16103
KingLouiseRestored021317 JAJS.vwx
2/17/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016
FRONT
BUILDING
MIDDLE LEVELP168IV.A.
970.927.3167 | tkga@tkga.net
TKGA
KALH/TKG
Theodore K Guy Associates PC
REMARKS
JOB #:
SHEET TITLE:
COPYRIGHT
THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC
DRAWN:
PRINTED:
CHECKED:
DATE
originalKING LOUISE210 W MAIN STASPEN, COLORADOTKG
16103
KingLouiseRestored021317 JAJS.vwx
2/17/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016
FRONT
BUILDING
GARDEN LEVELP169
IV.A.
SITEPLAN
970.927.3167 | tkga@tkga.net
TKGA
KALH/TKG
Theodore K Guy Associates PC
REMARKS
JOB #:
SHEET TITLE:
COPYRIGHT
THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC
DRAWN:
PRINTED:
CHECKED:
DATE
originalKING LOUISE210 W MAIN STASPEN, COLORADOTKG
16103
KingLouiseRestored041117JAJS.vwx
4/13/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016
X
Concrete side walk (typ)Bike Rack
P170IV.A.
970.927.3167 | tkga@tkga.net
TKGA
KALH/TKG
Theodore K Guy Associates PC
REMARKS
JOB #:
SHEET TITLE:
COPYRIGHT
THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC
DRAWN:
PRINTED:
CHECKED:
DATE
originalKING LOUISE210 W MAIN STASPEN, COLORADOTKG
16103
KingLouiseRestored041117JAJS.vwx
4/13/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016
BASEMENT
LEVEL PLANP171
IV.A.
FIRST LEVEL
PLAN
970.927.3167 | tkga@tkga.net
TKGA
KALH/TKG
Theodore K Guy Associates PC
REMARKS
JOB #:
SHEET TITLE:
COPYRIGHT
THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC
DRAWN:
PRINTED:
CHECKED:
DATE
originalKING LOUISE210 W MAIN STASPEN, COLORADOTKG
16103
KingLouiseRestored041117JAJS.vwx
4/13/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016
X
Concrete side walk (typ)Bike Rack
P172IV.A.
SECOND LEVEL PLAN
970.927.3167 | tkga@tkga.net
TKGA
KALH/TKG
Theodore K Guy Associates PC
REMARKS
JOB #:
SHEET TITLE:
COPYRIGHT
THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC
DRAWN:
PRINTED:
CHECKED:
DATE
originalKING LOUISE210 W MAIN STASPEN, COLORADOTKG
16103
KingLouiseRestored041117JAJS.vwx
4/13/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016P173
IV.A.
THIRD LEVEL
PLAN
970.927.3167 | tkga@tkga.net
TKGA
KALH/TKG
Theodore K Guy Associates PC
REMARKS
JOB #:
SHEET TITLE:
COPYRIGHT
THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC
DRAWN:
PRINTED:
CHECKED:
DATE
originalKING LOUISE210 W MAIN STASPEN, COLORADOTKG
16103
KingLouiseRestored041117JAJS.vwx
4/13/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016P174 IV.A.
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
970.927.3167 | tkga@tkga.net
TKGA
KALH/TKG
Theodore K Guy Associates PC
REMARKS
JOB #:
SHEET TITLE:
COPYRIGHT
THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC
DRAWN:
PRINTED:
CHECKED:
DATE
originalKING LOUISE210 W MAIN STASPEN, COLORADOTKG
16103
KingLouiseRestored041317JAJS.vwx
4/18/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
cP175
IV.A.
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
970.927.3167 | tkga@tkga.net
TKGA
KALH/TKG
Theodore K Guy Associates PC
REMARKS
JOB #:
SHEET TITLE:
COPYRIGHT
THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC
DRAWN:
PRINTED:
CHECKED:
DATE
originalKING LOUISE210 W MAIN STASPEN, COLORADOTKG
16103
KingLouiseRestored041317JAJS.vwx
4/18/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016P176 IV.A.
BUILDING
SECTIONS
970.927.3167 | tkga@tkga.net
TKGA
KALH/TKG
Theodore K Guy Associates PC
REMARKS
JOB #:
SHEET TITLE:
COPYRIGHT
THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC
DRAWN:
PRINTED:
CHECKED:
DATE
originalKING LOUISE210 W MAIN STASPEN, COLORADOTKG
16103
KingLouiseRestored041317JAJS.vwx
4/18/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016P177
IV.A.
970.927.3167 | tkga@tkga.net
TKGA
KALH/TKG
Theodore K Guy Associates PC
REMARKS
JOB #:
SHEET TITLE:
COPYRIGHT
THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC
DRAWN:
PRINTED:
CHECKED:
DATE
originalKING LOUISE210 W MAIN STASPEN, COLORADOTKG
16103
KingLouiseRestored041317JAJS.vwx
4/18/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016P178 IV.A.
970.927.3167 | tkga@tkga.net
TKGA
KALH/TKG
Theodore K Guy Associates PC
REMARKS
JOB #:
SHEET TITLE:
COPYRIGHT
THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC
DRAWN:
PRINTED:
CHECKED:
DATE
originalKING LOUISE210 W MAIN STASPEN, COLORADOTKG
16103
KingLouiseRestored041317JAJS.vwx
4/18/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016P179
IV.A.