HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20170531
AGENDA
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
May 31, 2017
4:30 PM City Council Meeting Room
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
I. 12:00 SITE VISITS
A. None
II. 4:30 INTRODUCTION
A. Roll call
B. Approval of minutes
C. Public Comments
D. Commissioner member comments
E. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
F. Project Monitoring
110 E. Bleeker
G. Staff comments
Update on Sign Code Amendments
H. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
I. Submit public notice for agenda items
J. Call-up reports
K. HPC typical proceedings
III. 5:10 OLD BUSINESS
A. 210 W. Main Street- Conceptual Major Development Review, Demolition,
Special Review, Residential Design Standard Review, Conceptual Commercial
Design Review, PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM MAY 24TH
IV. NEW BUSINESS
A. None
V. 6:15 ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: 12
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.
Living Room Fireplace Termination OPTIONSOPTIONS
P1
II.F.
OPTION 1: This one is used out the wall right behind the fireplace
OPTION 2:This one is used out the roof directly above the fireplace
OPTION 3: This one would be needed to vent out the chimney
side towards the North side, not on the top
OPTION 1: This one is used out the wall right behind the fireplace
This one is used out the roof directly above the fireplace
This one would be needed to vent out the chimney. We would set it away from the street
side towards the North side, not on the top
would set it away from the street
P2
II.F.
The image cannot be displayed. Your computer may not have enough memory to open the image, or the image may have been corrupted. Restart your computer, and then open the file again. If the red x still appears, you may have to delete the image and then insert it again.
P3
II.F.
P4
II.F.
Kitchen Vent Hood Termination
Planned for North of the dormer near Bedroom 1’s approved FP termination
The image cannot be displayed. Your computer may not have enough memory to open the image, or the image may have been corrupted. Restart your computer, and then open the file again. If the red x still appears, you may have to delete the image and then insert it again.
P5
II.F.
Reed Compliant Sign Code Update – HPC Discussion
May 31, 2017
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Phillip Supino, Long Range Planner
THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
MEETING DATE: May 31, 2017
RE: Mandatory Reed Compliant Sign Code Update
REQUEST OF HPC: The purpose of this discussion is to provide information to the Commission on
required updated to the City’s Sign Code. No formal direction or action is requested at this time, but the
Commission is asked to comment on specific aspects of the sign code revisions.
SUMMARY: Based on a 2015 Supreme Court case, staff has concluded that certain provisions within the
sign code should be revised to be make certain that it complies with the standards set forth in that
Supreme Court case. In early 2016, staff presented information about the need for the update to City
Council as part of the AACP-LUC coordination process. The sign code update process was initiated
following a preliminary City Council work session on April 22nd. The work session introduced Council
to the requirements under the law, the process proposed for bringing the sign code into compliance, and
solicited input from Council. Staff seeks HPC comments on specific aspects of the current sign code
and possible outcomes from the revision process.
BACKGROUND: In June, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona
(Reed) that municipal sign code regulations must be “content neutral,” meaning that regulations on
signage must be focused on the size, type, location and appearance of signs, not the content of or entity
displaying the signage. Simply stated, the Supreme Court ruled that if one must read the sign to
determine if it complies with a regulation then it is not content neutral. This ruling rendered aspects of
municipal sign codes around the country non-compliant, requiring revision to ensure that references to
the content of signs were removed from the regulations.
SUMMARY: The scope of this code revision is relatively narrow, focused on ensuring the City’s sign
code requirements are Reed compliant. In general, that means removing distinctions in the code
between various sign types based on their content, as opposed to their size, type, location and
appearance. For example, the code currently allows restaurants to display a small, lighted menu box
outside of the business. This sign type is not permitted for other uses. To be Reed compliant, that
allowance only for restaurants will either need to be eliminated for restaurants or expanded to other
business types.
A complete overhaul of the sign code is not the intent of this code amendment process. Such an
overhaul is a more significant undertaking, and staff and the consultants do not believe that such an
overhaul is necessary given the effectiveness of the current sign regulations. Attached as exhibit A is a
P6
II.G.
Reed Compliant Sign Code Update – HPC Discussion
May 31, 2017
Page 2 of 2
memorandum from project consultant Mark White outlining the requirements under the Reed decision,
those aspects of the sign code which may require revision, and discussion of the process to identify and
make those changes.
Staff is conducting a public outreach process to gather input from residents, ACRA, CCLC, local
business owners and residents. The public outreach efforts included three public meetings in May to
inform the public and gather feedback, as well as an ongoing survey on AspenCommunityVoice.com,
and a survey distributed directly to the Board of Realtors, CCLC and the business community. The
Downtown Services Director has also gone door-to-door in the Commercial Core to distribute surveys
and speak to businesses.
Staff requests feedback on the following specific questions:
a. If possible under the Reed requirements, should the City draft regulations to ensure that signs
associated with historic buildings and uses (e.g. the Aspen Times building) be preserved?
b. If possible under the Reed requirements, should interpretive signs for the City’s historic
landmarks and preservation program be maintained?
c. Are there other comments of questions or ideas from the Commission about specific sign types?
NEXT STEPS: Prior to drafting code language and a Policy Resolution, staff intends to return to Council
for a work session on June 13th to check-in and inform Council of the results of the public outreach
process. Staff will include HPC’s comments and ideas in the discussion with Council at that work
session and in the draft code amendment language.
In the coming weeks, staff will complete the public outreach process, including the online survey, public
and stakeholder meetings. The survey process will run through early June, and staff will return to
Council later in June with the results of the discussions with P&Z and HPC, the community outreach
process and review the recommendations of the consultant and City Attorney.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Mark White Sign Code Update Memo
P7
II.G.
Memo
To: Phillip Supino
From: Mark White
Date: April 11, 2017
Re: Summary of Need to Change Sign Regulations
You requested a conceptual summary of why we are revising the sign regulations. This memo
provides a brief overview of why we are revising the sign regulations, along with some thoughts
about our approach to the sign revisions.
The United States Supreme Court decided a key First Amendment case involving signs the summer
of 2015 (Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218 (2015)). As recognized in a concurring opinion, this
case will require significant revisions to most sign regulations throughout the nation. The Reed
decision requires that, if sign regulations make distinctions based on content (i.e., what the signs say),
they: (1) must have a compelling interest, and (2) are subject to strict scrutiny. In response, most
communities are revising their sign regulations to remove content restrictions from their sign
regulations, and limiting sign regulations to their physical characteristics and typologies. Therefore,
the regulations will address the following characteristics recognized as permitted, “content neutral”
sign regulations in the Reed opinion:
· Size
· Materials
· Lighting
· Moving parts
· Portability
· Banning signs on public property, or regulating them differently
· Locations
· Freestanding v. Attached sign distinctions
· Lighting
· Fixed v. changeable electronic signs
· Commercial v. residential distinctions
· On-premises v. Off-premises distinctions
· Total number of signs allowed per frontage or area
· Time restrictions on advertising a one-time event
· Governmental sign exemptions
Kansas City | Charleston
200 NE Missouri Road, Suite 200 | Lee’s Summit, MO, 64086
816.221.8700 p
www.planningandlaw.com
P8
II.G.
Phillip Supino | April 11, 2017
Summary of Need to Change Sign Regulations
White & Smith, LLC | www.planningandlaw.com
2
The new sign regulations will –
· Address the key regulatory issues relating to signs - such as size, location, design,
illumination, and timing, as discussed above.
· Make improvements needed to improve readability and ease of understanding,
· Incorporate best practices in sign regulations.
· Ensures that the regulations anticipate all sign categories and types appropriate to Aspen.
· Ensure that the regulations allow all persons and businesses freedom of expression and the
ability to advertise while respecting Aspen’s land use, neighborhood protection and aesthetic
values.
· Address traffic safety, aesthetics, clutter, and blighting issues.
· Ensure that the regulations are consistent with the AACP comprehensive planning policies.
At an initial staff meeting, it was noted that the City receives few complaints about the quality or
design of signs. The signs typically by businesses and on residential property are usually considered
acceptable by the community in terms of their design, scale and intensity. Therefore, in addition to
ensuring that the regulations remain compliant with state and federal free speech law, it is an
important goal that the revised regulations continue the scale and intensity currently permitted.
In addition, the City often allows signs in the public right-of-way, or as part of public events on parks
or other public spaces. The regulations will continue to allow the City to control signs in those
locations so that they do not create clutter, and do not create dangers to traffic or pedestrian safety.
P9
II.G.
210 W. Main Street
Staff memo
5.31.2017
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 continued from May 24, 2017
DATE: May 31, 2017
________________________________________________________________________
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 29 ft.
HPC reviewed this project at a public hearing on April 26th, 2017. At that hearing, staff
recommended continuation to restudy the building layout, massing, and scale of the project to
better relate to the historic district. The full staff report from that meeting is included below
(starting on page 5 of this memo). Overall, HPC supported staff recommendation and voted to
continue the project to address these issues.
The applicant has revised the design based on several comments from staff and HPC. The revised
design is attached as Exhibit G. Generally, staff finds that the design revisions address several of
the concerns from the previous meeting and is moving in the right direction.
Staff recommends continuation to incorporate sloped roof forms into the proposal.
APPLICANT: King Louise, LLC, PO Box 1467, Basalt, CO 81621, represented by
BendonAdams.
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-40-009.
P10
III.A.
210 W. Main Street
Staff memo
5.31.2017
2
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots P & Q, Block 51, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONE DISTRICT: MU, Mixed Use.
Figure 1 – Locator and Zoning Map
UPDATE SINCE APRIL 26TH HPC HEARING:
The applicant has revised the design in response to comments from staff and HPC at the April
26th meeting. The changes are outlined below with staff responses.
Layout & Massing: In the initial design, the building was laid out in an L shape with two larger
masses along the alley and east property line. The design also included a circulation tower
connected by walkways across Main Street creating an interior courtyard on the west side. HPC
appreciated the courtyard concept, but suggested that the tradeoff of this space created larger
massing that is inappropriate for the historic district and does not meet the design guidelines.
HPC also suggested that a three-story mass on Main Street was inappropriate. The revised design
retains the mass along the alley with a lower height (discussed below) and larger setback from
the alley. The revised design also removes the circulation tower and walkways, and separates the
Main Street mass into two smaller structures. The footprint of these two structures is more in line
with structures from the mining era. The smaller masses are also both two stories tall, which is
P11
III.A.
210 W. Main Street
Staff memo
5.31.2017
3
more consistent with other development in the historic district. There are several examples of
buildings that have two stories along Main Street and a third story set back on the property. The
revised design is also able to retain a smaller courtyard on the east side of the property. Staff
finds that the massing changes help break down the scale of the development and better reflect
the historic pattern of development and is supportive of the proposed building layout and
massing.
Porches, porticos, and stoops are an important aspect within the guidelines to the massing of
structures and defining entries on Main Street. Staff supports the addition of these elements in the
revised design. They add a one-story element to the building front and help establish a uniform
sense of human scale along the block. The size and proportion of porches needs to be carefully
considered as part of the overall massing for the project.
Height: The original design was 28 feet tall for the mass facing Main Street (permitted in MU
zone district) and 32 feet tall for the mass along the alley (requires Commercial Design Review
approval from HPC). Generally, HPC did not support 32 feet and recommended the applicant
design within the 28 feet permitted in the zone district. The revised design still requests a height
increase, but only for one additional foot (29 feet) on the alley mass. The two smaller masses
(discussed above) have heights of 19 feet and 22 feet. Staff finds that a one foot height increase is
minimal and a reasonable request to allow more livable floor-to-ceiling heights and better solar
access to the units in the north structure without significantly impacting the neighboring
properties across the alley.
Floor Area (Special Review): The MU zone district allows for a 1:1 FAR within the Main Street
Historic District. Through Special Review, 1.25:1 may be granted by HPC. The original design
requested the full increase to 1.25:1. Staff did not support this increase for the original design
based on the impacts of the increased height and proposed massing for the project. HPC agreed
with staff, but also noted that an increased FAR may be appropriate if the mass and scale of the
development is more appropriate. The revised design still requests an FAR increase to 1.25:1.
With a more appropriate massing along Main Street and reduced heights across the project (both
discussed above), staff believes that the revised project reduces the potential impacts and is
supportive of the FAR increase for this design.
Residential Design Standards (RDS): The RDS require one entry door per four street-facing,
ground level units. The original design included one such unit, requiring a minimum of one entry
door, which was not provided. The revised design includes two such units, which both contain
entry doors facing Main Street that meet the RDS. This was the only unmet standard, so the
revised design meets all the requirements for multi-family development.
Roof Forms: The one remaining concern that staff has relates to the proposed roof forms. Staff
recognizes the drainage requirements can be challenging, and the use of flat green roofs is an
effective way to meet those requirements, as well as the many other benefits green roofs provide.
However, as mentioned in the previous memo, almost every property in the Main Street Historic
District contains sloped roof forms on a portion of the project, particularly the residential
buildings. HPC was somewhat divided on this issue. Most commissioners mentioned adding
some sloped roof, but did not think the whole project needed sloped roofs. One of the core design
P12
III.A.
210 W. Main Street
Staff memo
5.31.2017
4
objectives for the Main Street Historic District Guidelines is to “Maintain the range of traditional
building and roof forms” by having basic roof and building forms that are similar to those seen
traditionally. Additionally, the guidelines for Building Form 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.”
Sloped roofs are an important element that ties the District together and staff recommends the
applicant explore adding sloped forms on at least one of the proposed masses.
Other issues: The other items that require HPC approval include Demolition of the existing
development in a historic district and Special Review for a parking reduction of one space. HPC
did not have any concerns with either of these at the last meeting.
Although the materials, fenestration and architectural details are not reviewed during Conceptual,
staff has some concerns related to these items. The Main Street Historic District Design
Objectives include the following:
4.Maintain the character of traditional materials.
5.Incorporate architectural details that are in character with the district.
6.Maintain the characteristics of traditional windows and doors.
The proposed design represents several features and materials (such as stucco siding) that do not
support the characteristics of historic development in the district and staff would like to see
significant improvement on these aspects moving forward.
SUMMARY OF HPC DECISIONS NEEDED
Decision Staff Support
Layout Yes
Mass/Scale Yes
Height Increase Yes
FAR Increase Yes
RDS Yes
Roof Forms No
Parking Reduction Yes, with payment-in-lieu
Demolition Yes
P13
III.A.
210 W. Main Street
Staff memo
5.31.2017
5
THE FOLLOWING MEMO IS FROM THE APRIL 26TH HPC PACKET:
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
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.
1 This block face contains no historic structures.
P14
III.A.
210 W. Main Street
Staff memo
5.31.2017
6
Figure 2 – Proposed design, viewed from southwest
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.
P15
III.A.
210 W. Main Street
Staff memo
5.31.2017
7
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.
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.
P16
III.A.
210 W. Main Street
Staff memo
5.31.2017
8
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
Street. Larger balconies and porches could also be an appropriate way to provide outdoor space
which relate to the historic district.
P17
III.A.
210 W. Main Street
Staff memo
5.31.2017
9
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:
- 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
2 The ability to increase height through design review has been removed in the current Code.
P18
III.A.
210 W. Main Street
Staff memo
5.31.2017
10
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
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
P19
III.A.
210 W. Main Street
Staff memo
5.31.2017
11
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 (UNLESS BOLDED, INCLUDED IN APRIL 26 PACKET):
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. Residential Design Standards - updated
C. Demolition Review Criteria
D. Special Review Criteria - updated
E. DRC comments
F. Application
G. Revised Design received May 24, 2017
P20
III.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 May 31, 2017, continued from April 26, 2017 and May 24, 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.
P21
III.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 29 feet, pursuant to Section 26.412,
Commercial Design Review.
4. 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 31st day of May, 2017.
P22
III.A.
Historic Preservation Commission
Resolution No. -, Series 2017
Page 3 of 3
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.
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
P24
III.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
P25
III.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
P26
III.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 two street-facing, ground level
units, requiring either one street-oriented entrance or open front porch. Each
unit includes a street oriented entrance located within a front porch. Staff finds
this standard to 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
P27
III.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.
P28
III.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. Staff did not support an FAR increase for the
original project as the mass, height and building layout were not compatible with the
historic development in the Main Street Historic District. The revised design lowers the
heights, particularly along Main Street, reducing the height from three stories (28 ft.)
to two stories (19 ft. and 22 ft.), which is typical for the historic development. The
massing is broken down into three structures instead of two and reduced along Main
Street to limit the perceived scale from the street and appear similar to the historic
structures. Staff finds this criterion to 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 original
design proposed a height of 32 ft. for a large portion of the structure, which staff and
HPC did not support. Some members of HPC suggests that a height increase may be
acceptable in select areas. The revised design lowers the proposed height to 29 ft. along
the alley, which is one foot taller than what the zone district permits. The mass is also
pulled back from the property line to 8 ft. 9 in. (originally 5 ft.). Both the reduced
height and increased setback reduce the impacts on the properties north of the alley by
better preserving the views, reducing shading in the winter, and alleviate the perceived
massing. Relocating the courtyard to the east and reducing the height of the buildings
along Main Street helps to preserve the views and alleviate massing along the lodge
units in the Tyrolean to the east. See discussion on parking impacts in Section
26.515.040 below. Staff finds this criterion to 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
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.
P29
III.A.
210 W. Main Street
Exhibit D – Special Review
Page 2 of 3
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
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
P30
III.A.
210 W. Main Street
Exhibit D – Special Review
Page 3 of 3
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.
P31
III.A.
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
May 31, 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 feedback from HPC as outlined below.
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 2-bedroom units.
Category 3 rental units are proposed with the ability to convert to “for sale” units in the future. Units 103
and 203 are located in the module to the west of the property along Main Street. 103 and 203 are smaller
in size due to a reduction in the mass and scale of the buildings facing Main Street to better relate to the
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Other units sizes are unchanged. Unit 102 is a stacked two
bedroom unit located in the smaller module facing Main Street on the east of the property. All units are
100% above grade.
On May 23, 2017 the Planning and Zoning Commission approved an amendment to the deed restriction
for the live/work space in Unit 7 that allows the commercial use to be removed and in turn, the deed
restricted unit reverts back to a free market residential unit.
P32
III.A.
210 West Main Street
Conceptual HPC Review
Revised 5/31/17
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
Units are proposed as shown below:
Table 1: Proposed unit sizes and configurations
The design has been amended as follows:
Massing/Site plan: The massing of the property has changed dramatically. Two modules facing Main
Street are proposed to better reflect historic development patterns. The secondary stair tower has been
removed. The interior courtyard is reduced and shifted toward the Tyrolean to provide relieve to the lodge
units along the east lot line. Front doors face Main Street to activate the pedestrian experience and to
meet the Residential Design Standards. The rear setback has been increased from 5 ft. (minimum allowed
in MU) to 8 ft. 9 in. to provide a better view to the neighbor across the alley.
Scale: The scale of the project has been broken up along Main Street to better reflect historic development
patterns as described in Guidelines 7.14 and 7.15. Two 2 -story modules are proposed, each about 22.5
feet in width. The building along the alley is 50 wide.
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.
Height: The height has been reduced from 32 ft. to 19 ft. 4 in. (eastern module) and 22 ft. 4 in. (western
module) along Main Street and 29 ft. along the alley. The mass has been shifted to be respectful of the
adjacent Tyrolean Lodge rooms with open space in the form of a small courtyard proposed along the east
lot line. The minimum height of 29 ft. needed for a 3-story residential building is requested with this
Unit Bedrooms Unit Net
livable
Assigned
Storage
Outside
Unit
Total Net
livable
Area
(including
storage)
Minimum
Size
Require-
ment
Percent
reduction
(not
including
storage)
FTEs
101 2 846.1 80 926.1 900 6% 2.25
102 2 868.9 80 948.9 900 3% 2.25
103 2 756.7 80.5 837.2 900 16% 2.25
201 2 839.3 80.5 919.8 900 7% 2.25
202 2 848.8 80.1 928.9 900 6% 2.25
203 2 756.7 80.9 837.6 900 16% 2.25
301 2 868.9 81 949.9 900 3% 2.25
302 2 848.8 81 929.8 900 6% 2.25
TOTALS 16 7,278.2 18
P33
III.A.
210 West Main Street
Conceptual HPC Review
Revised 5/31/17
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
application. A height increase to 29 ft. along the alley benefits the livability of the affordable housing
units.
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 by providing improved
daylighting.
Roof form: The applicant proposes flat roof forms for all three modules to facilitate green roofs that will
meet required Storm Water Mitigation on the property, to be consistent with the existing building, and to
maintain a low profile.
Parking: The proposed 6 parking spaces, including 1 accessible van space, remains unchanged.
FAR : The revision has reduced the overall mass by about 160 sf of decks. The floor area is roughly the
same as previously proposed: 7,361 sf of FAR was originally proposed - the revised total of about 7,328 sf
of Floor Area or roughly 1.22:1 is needed for this project. The maximum allowable through special review
is 7,500 sf or 1.25:1 FAR.
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) No longer requested.
• Special Review for 1.25:1 FAR and for Parking (Exhibit 3)
We feel that HPC’s concerns are addressed in these revisions and we look forward to discussing this project
with you and with HPC - 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
P34
III.A.
210 West Main Street
Conceptual HPC Review
Revised 5/31/17
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
Kind Regards,
Sara Adams, AICP
BendonAdams, LLC
Attachments: Please note that attachments 1 – 16 have been provided.
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.
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)
17 – updated drawings 5-31-17
P35
III.A.
TYROLEAN LODGE LLC200 W MAIN STASPEN, CO 81611PARCEL NUMBER 273512440010SEVEN SEAS INVESTMENT LLC1120 MICHIGAN AVEWILMETTE, IL 60091PARCEL NUMBER 273512440007MAIN
S
T
R
E
E
T FIRST STREET^ϳϱΣϬ
ϵ
Ζ
ϭ
ϭ
Η
60.00
'EϭϰΣϱϬΖϰϵΗ 100.00'EϳϱΣϬ
ϵ
Ζ
ϭ
ϭ
Η
t
60.00
'^ϭϰΣϱϬΖϰϵΗt100.00'GRAV
E
L
A
L
L
E
Y
BASIS OF BEARING100.0'
R
.
O
.
W
.
(ASPH
A
L
T
S
U
R
F
A
C
E
)75.45' R.O.W.(ASPHALT SURFACE)20.40'
R
.
O
.
W
.
(GRAV
E
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 7
TOWNSHIP 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 LEGAL
ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS
AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION
BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN
YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.
SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC
CIVIL CONSULTANTS
502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3
CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623
(970) 704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG.COM
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 by
utility companies and actual field locations in some instances. These
utilities, as shown, may not represent actual field conditions. It is the
responsibility of the contractor to contact all utility companies for field
location of utilities prior to construction.
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 PITKIN
STATE 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.
ϯͿĂƐŝƐŽĨĞĂƌŝŶŐ͗ďĞĂƌŝŶŐŽĨ^ϭϰΣϱϬΖϰϵΗtďĞƚǁĞĞŶƚŚĞĨŽƵŶĚηϱƌĞďĂƌ
and 1.25" plastic cap L.S. 2547 monumenting the Northeast boundary corner of
Lot Q, and the set 1.50" brass disk L.S. 28643 2' witness corner monumenting
the Southeast boundary corner of Lot Q, as shown .
4) Basis of Survey: Basis of Survey: The Plat of The City of Aspen, Pitkin
County Colorado by G.E. Buchanan dated December 15, 1959, various
documents 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 regarding
easements, rights of way and/or title of record, SE relied upon the above said
plats described in note 4. And the title commitment prepared by Pitkin County
Title, Inc., Effective date: February 07, 1994 Case No. PCT-8342C2. No new title
work was supplied for this update.
SITE
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
16103 OptionL 052317REV3.vwx
5/24/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016XConcre
t
e
side walk (typ)Bike RackP36III.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
16103 OptionL 052317REV3.vwx
5/24/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016
X
Concrete side walk (typ)Bike Rack
P37III.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
16103 OptionL 052317REV3.vwx
5/24/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016
BASEMENT
LEVEL PLANP38III.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
16103 OptionL 052317REV3.vwx
5/24/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016
X
Concrete side walk (typ)Bike Rack
P39III.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
16103 OptionL 052317REV3.vwx
5/24/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016P40 III.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
16103 OptionL 052317REV3.vwx
5/24/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016P41
III.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
16103 OptionL 052317REV3.vwx
5/24/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONSP42III.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
16103 OptionL 052317REV3.vwx
5/24/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016P43
III.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
16103 OptionL 052317REV3.vwx
5/24/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016P44 III.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
16103 OptionL 052317REV3.vwx
5/24/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016P45
III.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
16103 OptionL 052317REV3.vwx
5/24/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016P46 III.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
16103 OptionL 052317REV3.vwx
5/24/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016P47
III.A.
P48III.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
16103 OptionL 052317REV3.vwx
5/24/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016P49
III.A.
P50III.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
16103 OptionL 052317REV3.vwx
5/24/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016P51
III.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
16103 OptionL 052317REV3.vwx
5/24/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016P52 III.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
16103 OptionL 052317REV3.vwx
5/24/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016P53
III.A.