HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20170809
AGENDA
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
August 09, 2017
4:30 PM City Council Meeting Room
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
I. SITE VISITS
A. Please visit the sites on your own.
II. 4:30 INTRODUCTION
A. Roll call
B. Draft Minutes for 5/31/17, 6/14/17, 6/28/17, 7/12/17, 7/26/17
C. Public Comments
D. Commissioner member comments
E. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
F. Project Monitoring
124 W. Hallam
417 W. Hallam
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. 5:00 OLD BUSINESS
A. 5:00 210 W. Main Street- Conceptual Major Development Review, Demolition,
Special Review, Residential Design Standard Review, Conceptual Commercial
Design Review, PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM JULY 26TH
B. 6:00 209 E. Bleeker Street- Conceptual Major Development, Demolition,
Relocation, Residential Design Standards, Floor Area Bonus, and Variations,
PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM JULY 26TH
IV. 7:00 NEW BUSINESS
A. 7:00 415 E. Hyman- Minor Review, Viewplane Exemption, PUBLIC HEARING
V. 7:45 ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number:
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
MAY 31, 2017
Chairman Halferty brought the meeting to order at 4:32 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Gretchen Greenwood, Jim DeFrancia, John Whipple, Bob
Blaich, Roger Moyer, Willis Pember. Absent were Nora Berko and Richard Lai.
Staff Present:
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
Denis Murray, Plans Examination Manager
Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner
Justin Barker, Senior Planner
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Mr. Whipple spoke about the outcome of the previous week’s meeting
regarding 232 E. Bleeker. He said he personally feels that moving forward, we need a board of
enforcement or adjustment for handing out punishments. He said it’s really hard to volunteer for a
board and then set up penalties for something they all care about. He stated he is not a law
enforcement officer and would like to recuse himself going forward. He suggested the City needs a
different plan than volunteers making these decisions.
Ms. Garrow responded by saying these types of meetings are far and few between with the last one
being 17 years ago, but they can work with what options they have going forward and what that process
might look like.
Mr. Halferty stated that he appreciates the time of the staff, applicant and board on that matter. There
were a lot of things not on the HPC purview as far as typical protocol and guidelines so this has been
educational for the applicant and board alike. He mentioned that hopefully there is an education piece
that we can all learn from and to prohibit this from happening again moving forward.
Mr. Pember commented that he thinks it is within HPC’s purview. He said the board has specific
knowledge of dealing with older historic buildings. The board of adjustment or some other board
without the specific knowledge that HPC has, would be totally wrong in their decision.
Mr. Whipple replied that staff felt that their enforcement was light and if a heavy hand is what is
needed, he doesn’t feel comfortable doing that in this small community. He stated that he will always
enforce the guidelines, however.
Mr. Pember also mentioned that the applicant has an appeal process they can pursue if they aren’t
happy with the decision. He said the buck does not stop with HPC and it would go to city council for
appeal.
P1
II.B.
2
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MAY 31, 2017
Mr. Halferty mentioned that he felt the City Attorney’s office handled it well and staff acted strongly in
their role. This is really an educational process too.
Mr. Pember asked if city council can call up their decision and remand it back to HPC and Ms. Garrow
said no, that it’s a different process.
Ms. Bryan stated that city council can review and recommend, but they cannot call up on something on
their own. Mr. Halferty reiterated that HPC was the governing body for the decision.
Ms. Greenwood mentioned that while this was unusual, applicants do come in to HPC for their help and
it’s a pretty strong process and that they are here to help applicants. She said it’s appropriate for HPC to
go through the process and learn for themselves as well. She said that seeing the problems and issues
others have is beneficial to the board as well.
Mr. Halferty stated that it is not their purview to look at all approved and every working drawing on the
job site. He said it’s one thing to have a preservation plan, but they do not look at full plans.
Mr. DeFrancia said that he understands that HPC isn’t an enforcement board, but it’s no different than
serving on a jury. He said if you take on this responsibility, you need to be prepared. HPC has their core
mission to advocate. These cases don’t come up often, but when they do, HPC needs to deal with them.
Mr. Moyer mentioned that when this came up, he was stunned and said this is like corporate America.
He said he feels they let staff down but he doesn’t feel that they were prepared. He said they should
look at this moving forward and suggested spending some time in a work session so they are more
comfortable handing down a penalty.
DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT: None.
PROJECT MONITORING: 232 E. Bleeker – Ms. Simon said there are a couple of conditions in regards to
removing the stop work and allowing them to proceed. She wanted to make sure that everyone
understands, once the permit comes in, they as staff, scrutinize the permits. While HPC doesn’t review
interiors, they most definitely require preservation of the historic structure. One of the questions staff
has is about the framing that still exits and whether it should be put back in place and if they should be
able to remove any additional historic framing on the upper levels of the building. This is a very unusual
situation here and last week, she felt they really didn’t wrap up properly. Staff needs to know what HPC
thinks about reattaching the logs and the same goes for the wood studs. Ms. Simon is not
recommending reattachment, but she does recommend that HPC requires the applicant to keep the
framing and logs that are left. She would like them to use a spray foam instead, which acts as a barrier
instead of removing anymore original materials.
Ms. Greenwood asked who was asking the question to remove more materials and Ms. Simon stated
that the applicant is asking. They’ve already removed ¾ of the historic fabric and they need to stop the
bleeding. She suggested they figure out some other framing methods and put the logs and studs back
the way they were or what is the point.
P2
II.B.
3
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MAY 31, 2017
Mr. Pember said the whole log discussion is totally irrelevant and it’s up to them. Who cares about the
logs and if this doesn’t impact the exterior, why are we even talking about this?
Mr. Halferty agreed that this is a tough one, but it is outside of HPC’s purview. He asked if maybe they
should amend the guidelines.
Ms. Greenwood said that it is clear to her that the structure is their purview and Mr. Pember said that it
is not structural.
Ms. Simon said she meant literally. She also said that one idea they are bouncing around is the idea of
using the 30,000 assurance money to come up with a standardized documentation that is required in
every single building permit so that she doesn’t have to negotiate every single permit with the architects
and contractors.
Mr. Moyer said that he doesn’t think they can allow another stick to leave the site and it’s all part of that
buildings history.
MOTION: Mr. Whipple made a motion to follow staff’s recommendation and monitor, Mr. Blaich
seconded the motion.
Roll call vote: Mr. Blaich, yes; Ms. Greenwood, no; Mr. Halferty, no; Mr. Halferty, no, Mr. DeFrancia, yes,
Mr. Pember, yes; Mr. Whipple, yes, Mr. Moyer, no. 4-3, motion carried.
PROJECT MONITORING: 110 E Bleeker. Ms. Simon said when this project was approved through HPC,
there was a fireplace in the living room that would be vented through one of the two historic chimneys.
The only way to do this is to add a “power vent”. This is causing multiple penetrations on the roof.
Carolyn Cipperly presented different options for venting. She feels the best option is through the
original chimney.
Ms. Simon said one of the three choices is to use the front most chimney and put the power vent on the
backside of it.
Mr. Pember and Ms. Greenwood like option 3 and painted black.
MOTION: Ms. Greenwood stated they should go out the chimney straight up in black (option 3), Mr.
Pember seconded.
Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Pember, yes; Mr. Whipple,
yes; Mr. DeFrancia, yes. 7-0 motion carried.
STAFF COMMENTARY: Phillip Supino speaking about updating the sign code. He handed out surveys and
scope cards. He stated that P&Z will need more respondents on the survey and that hearing from HPC
on historic signage would be a big help.
Mr. Whipple exited the meeting.
P3
II.B.
4
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MAY 31, 2017
Mr. Moyer asked how historic signage can be preserved and Mr. Supino stated that this code
amendment is more focused on number and type, but they need to come up with a clever way to make
it work, whether it be national register plaques, etc. He stated that they can develop a category for
historic signs, but it is important to hear from everyone so this can move forward.
Mr. Supino reminded everyone that there will be a work session on June 13th when they will make a
presentation to council and this is why the survey is so important to get some feedback.
OLD BUSINESS: 210 W Main: Justin Barker presented and stated that the applicant has revised the
designs since the last meeting. He has broken it down into two-story masses from three and the height
showed a one foot increase instead of 32 feet as asked previously. The new footprints are more in-line
with historic guidelines and the small height increase can really add to the livability to the unit and they
feel this is a modest request. They feel the massing is correct now and are still asking for a floor area
increase. Staff still has an issue with the roof forms and says they are still flat, but feel it’s important to
show some form of sloped roof, which ties the district together. HPC needs to look at the demolition in
the historic district and the smaller amount of parking. Staff is recommending a continuation.
Applicant Sara Adams of Bendon Adams present with Ted Guy, property owner. The plans still show the
protected interior courtyard due to noise and dust on Main St. and why Mr. Guy feels this is important.
They cannot fit any more than six parking spots as they had presented previously. They were given clear
direction to add more doors along Main St. and she stated that they have been meeting with staff over
the last month and have come up with options A – L. They are presenting option L to the board, which
they feel best meets the guidelines. They have removed one stair tower and added three front doors
facing Main St. at grade. Mr. Guy has re-oriented the open space facing the Tyrolean Lodge and has still
met all setbacks. They still have exterior storage in the basement with eight two-bedroom units. The
roof form, which seemed to be the biggest concern, now has flat and gabled pitching, which fits in with
other gabled roofs on Main St.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
Mr. Guy checked on storm water treatment costs and he doesn’t want to do a bunch of drywells, but
would like to do the green roofs, which means they have to be flat. By using four different heights, it
will help break that mass up.
Mr. Pember asked about the floor heights and Mr. Guy said 9ft 4 and the ceiling heights are 8 feet with a
suspending ceiling structure. Unit four could have a higher ceiling.
Mr. Moyer concurs with staff recommendations completely and mentions that once again, they are
giving up another parking space.
P4
II.B.
5
Mr. DeFrancia said he agrees with Mr. Moyer and wishes that staff would give them more defined
recommendations for them to accept or reject. He suggests more re-study with staff regarding mass
and scale and roof.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MAY 31, 2017
Mr. Pember said he didn’t think the last meeting ended with them needing to come back with sloped
gabled roofs, particularly if he’s using green roofs, which he applauds. He said he thinks the gable roof
would destroy the green roof feature and it’s replacing a building that already has a flat roof, which
represented the late 50’s, early 60’s era architecture.
Ms. Greenwood said she doesn’t have an objection to the roofs either, but she says if you’re on Main
St., you need to wear your best dress to the party. She thinks they could build this building in Denver,
Glenwood Springs or anywhere and that it’s not special to Aspen’s Main Street. She suggested they find
what is the right design for Main St. She said she finds this building to be really dull and it doesn’t reflect
anything about Aspen regarding era, growth and architectural ideas. She feels it needs unique attention
to Main St. and the Aspen historic district. She said she knows Mr. Guy loves the interior courtyard, but
it’s not going to get much sun and doesn’t think it’s working for the project. She stated she likes the
height differences and the parking spaces are great, but thinks they could take it further and need
additional study on those items. She asked why it can’t be a remarkable building for the tenants who
live there with good curb appeal. She is going with staff recommendations regarding layout, mass and
scale.
Mr. Blaich said it’s an improvement over the previous presentation and likes the roofs and the multiple
heights, but said they need some oomph on this building and needs some tender loving care on the
aesthetics, but HPC is not here to re-design the building.
Mr. Pember said he thinks this is actually pretty good as far as the parking is concerned. He said it’s a
commendable response to what we asked for last time.
Mr. Moyer thought Ms. Greenwood’s comment were especially good.
Mr. Halferty went through the checklist from the last meeting of what needed to be changed and one by
one, he said they have met the criteria for the most part. He said the applicant has come a long way
and supports staff’s recommendations.
MOTION: Ms. Greenwood is in favor of staff’s recommendations, Mr. Blaich seconded.
Ms. Greenwood amended the motion to include green roofs and continue to work with smaller modules
and rethink the site plan for manipulating your building to smaller modules and add more definition or
detail along Main St. Mr. Blaich seconded the amendment.
Mr. Pember said he doesn’t see a point to pursuing smaller modules.
Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Pember, no; Mr. Blaich, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Halferty, no;
Mr. DeFrancia, yes. 4-2, motion carried.
P5
II.B.
6
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MAY 31, 2017
Mr. Guy made a note that this building in inhabited by people who work at night so he does feel that the
courtyard is critical to livability and he doesn’t think they appreciated the decades he has spent on that
property. He doesn’t feel that this is a very helpful direction at this point.
Mr. Barker suggested the continuation to July 12th and Mr. Guy agreed to that.
MOTION to adjourn by Mr. DeFrancia, Mr. Halferty seconded at 6:32 p.m.
____________________________________
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
P6
II.B.
1
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
JUNE 14, 2017
Chairman Halferty called the meeting to order at 4:37 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Gretchen Greenwood, Jim DeFrancia, John Whipple, Bob
Blaich, Roger Moyer, Willis Pember, Nora Berko and Richard Lai.
Staff Present:
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner
Phillip Supino, Principal Long Range Planner
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer mentioned the Aspen Sojourner magazine and the full-page
interview with Mr. Lai regarding the mall. He said the mall was Mr. Lai’s graduate thesis in the 60’s and
then came to be built and thought it was very cool. Congrats to Mr. Lai from everyone.
Ms. Berko commented that the charge of HPC seems to be to preserve resources per the guidelines and
she said it’s a privilege to be an HPC applicant and this comes with bonuses and consequences. She said
she hopes as a commission, they can take their charge super seriously and honor both the bones and
skin of their history in Aspen and to uphold the guidelines with the utmost strictness.
DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT: Mr. Whipple says he is conflicted on 500 W. Main St. and will recuse himself
once again as well as Mr. Halferty because he lives too close.
PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon said she had a couple of things, but will follow up privately.
STAFF COMMENTS: Phillip Supino spoke on the Community Development work program. Mr. Supino
mentioned there are two current items being implemented by staff already and are: Basic Gov (universal
permitting and processing system used by staff to streamline internal process for taking in land use and
HPC applications). The second item is the Lift 1A location study, which relates to the historic lift 1A
terminal and how it will affect future land use cases. In the proposed work program items, discussion
will surround an expedited tenant finish project and this is typically an improvement project for
commercial units in a more expedited manner. There will also be an energy efficiency expedited
process, which are permits that are putting in a renewable energy system and keep these from getting
stuck in the cue behind larger projects.
Ms. Greenwood asked where the general public can read about these items and Mr. Supino said they
are working on the back end to develop a staff memo. He said there is a July 18th council meeting
scheduled on this subject and the packet will be available to the public the Friday before. P&Z will also
discuss this next week on the 20th.
P7
II.B.
2
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTE OF
JUNE 14, 2017
Mr. Moyer stated that some people that come in to do business are crooks and they need to protect
historic resources from this. He also mentioned solar issues and asked if there are restrictions on
putting solar panels on the roof and Mr. Supino stated that the design guidelines are ok on new
construction or solar shingles on a historic building. The applicant would participate in the renewable
energy program and would be required to provide the requirement or pay a fee for example, heating in
the driveway for a historic property.
Mr. Pember supported wholeheartedly having two tracks for sequencing permits and Mr. Supino said
he’s not sure how the Building Dept. manages their permit queue. Mr. Pember asked if this includes
residential permits that rise to the same scope because there is a huge imbalance in the permits that are
issued.
Ms. Greenwood agreed and said that for a small remodel in the Building Department, the whole process
needs a complete overhaul regarding residential permits. She said the permitting process is an absurd
experience in the architectural profession and that giving preferential treatment to commercial spaces
isn’t necessarily fair. Mr. Whipple, in agreement, said they have to ride the waves of cycles in town and
things should be more streamlined. Mr. Supino said he will discuss these issues with staff and present
them to council.
Mr. Lai commented that when you have a forward looking Planning Department, there is a problem
because it adds another level of bureaucracy and this is an impediment to development.
Mr. Halferty thanked Mr. Supino and the staff for the forward thinking. He liked what the commission is
thinking and said it helps the review process.
CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None.
PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Simon gave to Ms. Bryan and she said she would look it over while they move
forward.
CALL UPS: None.
OLD BUSINESS: None.
NEW BUSINESS: 201 E Main - Main St. Bakery.
MOTION: Mr. DeFrancia moved to continue to June 28th, Mr. Blaich seconded. All in favor, motion
carried.
500 W Main: for final major development and final commercial design review. A conceptual approval
was granted in October 2016. They are reverting to what was first shown to the board in Oct 2016,
which accepted size, mass and scale of the addition and also involved more commercial space than
residential and involved a waiver of some of the onsite parking requirements and some setback
variances. Tonight, the discussion is on landscape, lighting and materials. At the time of approval, HPC
wanted the applicant to focus on the restoration plan, continue to talk with environmental health about
P8
II.B.
3
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
JUNE 14, 2017
their trash and recycling area, talk to other referral agencies to make sure all programs addressing new
trips generated to the site were properly addressed before moving to a building permit. Staff supports
the proposal and thinks it is successful. HPC should focus on the materials as both buildings are
proposed to have solar shingles on the roof. Staff supports the solar shingles on the new construction,
but are a bit concerned about having them on the historic structure as it might be seen as too much of a
departure in character. The second item of discussion will be that the applicant wants to side the new
addition with composite board, but would use wood if it’s important to HPC, but staff supports the
composite board. The suggested conditions will be that we want more info about historic preservation
methods, detailed drawings of porch restoration, cut sheets on the windows. Part of the HPC review
tonight will have to do with growth management and affordable housing mitigation. The new addition
will be net leasable and the apartment is exempt and one of the last projects to add a free market unit
due to the moratorium. They are adding 1620 square feet of new net leasable space and they can make
a cash in lieu payment or buy affordable housing certificates from other projects in town that have
created new units. They have provided a transportation analysis report.
Mr. Pember asked if they had samples of the solar panels. Mr. Roland answered no, but it is exciting
technology from Elon Musk/Tesla.
John Roland and Dana Ellis with Roland & Broughton Architecture presented and spoke on the project.
Mr. Roland mentioned that the restoration efforts are a little over a quarter of the project budget. This
building is on the corner of Main St. and 4th. Somewhere between 1963 and 1999, the owners made a
change to the covered deck, which they will take back to the original along with the upper windows.
They want to keep the historic foundation intact and redo the covered stairs and add wood shingles to
the roof. They will replace the appropriate lighting on the building and they are now going to pursue the
wood shingles on the historic structure due to pricing and availability. They will be submitting for a lot
of tax credits. The historic structure has a non-historic door and window on the rear so they are bringing
back the historic proportions for the door and windows. The color palate will retain the slate blue that is
there now and work with the white trim and this will be the influence for the addition. For the siding
materials, they are open to doing wood, but have had great success using the composite. The addition
is setting 10 ft. back from the Mesa building and the linking element is 10 ft. back from that point and is
hard to see. They are proposing two types of siding on the addition for the upper and lower sections,
which will distinguish the use of the building. The lower half will be commercial and upper half will be
residential. The commercial fenestration won’t be very visible from main street and our hope is the
windows will provide a nice day lighting element. They are looking into what was used as the roofing
material for the front porch and was possibly a painted wood shingle so they are still looking for the
appropriate material to use and are working with Amy on this. They will not do a lawn at all, they are
going with a garden instead. The neighbors just installed a fence and the area of the planter is where an
existing concrete accessibility ramp is and will be removed and will retain all existing trees, but may not
work as the Engineering Department may not allow due to how the drainage is set up. Kolbe has a great
line of historic windows, which are currently used at the Jerome. Steel clad windows will be used for the
addition that have a good sound rating since they will be right on Main St. Flowers and grasses will be
P9
II.B.
4
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
JUNE 14, 2017
used that are good for the bee population with a muted palate and all peaking at different times. They
do not want the light fixtures to be “in your face” as the current ones are. They plan to have a company
We cycle account and will provide a wellness benefit to purchase bicycles and bus passes.
Mr. Moyer asked why they didn’t go back to the more historic red color and Mr. Roland said they are so
nervous about sanding and what might wear through so they thought it best to work with the existing
color. Mr. Moyer asked who the GC will be and Mr. Roland answered Schlumberger.
Ms. Berko asked about the concerning planter up close to the building and Ms. Ellis said there are water
issues and they are unsure if they will move forward with it.
Mr. Lai mentioned that when looking at the rear view and the color choices for the addition, he feels
that by choosing two different colors, it makes the two buildings distinctly two buildings and asked what
their reason was behind that. Mr. Roland said the off white would be the trim that is currently there.
They want to make it benign and singular and allow the white to be a compliment. They want to have
an element of blue on the addition to relate the two buildings.
Ms. Greenwood asked about gutters and downspouts and Ms. Ellis said they will apply a gutter and they
don’t really have a choice. There won’t be any snow guards, but a little bit of heat tape.
Ms. Ellis said the garage is for the residence, which is a free market unit and one is a bit larger to be van
accessible. The city just installed a bike path through this neighborhood as well.
Mr. Lai asked about fenestration and wanted to know if the connecting neck is transparent and Mr.
Roland answered yes, that it is a continuous piece and is all glass.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Mary Sue Bonetti who resides at 518 W. Main in the red house said she likes this
project.
Public comment closed.
Ms. Greenwood mentioned that the Tesla shingles on this historic building horrifies her, but loves the
project otherwise. She said it’s a very successful project and would like to see it move forward tonight
with the set conditions.
Mr. Moyer stated three other conditions: 1. Historic building retains historic lighting on the exterior 2.
No siding torn off and replaced 3. The composite on the new addition, be dealt with in a proper manner.
MOTION: Mr. DeFrancia moved to approve with the seven conditions presented by staff, Mr. Blaich
seconded.
Mr. Pember made a friendly amendment to review Mr. Moyer’s conditions. They should consider period
fixtures to be reviewed by staff and monitor, minimize removal of historic materials on false front
P10
II.B.
5
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
JUNE 14, 2017
building and bring in a sample of the Tesla materials for the roof and gutter. Add a staff monitor to
review the shingles on the main roof and verify roofing materials of the reconstructed porch.
MOTION: Mr. Moyer motioned to accept the amendment, Mr. Blaich seconded.
Roll call vote: Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Pember, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. DeFrancia, yes;
Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Lai, yes. 7-0 Amendment to the motion carried.
Roll call vote: Mr. Blaich, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. DeFrancia, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Lai, yes; Mr.
Moyer, yes; Mr. Pember, yes. 7-0 original motion carried.
Project monitor will be Mr. Moyer.
Mr. DeFrancia motioned to adjourn, Ms. Greenwood seconded. All in favor, motion carried. 6:20 p.m.
______________________________________
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
P11
II.B.
1
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
JUNE 28, 2017
Chairman Halferty called the meeting to order at 4:33 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Gretchen Greenwood, Bob Blaich, Roger Moyer, Nora
Berko, Richard Lai.
Staff Present:
James R. True, City Attorney
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner
Justin Barker, Senior Planner
Approval of minutes from April 12th and April 26th. Mr. Blaich motioned to approve, Mr. Moyer
seconded. All in favor, motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer handed out a drawing regarding a sprinkler system planned
directly against a structure. He feels that we need to protect the resource better than we have now for
historic resources and said this is a safety issue and fire hazard.
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS: Ms. Berko will recuse herself on 209 E. Bleeker. Ms. Greenwood mentioned
that her office is a couple doors down from 201 E Main St., but she is not conflicted.
PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon said she has one item for Mr. Blaich regarding 232 E. Bleeker.
STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon mentioned the HPC awards on Monday night and thanked Mr. Halferty
for doing such a great job and the nice words he had for everyone.
CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Simon said she issued one for Peaches as they were
expanding into the salon next door and she has signed off on adding a window. She is also working on
one for the Weiss house that did not need HPC review and just needs some temp shoring that will
stretch outside of the building and get rid of non-historic windows. She is also working on one for
Copper Horse on Main St. which has a fire escape and it needs to be replaced.
PUBLIC NOTICE: Mr. True has reviewed and they appear to be fine. He also asked for verification from
Ms. Greenwood on her disclosure.
CALL UPS: None.
OLD BUSINESS: 201 E Main St. continued from June 14th. Mr. True said the notice is appropriate. Justin
Barker presented and started by saying the property is located on the SE corner of the Aspen St. and
Main St. intersection. It was the Main St. Bakery not long ago and consists of two historic brick buildings
covered in stucco around the 1940’s with brick underneath. It has a non-historic wood connector and
the applicant is proposing to demolish this non-historic connector to build a new infill structure and
service enclosure. They will build a new trash enclosure and there will be minor landscape
P12
II.B.
2
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
JUNE 28, 2017
improvements. The south side wall needs to be rebuilt and there is a question of what this material
should be and if they could reuse the existing, but it’s not possible in this case. The brick was damaged
and is unstable currently so the applicant has shown wood in the application. Staff feels that brick is also
an appropriate material to use. The requested approvals are the terrace style building (1880’s -1920)
with a brick, flat roof, which is unique to Aspen. There is a proposed gable roof with a mechanical
enclosure that staff is concerned about, which will minimize the mechanical equipment. Staff has
requested the applicant to look at a flatter roof or with a rectangular shaped top. The mechanical
heights should be minimal, but they look quite tall on the plans. In regards to fenestration, there are
double hung windows and they are interested in the sill height on the Aspen St. side, which conform to
historic sill heights. On the east wall of the north structure, there used to be three windows and were
replaced by a door. They want to restore the original window and move the door further south. There
is a concern with a proposed slate roof, which is not a historic material in Aspen. The applicant hasn’t
provided a lot of information about how some of this will be restored regarding using the brick so we
have asked them to submit a preservation plan highlighting how this will be repaired before they submit
a building permit. In terms of landscaping, they have presented evergreen shrubs and staff would like to
see this removed from the design as this should appear to be more as it was over time. Regarding
lighting, staff feels that no new lighting should be added on the historic structures. Staff doesn’t want to
see more drilling on the old mason walls so the identified lights should be removed from the design.
Regarding setback variations, the applicant is requesting from the west and south side yard. The
existing historic development encroaches into those setbacks and the west side does extend slightly
over the property line. We are recommending that the board memorialize the existing setbacks for the
historic structure on the west and north sides and maintain alignment. Staff’s recommendation is to
approve the design with minor design tweaks.
Ms. Berko asked what the lot size is and Mr. Barker replied, 9000 square ft.
Dave Ryback represented 201 E Main St. alongside David Roth who is the restaurant operator and Guy
Burn with 201 E. Main Holdings. The building was originally brick and when stucco was added along
with plaster, it allowed the building to start tracking moisture. There is foundation currently and a lot of
deterioration has taken place so we have already submitted for a repair permit to stabilize the building.
As you remove the stucco, you remove the first layer of brick with a powdery substance. We found
something called helifix that can repair the bricks by drilling in. This will make the walls more
structurally sound and will stabilize them. There was a wood stud wall added at some point to that
south wall to support the roof load and a letter has been submitted which states that the brick cannot
be reused on this wall and is in poor condition. They are proposing to demo that wall and to use wood
siding in lieu of brick. The proposal is to do a minor addition and not a large scale full site development.
We hope to get the restaurant back open ASAP. We have preferred the gable roof to the flat roof. The
terrace style has a flat roof, but neither of these buildings has a flat roof. On the west façade, both
cornice lines are parallel and both concealed a pitched roof. On the north building, it’s a sloped roof.
The screened solution doesn’t work in their location. Regarding the gable windows in the addition, the
reason we want the sill heights low is the operation of the restaurant. On the east side, we want to use
P13
II.B.
3
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
JUNE 28, 2017
those windows to serve both the patio and wait staff to grab food. We have proposed wood infill, lap
siding and simple wood panel for the windows. We are open to discussing the slate roof to wood shake.
The wall sconces were there for safety, but we are ok with removing those.
Mr. Moyer asked about the alley wall and if they have looked into a consolidate. Mr. Rybak said
because of the poor condition of the brick, they have nothing to bond to. Mr. Moyer asked about
putting a footer in when they replace the wall and Mr. Rybak said yes, all the walls under the repair
permit, are getting concrete foundations that will stop the moisture penetrations.
Ms. Greenwood asked what they will do with the existing floor framing and Mr. Rybak said it is sitting on
dirt in most locations so it is rotted out and needs to be removed. We are putting in a crawl space on
the west side of the building. The condition of the floor joists are very bad and rotted out also. Ms.
Greenwood asked what the existing pitches of the flat roofs are and Mr. Rybak said they are not very
flat. The back one has a slope of 3’12” and the north one is at 3’12”. They are proposing slate for only
the addition of the mechanical enclosure.
Mr. Moyer asked if the cottonwoods have made roots under the foundation and Mr. Rybak said yes
everyone assumes that is the case according to the forester.
Ms. Berko asked about the windows on the west side of the new addition and said if they aren’t for
serving, if they couldn’t come down and Mr. Rybak stated that those windows are planned as a work
counter with cooling lockers below them and is part of the prep kitchen, which is a 2’10” height as ADA
requires. She asked if they could be disguised and he said, potentially as there is some leeway for head
height. The new addition wants to speak differently than the old and use different proportions, etc.
They want those windows to identify the function behind them.
Mr. Halferty asked if Mr. Rybak could talk about the fasteners on the stucco. Mr. Rybak said there will
be two systems: One will be from the exterior and the other will be from the interior, staggered to
create a 12x12 pattern. In a diamond shape, they will drill in on a diagonal. They won’t expose from
either side, but they do grab bricks from both sides. They’ve removed the plaster from the interior walls
so it’s been able to dry out. The exterior existing stucco will remain and we feel that it has dried out and
there is no residual moisture. Mr. Halferty asked him to discuss the roof and mechanical equipment.
Mr. Rybak said in the preferred proposal with the roof, they have all the equipment under the gable
form and because it’s sheltered under a full roof, with only ventilation on the north and east side, they
no longer need the snow curb so the overall height becomes much lower. The street view will see a
receding sloping roof which makes a smaller mass on the roof as opposed to the screening walls.
Mr. Blaich asked if they are retaining the stucco and Mr. Rybak said if the interior core of the brick is
exposed, they will have to cover it up, but may need to caulk the stucco edge and leave the funky
patches where it’s practical.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Ruth Carver of 116 S. Aspen – she came to talk about the back of the building and
she generally agrees with staff recommendations. She said it’s wonderful someone is fixing it and that
her front door is on Aspen St., but uses the alley door for the most part. She said it used to have high
P14
II.B.
4
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
JUNE 28, 2017
windows and it’s going to be quite a massive wall and would like to see brick personally. You can’t see
the slope on the roof from the street and what they are proposing looks a little barn like. She likes the
horizontal and more contemporary look. She doesn’t care for the slate idea on roof. She mentioned a
small shed for dumpsters and is interested in what this is going to look like and she would like to learn
about their garbage control, etc.
Della Picoladia of 202 E. Main St. says she is in support of the plan. She is really here to state that she
wants the vitality back in that corner and that people miss having the bakery there.
Ross Ettlin, owner of the Rocky Mountain Pet Shop. He said he is in favor of the project and wants it to
revitalize the area and in a timely manner.
Mr. Rybak addressed Ms. Carver’s questions about the shed and said the enclosure is around back door
and the trash enclosure sits on the alley and can only have a fence six feet high around it according to
code. They want to put a wired electric fence around the top of it. They may ask for variance to put a
roof over the trash enclosure and dress it up a bit and it’s their hope to clean it up in the near future.
Mr. Lai said he would like to hear more about the windows on the addition that look into the kitchen.
Mr. Rybak said they like the activity being exposed similar to the White House Tavern and feel it adds to
having some interaction. Mr. Lai brought up the frosting that Ms. Carver suggested. Mr. Rybak said
they are trying to separate the center from the historic resources. This could confuse what’s new and
what’s old and this is what we strove for.
Ms. Greenwood said it’s really successful as far as restoration and a technical plan to restore the brick
façade. She said she likes the center addition, but is a little befuddled by the sloped roof and thinks it’s a
whole other concept and it’s an uncomfortable solution. Perhaps it needs a false front and approach it
with a wood framed screen or a screen on top to reduce snow impact. She doesn’t have a problem with
the window alignment and agrees with staff on the lighting and landscape. She is in favor of all set back
variances.
Mr. Moyer asked Ms. Simon what her feeling is on the south wall and she said she doesn’t have a right
answer so someone has to make a judgement call and it has to be HPC. Ms. Greenwood said she is in
favor of wood.
Mr. Lai said he agrees with the sloping roof for mechanical equipment and likes the clear windows and
setting the addition apart from historic buildings. The height of the ledge he is fine with and as far as
the south side, he likes the brick idea. That was the original material so he feels they should stick with
that and thinks it would be more handsome.
Mr. Blaich is ambivalent about the materials and says he prefers brick, but he wouldn’t get hung up on
it. He would like to simplify the mechanical roof and he likes the project and the design for the
connecting unit. He likes the windows as they are with full visual access.
P15
II.B.
5
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
JUNE 28, 2017
Mr. Moyer wants to discuss how to deal with the mechanical arrangement. He agrees to keeping it
simple, but is not opposed to the mechanical roof and thinks it should have a wood shingle roof. A
screen is an awful solution and he would prefer a shingled roof. Lower than the screen is good; low and
soft if they can agree on that. The sill height should stand and the restoration technically is terrific and
well thought out. He agrees with everything staff has written, but he said to please leave the sprinkler
system three feet out.
Ms. Berko thanked the public commenters and said she can’t wait for the restaurant to re-open, but she
is having a hard time with the roof proposition and doesn’t embrace the slate. She loves the repairs and
agrees with staff recommendations. She likes the brick, but understands the argument.
Mr. Halferty said that as far as conforming to guidelines and preserving building materials, the applicant
has done a great job. He, personally, is wavering on using a screen or the shed roof to cover the
mechanical equipment. He is in agreement with the other commission members for masking the
historic resource and as far as the roofing materials, he agrees with staff. He is fine with the setbacks
and ok with their restoration plan, but feels maybe the stucco should be given a second look as it is not
the original historic material used. Regarding the light fixtures and landscaping, he supports
recommendation of staff. The roofs will definitely need staff and monitor to carefully consider. He does
support the proposed project as a whole.
Ms. Greenwood said she supports a screen over the top with no roof and to drop the roof in the kitchen
space and would suggest as a condition of approval to be worked out with staff and monitor. Mr. Moyer
asked what they were going to use for siding and Mr. Rybak said wood, it was a round shiplap. Ms.
Berko said she would support that to move it forward.
MOTION: Ms. Greenwood motioned to approve the project with the following conditions: the
mechanical screening be a fence type screen with the same materials with the proposed shiplap siding
with the height to be determined between staff and monitor allowing it to be low (visual flat roof) wood
sided screen, restudy the windows that can work functionally with the restaurant space to simplify,
make rear of the building wood siding to match the new linking addition, the setback variances are
granted and must include repair of all existing original materials and features, examine the exposed
masonry, remove all proposed wall sconces, remove the unapproved plants on the landscape plan, put
future sprinkler heads away from the building. Mr. Blaich seconded.
Ms. Simon interrupted to make one last comment about the raw stucco on the outside, and said that it
is not to be painted. Several members of the board said that it has already been painted in a taupe color.
Mr. Lai asked if they would be ok with staff making the final decision on the mechanical room. Ms.
Greenwood explained the motion to Mr. Lai.
Roll call vote: Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. Lai, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms.
Greenwood, yes. 6-0, motion carried.
P16
II.B.
6
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
JUNE 28, 2017
209 E Bleeker Street: Conceptual major development. Ms. Berko recused herself. Ms. Simon presented
and started by saying that the property was owned by the Hayes family for 60 years. What they are
presenting in pretty similar in site plan and form. It was a classic miner’s cottage and by the 1970’s, Sam
Caudill, helped them with a major remodel. A second floor was added and a chimney was attached. This
building is on the threshold of integrity as a historic resource. They plan to lift the house and put in a
basement. The house is close to its west property line currently so they can shift it slightly two feet from
the lot line. In this case, the historic side of the house has no windows which is very unusual. HPC will
need to make a decision tonight about demolition. She handed out updated plans that they also
received by email yesterday. She notified everyone to strike condition #1 regarding demolition. The
applicant also wants approval to demolish a small shed in the back and staff is in support of removing
this building. Regarding the re-location standards, it is important to be picked up as a whole piece and
then demolition occurs. Ms. Simon doesn’t want unsecured strange sections of wall lying about because
it sends a bad message to the community. A 30,000 financial assurance that has to be provided must
also be approved tonight. In terms of design, the historic house will be free-standing and will be
restored. A new house is to be built around it in an L shape. Staff supports the restoration plan and
feels it is accurate and appropriate as well as the massing and height. Staff supports that the new unit is
pushed back a bit and the plan to raise the grade of the site. The project meets the design guidelines.
The applicant is requesting a 500 sq ft floor area bonus and they do meet most of the guidelines to
receive this, but unsure if the entire bonus should be granted. They already get 360 sq. ft. more among
other benefits for a historic property. In the rear of property, they have an upper floor deck of 5 ft. The
final variation for tonight is building articulation or secondary mass. Staff is recommending continuation
at this point.
Ms. Greenwood mentioned that they referred to this building as a duplex. A duplex has to be attached
on the upper level, but it will be attached below and this isn’t usually allowed so she asked how they are
getting FAR for a duplex and Ms. Simon said that they interpreted for the HPC building that the meeting
point is below ground. It’s not in the code, it’s an interpretation that they just approved. According to
Ms. Greenwood, they are doing two homes, but are getting the FAR bonus for a duplex. Ms. Simon
mentioned that this is why there is a question about the bonus square footage and whether they should
get that or not.
Seth Hmielowski and Melanie Noonan with Z Group Architects. Andy Fromm is the applicant. Mr.
Hmeilowski said that Mr. Fromm is making this into a family compound / site. Basically, the cabin sits
right alongside the property line. They would be removing the whole upper level addition and keeping
the structure together and moving it, which is more of a hardship. The trees in the front are enormous
and mask the addition from the street. The trees are key in responding to the 50 foot of building mass.
From the street it is very shaded and screened. Regarding storm water, basically from sidewalk to the
alley, the grade dips and it’s a giant pool so the civil engineer on board is looking at that and
recommended raising the grade. If we do, then we should raise the building.
Ms. Greenwood asked if she read that the engineering department isn’t requiring water retention. Their
civil engineer met with PJ and they don’t think he needs dry wells.
P17
II.B.
7
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
JUNE 28, 2017
Ms. Simon said there are a lot of details to work out and it has been suggested that there are no storm
water features forward of the historic house or in front of the new portion.
Ms. Greenwood asked why Ms. Simon wouldn’t want them to remodel in its space and then pick up and
move. Ms. Simon said that’s fine and another way to get at the same issue and this needs to be closely
monitored.
Mr. Hmielowski said the foundation is poor so they want to raise it and move as one piece to lift,
excavate, pour and put back.
Mr. Lai asked where the 500-sq. ft. bonus came from and Ms. Simon said this is part of the HPC package
as an incentive benefit since more work goes into these projects to restore and preserve.
Mr. Halferty asked if they have considered breaking up that mass on the façade and Mr. Hmielowski said
has looked at it only in square footage so far and not in form yet.
Mr. Blaich asked if the original project that HPC approved was as long as this one and Mr. Hmielowski
said it was longer, at 66 feet and the new one is 11 feet shorter.
Mr. Moyer asked when the house to the east was built and Ms. Simon answered within the last ten
years. That was a tough project and it is a really large building, which overshadows the building next
door.
Mr. Lai asked if the gabled roof on the cottage was the original and Mr. Hmielowski answered yes, they
will be using the same pitch for the addition.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
Ms. Simon mentioned that page 152 of packet contains the conditions of approval for continuance.
Mr. Blaich made a motion to extend past 7 pm, Mr. Lai seconded. All in favor, motion carried.
Mr. Hmielowski mentioned that his client is in favor of tearing down the wall recommended in
conditions #9.
Mr. Moyer pointed out the large massing and asked the board if they felt the full 500 square feet should
be given to the applicant.
Mr. Blaich said that because of the conditions and benefits from the project, he’s supporting the full
500.
Mr. Lai said he needs to visit the site again. The design is very clever and utilizes the property to its
fullest. It’s very nice, but he worries about the bonuses and wants to take a look at the enabling
developments. He asked if they should penalize an applicant because of what has been granted on the
neighboring properties and that there are several things to consider.
P18
II.B.
8
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
JUNE 28, 2017
Ms. Greenwood thinks the building and the bonuses are creating a building that is pushing us against a
wall to give setback variances on a project that is new. It’s more than twice the size of the historic
building and she thinks it’s too large and the bonuses are creating a building with a huge footprint that
overwhelms the site. Not every project gets a 500-square foot bonus. She said they should think about
giving this to only exceptional projects and consider a reduced FAR bonus. She doesn’t think they
should approve the setback variation either. She agrees with Ms. Simon regarding granting a variation
on that part and not to approve articulation of the building mass. She doesn’t think they should get
setback variances for the new construction. They should try to move the building over a foot. Two feet
is a bad construction technique. Give this some breathing room against its neighbor.
Mr. Moyer agreed with Ms. Greenwood.
The incentives, to Mr. Halferty means to incentivize an applicant and not to leave as is, but restore back
to the historical time. He said this is very challenging and the massing of this square footage bookended
by two other large structures, echoes what Mr. Moyer said. To him, the restoration, is worthy of some
of the incentives of what the HPC board can offer. This is an excellent approach and it’s a tight site and
very difficult and there are many constraints with the trees, etc., but feels that it mostly conforms to the
guidelines and is a good restoration project.
MOTION: Ms. Greenwood moved to continue with condition that they will grant 500 square foot bonus
with the 2-foot setback on the west side of resource with no other variations.
Mr. True said he was confused because they were continuing it, but also granting approvals. He said he
doesn’t think they can make any approvals on a continuance.
Ms. Greenwood struck her motion from the record.
MOTION: Ms. Greenwood moved to continue. She also said that in their discussion, they can discuss
direction for the applicant.
Mr. True says this is appropriate.
Mr. Moyer seconded.
Mr. Lai said he doesn’t feel the full 500 square feet should be approved for this project. Ms. Greenwood
said we should grant this when there aren’t so many variances to approve because the applicant worked
so hard to make it work. Mr. Blaich said we can make a judgement when they come back and we see
what they have.
Ms. Simon continued to July 28th. Ms. Greenwood said she won’t be attending because it’s her
birthday.
Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Lai, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes. 5-0,
motion carried.
MOTION to adjourn: Mr. Halferty motioned, Ms. Greenwood seconded at 7:35 p.m.
P19
II.B.
9
________________________________________
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
P20
II.B.
1
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
JULY 12, 2017
Acting Chairperson Mr. DeFrancia called the meeting to order at 4:37 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Jim DeFrancia, Nora Berko, Bob Blaich, Richard Lai, Roger Moyer. Absent
were Jeffrey Halferty, Gretchen Greenwood, Willis Pember and John Whipple.
Staff Present:
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney
Linda Manning, City Clerk
Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner
Justin Barker, Senior Planner
Approval of minutes from May 10th and May 24th. Mr. Moyer motioned to approve, Mr. Blaich
seconded. All in favor, motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Berko commented about the landscape at the Wheeler parcel and
said it is lovely and a nice addition and thinks the view planes are amazing. Mr. Moyer commented on
the discussion from the last meeting regarding landscaping around the historic resources and the
sprinkler heads being too close to the structure and said it is a matter of education.
DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT: None.
PROJECT MONITORING: None.
STAFF COMMENT: Ms. Simon said she needs to take her daughter to Boulder so she will be leaving after
the first item. Ms. Simon thanked Mr. DeFrancia for his service and mentioned that this will be his last
meeting and Mr. Whipple will not attend any more and she thanked him for his time as well. They will
be giving exiting members gift certificates and announced that Scott Kendrick will be joining HPC in
August.
CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None.
PUBLIC NOTICES: Ms. Bryan said one is being continued and the other one is good.
CALL UPS: None.
OLD BUSINESS: 210 W. Main continued to July 26th. Motion to continue by Mr. Blaich, seconded by Mr.
Moyer. All in favor, motion carried.
Ms. Simon noted that at the last meeting, she asked HPC to continue 209 E Bleeker to July 28th, which is
a Friday and should have been July 26th so she needs a motion to reconsider. Motion to reconsider by
Mr. Moyer, seconded by Mr. Blaich. Mr. Moyer motioned to continue to July 26th, seconded by Mr.
Blaich. All in favor, motion carried.
P21
II.B.
2
NEW BUSINESS: 305-307 S. Mill St.
Amy Simon
Ms. Simon stated this is a substantial amendment to the review process. This property is in the core
across from the Wheeler and is where Jimmy’s Bodega, Grey lady and the Popcorn Wagon are currently
located. This is in the historic district, but it is not historic. This initially came in as a scrape and replace,
then was modified to become a remodel. Portions of the existing building would remain, they would
infill in the center with an addition where the wagon sits now. This project went through HPC review
successfully with design, public amenity, affordable housing mitigation and transportation all being
considered. A view plane review has also been conducted on this site. It is in the Wheeler view plane
with a low height, front edge at 7 feet and exits at 10 feet. We are trying to determine what can and
should be built on this site. Conceptual approval was granted and went through council call up, but was
not remanded and was then returned to HPC for final and approved with minimal conditions for
windows and lighting. As the applicant prepared for a building permit they were concerned with how to
prepare for the basement. Approval was granted for a free-standing basement. The request tonight is
to demolish all of the building and build back exactly as approved. This project was applied for prior to
the moratorium so we need to decide if it’s being reviewed under the new code or the old code. It was
decided that it can remain under the old code, but since it is a substantial amendment, HPC needs to
consider if it is in conformance with the standards and guidelines. One main item that needs to be
discussed is the view plane mentioned earlier. The building was already over 13 feet tall and what was
being added, was lower that what is there already. If they demolish the entire structure, it ruins the
basis for HPC’s original decision. At that point, we should be talking about something between 7 feet
and 10 feet. Staff wants that to be a concern and we don’t feel it complies with the spirit of that
discussion. We feel that keeping some of the building will keep the spirit. We think there is a hang up of
the view plane review and we recommend denial.
Mr. Moyer asked how staff justifies having a building for 20 years, which exceeds the height and now
says they can’t have a building that doesn’t exceed that height. Ms. Simon said the view planes came in
during the 70’s so it’s grandfathered and allowed, but if you want to expand, it must meet today’s rules
and it does that by being lower. What is proposed to be built is not taller that what exists. Mr. Moyer
asked if the original application was done before the new rules and Ms. Simon said that is correct and it
was done before the new code. We feel the applicant should build exactly what was approved or
adhere to the new code.
Applicant presentation:
Chris Bendon of Bendon Adams and Dwayne Romero of Romero Management representing Mark Hunt.
Chris stated that they are here with a very simple ask as they want to build the same building that was
approved. There has been quite a bit of discussion about the building itself not having any historic
relevance. The conceptual approval did allow for demolition and the thought at the time was there
probably would be over 40%. There was no discussion as to what walls would need to stay. There is
zero difference in the proposal and what is different is the technique and a 3-4-month quicker
construction period. We think it is the same project that was approved with a simpler quicker process
and a better end product. It was a full scrape and replace originally and HPC pretty much punched it in
the face. It was a full 2 stories in front of the Wheeler so it was rejected, but not around the demolition,
but the end product. We did a complete pivot to the revised product keeping the arch and the same
feeling of the building. The Wheeler view plane is pretty severe. Obviously, a building that is 7 feet tall
doesn’t enable any kind of useful purpose. The city has some expectation about what spaces look and
feel like on the inside and have guidelines on that interior height dimension. We didn’t achieve the 13
P22
II.B.
3
to 15-foot height dimension that are in the guidelines. When this came in for final, it talked about a
building addition in the courtyard and corner. We are here to try to simplify the construction and build
the same building in front of you. We are not changing the project in any way. We did reach out to the
neighbor and they do not share our same opinion. We do feel that allowing a full demo on day one,
simplifies the project and makes a lot of sense.
Dwayne Romero reminded everyone that as they have moved through the design development, they
realized this was an inefficient way to attack construction. They think from a community perspective, a
shorter construction at that site is beneficial. The concept of demo was on the table and discussed and
in the conceptual and final approvals. Yes, they were attempting to save pieces but there was never the
requirement to save specific pieces, but they do intend to keep the arch.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
1 Gideon Kaufman said he is speaking on behalf of himself and the six commercial spaces at
the Wheeler Square. He thanked Mr. Bendon for reaching out and speaking with them. He
also reminded HPC that they participated in all the previous reviews and approvals. The
preservation and remodeling of the existing structure is what led to the HPC approvals and
what led them from dropping their opposition. The proposed additions are lower than the
current structure and created minimal impact and did not infringe on the view plane. This is
much different than a completely new building. What is before you is proposed as an
amendment and also an amendment to the view plane review. The extent of the demo is
unclear and they are trying to make it about how much is to be demolished and not the view
plane. The proper view plane should not be questioned and ignores a big piece of your prior
approval. This project was submitted as a scrape and replace and start with a clean slate
and council made a different decision. The view plane decision is not subject to council call
up. This proposed demo requires new HPC conceptual review as the basic premise has
changed. A new review would trigger council call up ability. It should be looked at as a new
application. He feels that HPC should discourage a scrape and replace and encourage
remodels. Council’s call up assumed the retention of most of the original structure. Staff’s
recommendation, he believes, should be followed. They respectfully request this
amendment be denied. He then stated that John Whipple agreed with their position and
that of staff.
Mr. DeFrancia closed public comment.
Mr. Bendon said that they see this as a simple ask. They see the demolition as a way to simplify and
quicken the process and see it as a benefit to the community and hoped to see it as a benefit to
neighbors as a quicker process. Mr. Kaufman is right that the new view plane regulations are a bit more
liberal and they acknowledge that a building that is this close and impacted by the view plane should
have a right to develop and has a height limit of 15 feet. He pointed out, they are not asking for that
and mentioned the Innsbruck Lodge project on Main Street. They originally approached it as a remodel
and applied for a building permit and then asked staff why can’t we just demolish it so staff said they
applied for the wrong thing. They ended up propping up the roof and it took longer and paid more and
there was disappointment around the end product. In that light, our recommendation to Mr. Hunt was
if it is not historic, go back in and ask for the demolition.
Mr. Moyer asked Mr. Kaufman if he objects to the building design. Mr. Kaufman said no, our point is the
process and the playing field is different. If they were to start the process from scratch, there may be
P23
II.B.
4
something better out there. We would like to see this go through a process where you aren’t tied to a
building that may not be there. Mr. Moyer then asked Ms. Simon why she is recommending denial and
Ms. Simon answered that it is the principal and many reasons that Mr. Kaufman mentioned. She thinks
what HPC originally approved should not be reversed. The original approval was told to city council and
represented in the drawings and is all over the minutes. They could start over under the new code and
reapply, but would be a substantial delay. Mr. Moyer asked who was present when the original view
planes were installed in 1976 besides himself and there was no one. The purpose of those were so that
people could stand in front of the Wheeler and there would not be a tall building in front of it, he said.
Ms. Berko said she supports staffs position because of the process and noted that they spent a lot of
time on this and came to a great solution. She understands economically why a scrape and replace
works and she understands why a remodel is more complicated. She felt they came to a really good
solution that went through council and was not remanded. She said it was a really fair process and to
have it change, it leaves things wide open for her. It is either a great solution or a new application.
Mr. Blaich said he didn’t know how many variations came in front of them, but they finally agreed on
something. If we must go back to ground zero on this is, thereis a good possibility, based on the view
plane, they are going to have to move the whole building back to stay within the view plane. Mr.
Bendon said they haven’t gone through that design discussion yet and they can’t build at 7 feet tall so
they would look at what they could do up to the 15 and produce a building that has good function and
treats the corner well and meets the guidelines. Mr. Blaich said he is trying to envision what they will be
dealing with when they come back with a new design. One of the issues particularly with this location, it
is highly visible and there is a possibility that a framing network can be put up to show what was
approved, like story poles. It is going to be a long process and their argument of time and mess, he buys
as it is a benefit for them and the community. He says he’s not hung up on that, but feels they are
getting into an issue of principle versus expediency. I’m trying to imagine where we will be if we follow
staff’s recommendation and wait for you to come back with a new proposal. Mr. Bendon said they are
not sure they would come back with a new proposal, frankly, because starting over is not a very
palatable option. He thinks they would be in a position of identifying the portions of walls that need to
be suspended in air and worked around. Mr. Blaich asked if there is potential to have something other
than the actual walls in place, as in a fake wall per se. Ms. Simon said they are not looking for working
around the regulation as retaining pieces of the existing building was a fundamental agreement.
Ms. Berko said she also felt the whole process is important because they have recently seen slippery
slope stuff. She is concerned with their integrity of the process.
Mr. Lai said he was not party to any of this and this is all new to him. He said he would tend to agree
with Ms. Berko and staff. He feels the process is important to him and to tear everything down and
replicate it is really starting from the beginning. The applicant may be able to come up with a better
solution and he is not sure if that is the best way to initiate a development.
Mr. DeFrancia said there is a distinct difference between scrape and replace and remodel and there is
merit to that argument regarding the process.
MOTION: Ms. Berko moved to support staff’s recommendation to deny the amendment, seconded by
Mr. Moyer.
P24
II.B.
5
Roll call vote: Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Lai, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. DeFrancia, yes. 5-0
motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS: 834 W Hallam
Justin Barker
Mr. Barker said this project received conceptual approval from HPC in August 2016 and is a 100%
affordable housing project proposal. This includes demolition of non- historic additions and is a
landmark property. This also includes relocation of the historic structure and the construction of two
new buildings on the property as well. The application for tonight is for the final design approvals and
growth management approval and request for certificates of affordable housing credit. Staff comments
apply to fenestration first off and staff would like to see more of a rectangular proportion of the
windows on new construction to have a stronger distinction. In terms of the historic construction, there
are a number of non-historic additions on the north and east facades and they won’t know what they
are until we get in them. He said they would like to see a preservation plan of where they will be
identified. The other item is related to the dormer on the west side of the structure as a casement
window currently and is not historic and would like to see that changed. In terms of materials, they are
proposing a horizontal wood siding and he feels this is appropriate, but want to see it varied. They
expect to see the historic materials retained. The chimney will need restored as well as the porch and in
terms of the roof, it is currently asphalt, but they would like something with a thicker profile for the new
construction. In terms of landscaping, staff believes the design is too complex. Staff recommends
removal of shrubs and trees in zones A and B. Staff is including a condition to reduce overall size and
design of planting beds. There isn’t currently a front walkway and there is none proposed from street to
structure so we have asked for them to look at a way to create one. There was one condition from
conceptual around the porch to make it a similar one to the historic porch which was there before. The
proposed option includes a partially inset porch and this is not an ideal situation, but staff is comfortable
with the proposal.
In terms of the growth management review, APCHA reviewed it twice the first time for category two and
three sale units so the applicant revised that to category three and four rental units to convert to for
sale in the future. APCHA was comfortable with this as long as they were changed to category four units.
The total number of FTE’s established would be 18.75 at the category four rate. Overall, staff is
recommending approval with conditions and would like the applicant to match what was historically
done with the original building. They are also recommending one minor amendment to a resolution in
Section 2, in the second paragraph and they are adding in “or as specifically recommended by APCHA”.
There are two units that fall just below the minimum reduction, but APCHA has expressed that they are
comfortable with the unit sizes.
Ms. Berko asked Mr. Barker, that given recent history, if there wasn’t something stronger they could do
with the preservation requirements making sure everything is where it needs to be. Mr. Barker said
there is a condition for the applicant to submit the preservation plan prior to permit.
Mr. Moyer asked if they have been looking at separating the resource from the addition.
Applicant
Patrick Rawley of Stan Clauson Assoc., Stephen May of Forum Phi and Matt Brown
Mr. Rawley addressed Mr. Moyer’s question and he said they have been told to make it more similar
instead of differentiating. They have chosen fenestration as their differentiating quality for the new
construction.
P25
II.B.
6
As an overview, this is a 600K lot and the zoning is mixed use. They are limited to 5400 square feet of
floor area for 100% affordable housing project. They meet that with a proposed floor area of 5,352 and
that provides 7 units and 18 bed rooms. FAR is proposed at .9 to 1 with max height met at 28 feet.
Initially they are rental units with the future option for sale and all units will be a category four. There
were a couple of conditions at conceptual, which includes restudy of the porch and work with the SI
ditch company and the agreement has been signed and recorded. They received a parking reduction of
1 space for a total of 6 and the reduction on the east side yard setback went from 5 to 3 feet. The
distance between buildings was varied from 10 to 7 feet.
Mr. May talked about the elevations and said they are keeping the existing materials. He asked to use a
more durable material on the roof and he is fine with the casement window and chimney that staff
wants.
Mr. Rawley talked about the landscape plan and said it is durable and low maintenance. There are
entrance walkways that terminate to a central court that will provide access to parking, storage and
trash enclosure. He said he is fine with simplifying the landscaping details which Mr. Barker pointed out.
They have provided some blue spruce with a tight growth characteristic to provide screening to the bus
stop and would like to keep it in place. Staff has requested to remove the conifers adjacent to the
parking area and he says they have done that. As far as materials and lighting, the landscape lighting
will have a brushed nickel finish, not copper. Mr. May said they have proposed a more modern exterior
lighting.
Mr. Rawley said they are happy to work with a preservation plan. If it is existing, it will remain and if it
needs to be repaired, it will be. The west facing dormer will be repaired and they agree with roof
materials but would like a more durable one. He agreed that the siding material will be approved by
staff and monitor. He said the applicant will review the landscaping plan and has asked HPC to think
about the walkway from the front door to the sidewalk. Mr. Rawley suggested a different paving
material and mentioned that the storm water feature shall not be placed on the south or west façade of
the Victorian and asked it be removed. He is fine with protecting the cottonwoods on 8th St.
Regarding the condition of the transformer being placed on the property, he is requesting that it not be
placed on property but maintained on the existing location. Regarding the historic structural elements
on the perimeter of the Victorian, they will be preserved in place and will be part of the preservation
plan.
Ms. Berko asked if they have storm water mitigation somewhere and Mr. Rawley said no and will be
accomplished by a drywell or something similar and is not a big issue. She then asked if there is an
alternative to the spruce trees and Mr. Rawley said those species are dwarfs, but if there is a suitable
alternative that is ok with them.
Mr. Moyer said he noticed on the landscape plan that it shows vegetation against the structure and they
are looking seriously at that and the implications. The sprinkler heads really need to be 2 to 3 feet away
from the structure.
Mr. Lai asked how many parking spaces will be included and Mr. Rawley answered six.
Mr. DeFrancia said that staff has recommended a number of conditions and asked Mr. Rawley to run
through the list and tell him which he agrees with and which he does not. Mr. Rawley said he agrees
with 1 and 2. They would like to have a discussion with staff and monitor about 3 regarding the roofing
P26
II.B.
7
material as they do not want to do wood, but Davinci or something similar. 4. Siding is acceptable to
them. 5. The landscape plan, the shrubs they are fine with reducing or eliminating, but they are not ok
with the spruce trees on the northwest and southeast. They are not married to the spruce tree concept,
but need some kind of screening. They would like a simple walk way and prefer not having 3 walk ways,
but if it comes down to it, they will work with staff and monitor to have a central walk with a different
material. Regarding the storm water features, they would like that removed because there are no storm
water features in that location. Excavation within 15 feet of the cottonwoods is completely fine.
Excavation within the ditch easement, they are fine with. Regarding the new transformer, there is
simply no space, but if they require one, they would like it to remain where it is currently. The building
permit shall label all historic elements and they are completely fine with that.
Ms. Berko said her understanding on the transformer is that it is required by the electric company and
she believes that it is out of their purview.
Mr. Moyer asked regarding the transformers, if it is an Engineering department implication and Mr.
Barker said yes, it is a requirement and there is really no ability to change it, but there may be some
flexibility to say the location is approved by the utility department.
Mr. DeFrancia opened public comment
1. Charlie Eckhart – president of Sagewood Condo HOA, chairman of open space and trails board.
He stated that he likes the project and is in support, but is concerned with the site plan and
whether or not it is reflective of the new entrance and bike pedway. Mr. Rawley said that is
correct and they have worked with Hailey in Engineering and have coordinated the site plan.
The main entrance ways must meet the sidewalk.
Mr. Moyer asked if the existing siding is in good condition and Mr. May answered that they haven’t
done the research yet.
Mr. Barker added an email to the record from Teresa Wyatt stating opposition to affordable housing
units in town and specifically to historic properties.
Mr. DeFrancia closed the public comment.
Mr. Barker gave clarification on the transformer saying they would like to include the staff and monitor
in the discussion with utilities to avoid adverse effects. Staff is supportive in keeping the preventative
condition related to storm water features (5D). to ensure as the project progresses, this is a clear
condition moving forward.
Mr. Lai congratulated the applicant on having an affordable and historic project in one. He said it’s not
very often we have historic preservation as well as affordable housing together. It’s a good project and
is needed in Aspen.
Mr. Blaich was supportive conceptually and is very positive about it. The evergreens should be allowed
and is a good solution.
Ms. Berko is in support and does think we have the guidelines around the resource advocate condition
regarding condition 3 and 5C for the siding and sidewalk.
P27
II.B.
8
Mr. Moyer said he can go right off of staff recommendation. He would like to see the sprinklers placed
away from the structure and vegetation not placed next to the structure. He said he has no problem
with the screening.
MOTION: Mr. Lai motioned to accept with recommendations as stated with amendment to #8 regarding
the transformer location to be determined by utilities, staff and monitor. Adding in a clause to section 2
under affordable housing requirements that states “or as specifically accepted by APCHA.” Add to
section 5B regarding sprinklers being located away from the structure. #4 siding materials to be
determined by staff and monitor, seconded by Mr. Blaich.
Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Lai, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. DeFrancia, yes.
5-0 motion carried.
Mr. Blaich gave recognition for Mr. DeFrancia and Mr. Whipple and wished Mr. Whipple had been in
attendance. He said both have done an excellent job and that Mr. DeFrancia has been a mentor to him.
Thanked him so much for your service.
Mr. DeFrancia moved to adjourn at 6:46 p.m.
__________________________________
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
P28
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
JULY 26, 2017
Acting Chairperson, Mr. Richard Lai, brought the meeting to order at 4:30 PM without a quorum of
board members.
Staff present:
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney
Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
Public Hearing – 210 W. Main St.
Mr. Lai continued the public hearing to August 9th, 2017
Public Hearing – 209 E. Bleeker
Mr. Lai continued the public hearing to August 9th, 2017
Mr. Lai closed the meeting.
_________________________________
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
P29
II.B.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 124 W. Hallam Street- Project Monitoring
DATE: August 9, 2017
______________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY: 124 W. Hallam is a Victorian era home, built in approximately 1887. The house has
been significantly remodeled over the years, with alterations to historic features, and additions on all
sides. In 2016, HPC granted final approvals to demolish non-historic elements, to set the structure on
a new basement, and to construct an addition at the rear of the site.
The project is in building permit review. HPC member Gretchen Greenwood is the project monitor,
along with staff. The property owner has requested two insubstantial amendments to the design, one
of which has been approved (the installation of a skylight on the roof of the connector between the
old and new portions of the home) and one of which is being referred to HPC (the installation of a
skylight on an alley facing roof of the historic resource.) Drawings of the proposed skylight are
attached.
Staff and monitor were unwilling to grant approval for the skylight on the historic home without
agreement by the full board that the guideline below is met
7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices.
Flat skylights that are flush with the roof plane may be considered only in an obscure
location on a historic structure. Locating a skylight or a solar panel on a front roof
plane is not allowed.
A skylight or solar panel should not interrupt the plane of a historic roof. It should
be positioned below the ridgeline.
Staff and monitor find that the skylight may be viewed from the alley given the height of the
historic resource, and that this disruption of the shingled roof plane is intrusive and detracts from
the historic character of the home. A determination by HPC is requested.
P30
II.F.
RO | ROCKETT DESIGN
The work shall be carried out in accordance with the attached supplemental instruction issued in
accordance with the Contract Document without change in Contract Sum or Contract Time. Prior to
proceeding in accordance with these instructions, indicate your acceptance of these instructions for
minor change to the Work as consistent with the Contract Documents and return a copy to RO |
ROCKETT DESIGN. Any changes to the contract must receive prior written approval by owner.
Issued By:
Date: 06/23/2017
Accepted By: Date:
1306 Bridgeway, Floor 2 | Sausalito CA 94965 | T 415 289 0830 | mgranelli@rorockettdesign.com | www.rorockettdesign.com
Description
Amy,
Please see attached drawings and 3D images for a proposed low-profile skylight at Victorian
North roof. The proposed skylight will not be visible from the adjacent streets (First St, Hallam St)
and has a minimal visual impact, if any, to the neighbor to the east. (See photo and 3D views
attached). A skylight adds light to the constrained and low-lit closet space and has almost no
impact to the structure and roofline as opposed to adding a north-facing dormer.
Thank you,
Andrew
Attachments:
- 170623 SKYLIGHT DRAWINGS.pdf
- 170623 SKYLIGHT 3D IMAGES.pdf
REQUEST FOR DESIGN APPROVAL
To: Amy Simon
Aspen Historic Preservation
Commission
From: Andrew Alexander Green
Date: 06/23/2017
Via: Email
Job:
124 W Hallam Street / 1507
Re: Request for design approval –
Roof Skylight
CC: Bill Guth, Zac Rockett, Jason Ro
P31
II.F.
P32II.F.
P33II.F.
P34II.F.
P35II.F.
P36II.F.
P37II.F.
P38II.F.
P39II.F.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 417 W. Hallam - Project Monitoring
DATE: August 9, 2017
______________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY: 417 W. Hallam is a Victorian era home, built in approximately 1885. This small
hipped roof house was expanded into a duplex several decades ago, and many of the original features
of the historic home were removed in the process.
In 2014, HPC granted final approvals to demolish non-historic elements, to set the structure on a new
basement, to restore the Victorian and to construct an addition at the rear of the site.
The project is under construction. HPC member Nora Berko is the project monitor, along with staff.
The property owner has requested two insubstantial amendments to the design, changing the sill
height of a group of street facing windows to address a waterproofing issue, and adding a dormer on
the alley. Both requests are being referred to HPC.
The full board is asked to consider whether the guidelines below are met:
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also
remaining visually compatible with these earlier features.
A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in
material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all
techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new
construction.
10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building.
Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate.
Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with
sloped roofs.
10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic
materials of the primary building.
The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials.
10.12 When constructing a rooftop addition, keep the mass and scale subordinate to
that of a historic building.
P40
II.F.
An addition should not overhang the lower floors of a historic building in the front or
on the side.
Dormers should be subordinate to the overall roof mass and should be in scale with
historic ones on similar historic structures.
Dormers should be located below the primary structure's ridgeline, usually by at least
one foot.
Since this item was originally prepared for the July 26th packet, the architect has developed a
second alternative for addressing the street facing windows. This new alternative is included in
the attached application. Staff believes that any change to the street-facing windows must be the
minimum alteration necessary. The curtain wall behind the historic structure was praised during
the HPC review process as creating a simple backdrop. HPC granted a Residential Design
Standards variation to allow this design to proceed. The glazing also provided contrast to the stone
façade on the one story portion of the addition.
The alley facing dormer has no affect on the historic resource.
P41
II.F.
To Whom It May Concern:
Kim Raymond Architects would like to adjust a design features on the already approved 417
West Hallam historic project. The features are listed below and the changes can be found
illustrated on the elevations attached.
1) Upper Level North Facing Windows
a. The windows on the upper level, directly adjacent to the master bathroom, were
originally approved to be full height windows with the sill of the windows at floor
level. During the construction process it was brought to our attention that
because of the dining room roof directly north of those windows, there would be
major waterproofing and drainage issues with the windows and they (the
windows) would likely allow water into the building envelope.
b. We have explored changing the waterproofing assembly in the roof to better
accommodate draining water away from the windows but adding snow melt, but
that roof is already a membrane roof and has no potential to house snowmelt.
c. Our proposed design would imply bringing the sill of the windows up. We would
like 3’-0” sills to match the countertop and pony wall height inside.
d. Because of the stone wall on the Hallam facing side, the sill of the windows is
already very difficult to see, so by bringing it up, the overall appearance of the
design would not greatly be noticed.
2) South Facing Dormer Roof
a. KRA would like to propose a dormer roof on the south facing, alley side of the
roof. This would greatly enhance the master bedroom’s south facing views
without causing major disruption to the original approved design. The lot across
the alley is Pioneer Park, which has only one residence on the entire block. The
dormer roof would allow views of the park’s foliage in the summer and of Aspen
Mountain and Shadow Mountain in the winter.
P42
II.F.
Scale:
ISSUE417 HALLAM RESIDENCE417 WEST HALLAM STREETASPEN, CO1" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N D
SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR
BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL
BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
AS NOTED
A 4.3
9/22/16 PROPOSED ELEVATIONSwww.KimRaymondArchitects.comtel 970-925-2252 email kim@krai.usHPC
DATE
10/22/14
PERMIT SET12/23/15
RND. 1 COMMENTS7/25/16
RND. 2 COMMENTS9/22/16
A
A
C
C
D
D
E
E
F
F
G
G
H
H
METAL ROOFING, COLOR TO MATCH STONE VENEER
4" WOOD RAINSCREEN SIDING (3 1/2" W/ 1/2" REVEAL): WHITE
4" RANDOM LENGTH STONE
REBUTTED RE-SQUARED CEDAR ROOF SHINGLES W/ 6" EXPOSURE
AMERIMAX™ PAINTED METAL CLIP SNOW STOPS: BLACK
WHITE PAINTED CLADBOARD TO MATCH HISTORIC (± 4")
4" WHITE WOOD RAINSCREEN SIDING
4" RANDOM LENGTH STONE
GLAZING WITH DARK GREY ALUMINIUM CHANNEL
MIDPOINT BETWEEN EAVE AND RIDGE (MEASURED HEIGHT RESTRICTION)
WHITE PAINTED TRIM
EXISTING GRADE (DASHED LINE) AT 25'-0" OFFSET
ALL MATERIALS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION WILL BE FINALIZED AFTER STAFF &
MONITOR REVIEW & APPROVE A MOCK UP
SNOW STOPS, PER CITY REQUEST
PAINTED WOOD DOOR WITH GLASS LIGHT
EXISTING GRADE (DASHED LINE) AT 25'-0" OFFSET
PROPOSED GRADE (SOLID LINE) AT 25'-0" OFFSET
EXISTING GRADE (DASHED LINE)
PROPOSED GRADE (SOLID LINE)
PAINTED METAL DOWNSPOUT TO MATCH FLASHING
PROPOSED GRADE (SOLID LINE) AT 25'-0" OFFSET
PAINTED WOOD TRIM
WOOD STEPS (3 RISERS) UP TO WOOD PORCH
PAINTED METAL
FLASHING ON EXPOSED
FOUNDATION WALLS
K-STYLE GUTTERS, PAINTED TO MATCH TRIM
SHOP DRAWINGS FOR FRONT
PORCH POSTS WILL BE
SUPPLIED FOR REVIEW AND
APPROVAL
25
20
20
34
3335 3236
99'-9 3/4"
MAIN LEVEL T.O. PLY
108'-9 5/8"
ROOF TOP PLATE
118'-3 1/2"
ROOF RIDGE
111'-8"
UPPER LEVEL T.O. PLY
101'-1 1/4"
ADDITION MAIN LEVEL T.O. PLY
126'-6"
T.O. ROOF RIDGE
ROOF TOP PLATE
119'-11 1/4"
A
88'-6"
LOWER LEVEL T.O. SLAB
88'-6"
LOWER LEVEL T.O. SLAB
12"
11"
(V.I.F)
11"
(V.I.F)
12"
B
1
1
3
3
4
4
6
6
75
5 11'-3 3/4"14'-1 1/4"REBUTTED RESQUARED CEDAR ROOF
SHINGLE W/ 6" EXPOSURE
PAINTED WOOD TRIM
WHITE PAINTED CLADBOARD TO MATCH
HISTORIC (± 4")
4" WOOD RAINSCREEN SIDING (3 1/2"
W/ 1/2" REVEAL): WHITE
4" WOOD RAINSCREEN SIDING (3 1/2" W/ 1/2"
REVEAL): WHITE
4" HIGH RANDOM LENGTH STONE
2" WOOD SLAT RAIL
4" HIGH RANDOM
LENGTH STONE
GLAZING W/ DARK GREY
ALUMINUM CHANNEL
MASTER BEDROOM FIREPLACE POWER VENT
MIDPOINT BETWEEN EAVE AND RIDGE (MEASURED
HEIGHT RESTRICTION)
EXISTING GRADE (DASHED LINE) AT
25'-0" OFFSET
BASEMENT FIREPLACE CHIMNEY FLUE,
VENTED THROUGH KITCHEN CABINETRY
PAINTED WOOD DOOR
WITH GLASS LIGHT
EXISTING GRADE (DASHED LINE) AT 25' OFFSET
ALL MATERIALS FOR NEW
CONSTRUCTION WILL BE FINALIZED
AFTER STAFF & MONITOR REVIEW &
APPROVE A MOCK UP
PROPOSED GRADE (SOLID LINE) AT 25'-0" OFFSET
EXISTING GRADE
(DASHED LINE)
PROPOSED GRADE
(SOLID LINE)
EXTERIOR BBQ GRILL AND CABINETS
PAINTED METAL FLASHING ON EXPOSED
FOUNDATION WALLS
PAINTED WOOD SKIRT BOARD TO WRAP
PORCH AND BUILDING: WHITE
PAINTED METAL DOWNSPOUT TO MATCH
FLASHING
AMERIMAX™ PAINTED METAL CLIP SNOW
STOPS: BLACK
FALL PROTECTION RAILING OUTSIDE MASTER BEDROOM
WOOD STEPS (3 RISERS) UP TO WOOD
PORCH
BRICK STAIRS TO
INOPERABLE DOOR PER
HPC REQUEST
13
12
VERIFY SIZE AND
LOCATION OF WINDOW
PENDING DEMOLITION W/
HPC MONITOR/STAFF
11
WOOD WINDOW WITH INTERIOR STORM
PANEL TO MATCH EXISTING
37
K-STYLE GUTTERS, PAINTED TO MATCH TRIM
22
111'-3"
UPPER LEVEL T.O. PLY
101'-1 1/4"
ADDITION MAIN LEVEL T.O. PLY
88'-6"
LOWER LEVEL T.O. SLAB
126'-6"
T.O. ROOF RIDGE
ROOF TOP PLATE
119'-10 1/4"
T.O. BALCONY RAIL
114'-1 1/4"
99'-9 3/4"
MAIN LEVEL T.O. PLY
108'-9 5/8"
ROOF TOP PLATE
118'-4 5/8"
T.O. VIC. ROOF RIDGE
88'-6"
LOWER LEVEL T.O. SLAB
12"
11"
(V.I.F)
12"
11"
(V.I.F)
12"
6"
12"
6"
A
107'-3"
WINDOW HEAD AT HISTORIC
D
87'-0"
BOTTOM OF FOOTER
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 NORTH
A 4.3
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
2 EAST
A 4.3
7Approved by HPC in 2014P43 II.F.
Scale:
ISSUE417 HALLAM RESIDENCE417 WEST HALLAM STREETASPEN, CO1" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N D
SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR
BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL
BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
AS NOTED
A 4.4
9/22/16 PROPOSED ELEVATIONSwww.KimRaymondArchitects.comtel 970-925-2252 email kim@krai.usHPC
DATE
10/22/14
PERMIT SET12/23/15
RND. 1 COMMENTS7/25/16
RND. 2 COMMENTS9/22/16
E
E
D
D
C
C
A
A
F
F
H
H
G
G
METAL ROOFING, COLOR TO MATCH STONE VENEER
4" WHITE WOOD RAINSCREEN SIDING (3 1/2" W/ 1/2" REVEAL)
4" RANDOM LENGTH STONE
PAINTED WOOD TRIM
2" WOOD SLAT RAILING
GLAZING WITH DARK GREY ALUMINUM FRAME
GLAZING WITH DARK GREY ALUMINUM FRAME
MIDPOINT BETWEEN EAVE AND RIDGE (MEASURED
HEIGHT RESTRICTION)
FALL PROTECTION RAILING
4" WHITE WOOD RAINSCREEN SIDING (3 1/2" W/ 1/2"
REVEAL
PAINTED METAL DOWNSPOUT
EXISTING GRADE (DASHED LINE) AT 25' OFFSET
RADON PIPE
ALL MATERIALS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION WILL BE FINALIZED
AFTER STAFF & MONITOR REVIEW & APPROVE A MOCK UP
A/C UNITS (NOT IN THE SETBACK)
EXTERIOR BBQ GRILL AND CABINETS
HPC CHANGE: SNOW STOPS PER CITY REQUEST
HPC CHANGE: BASEMENT FIREPLACE CHIMNEY
FLUE, VENTED THROUGH KITCHEN CABINETRY
FROSTED GLASS GARAGE DOOR
PROPOSED GRADE (SOLID LINE) AT 25'-0" OFFSET
PROPOSED GRADE (SOLID LINE)
EXISTING GRADE (DASHED LINE)
PROPOSED GRADE (SOLID LINE)
EXISTING GRADE (DASHED LINE)
EXISTING SITE UTILITY BOXES MOVED NORTHWEST OUT OF THE
WAY OF GARAGE & ONTO PROPERTY
4042
231424
3041
111'-8"
UPPER LEVEL T.O. PLY
101'-1 1/4"
ADDITION MAIN LEVEL T.O. PLY
126'-6"
T.O. ROOF RIDGE
ROOF TOP PLATE
119'-11 1/4"
T.O. BALCONY RAIL
114'-6 1/4"
UPPER LEVEL T.O. PLY
101'-1 1/4"
ADDITION MAIN LEVEL T.O. PLY
126'-6"
T.O. ROOF RIDGE
111'-8"
ROOF TOP PLATE
119'-11 1/4"
C D
88'-6"
LOWER LEVEL T.O. SLAB
88'-6"
LOWER LEVEL T.O. SLAB
1
1
3
3
4
4
6
6
7
7
5
5 14'-1 1/4"3'-0"
REBUTTED RESQUARED CEDAR ROOF
SHINGLE W/ 6" EXPOSURE
WHITE PAINTED CLADBOARD TO MATCH
HISTORIC (± 4")
4" WOOD RAINSCREEN SIDING (3 1/2" W/ 1/2"
REVEAL): WHITE
GLAZING WITH DARK GREY ALUMINUM FRAME
2" WOOD SLAT RAIL
PAINTED WOOD TRIM: WHITE
4" HIGH RANDOM LENGTH STONE
WOOD WINDOW WITH INTERIOR STORM
PANEL TO MATCH EXISTING
MIDPOINT BETWEEN EAVE AND RIDGE (MEASURED
HEIGHT RESTRICTION)
EXISTING GRADE (DASHED LINE) AT
25'-0" OFFSET
PROPOSED GRADE (SOLID LINE) AT
25'-0" OFFSET
PROPOSED GRADE (SOLID LINE) AT 25'-0" OFFSET
EXISTING GRADE (DASHED LINE)
PROPOSED GRADE (SOLID LINE)
1x SKIRT BOARD AROUND HISTORIC
PRESERVE/REPAIR, OR REPLICATE
CORNER BOARDS, PAINTED WHITE
NEW FRONT PORCH OVERHANG, SEE
DETAIL 2 ON A 9.2
ALL MATERIALS FOR NEW
CONSTRUCTION WILL BE FINALIZED
AFTER STAFF & MONITOR REVIEW &
APPROVE A MOCK UP
PAINTED METAL DOWNSPOUT
TO MATCH FLASHING
AMERIMAX™ PAINTED METAL
CLIP SNOW STOPS: BLACK
BASEMENT FIREPLACE CHIMNEY FLUE, VENTED
THROUGH KITCHEN CABINETRY
EXISTING SITE UTILITY BOXES MOVED NORTHWEST OUT OF
THE WAY OF GARAGE & ONTO PROPERTY
WINDOW LOCATIONS TBD PENDING
DEMOLITION AND COORDINATION
WITH HPC STAFF/MONITOR
24 23 17 2715
K-STYLE GUTTERS, PAINTED TO
MATCH TRIM
TWO RISERS INTO MUDROOM DOOR
16
31
AIR CONDENSING UNITS ON CONCRETE SLAB
GAS AND ELECTRIC METERS
PAINTED METAL GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT
111'-3"
UPPER LEVEL T.O. PLY
101'-1 1/4"
ADDITION MAIN LEVEL T.O. PLY
88'-6"
LOWER LEVEL T.O. SLAB
126'-6"
T.O. ROOF RIDGE
ROOF TOP PLATE
119'-10 1/4"
T.O. BALCONY RAILING
114'-1 1/4"
99'-9 3/4"
MAIN LEVEL T.O. PLY
108'-9 5/8"
ROOF TOP PLATE
118'-3 1/2"
ROOF TOP PLATE
B
88'-6"
LOWER LEVEL T.O. SLAB
12"
11"
(V.I.F)
12"
11"
(V.I.F)
12"
6"
12"
6"
GAS
C
87'-0"
BOTTOM OF FOOTER BOTTOM OF FOOTER
87'-0"
ELEC.
AIR CONDENSING UNITS ON CONCRETE SLAB
GAS AND ELECTRIC METERS
PAINTED METAL GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT
AIR CONDENSING UNITS ON CONCRETE SLAB
GAS AND ELECTRIC METERS
PAINTED METAL GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT
GLAZING WITH DARK
GREY ALUMINUM FRAME
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 SOUTH
A 4.4
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
2 WEST
A 4.4P44 II.F.
P45
II.F.
P46II.F.
Scale:
ISSUE
HPC SET
PERMIT SET
RND1 COMMENTS
RND2 COMMENTS
RND 3 COMMENTS
CD SET417 HALLAM RESIDENCE417 WEST HALLAM STREETASPEN, CO1" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N D
SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR
BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL
BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
AS NOTED
A 4.3
7/24/17 PROPOSED ELEVATIONSwww.KimRaymondArchitects.comtel 970-925-2252 email kim@krai.usDATE
10/22/14
12/23/15
7/25/16
9/22/16
10/13/16
6/22/17
A
A
C
C
D
D
E
E
F
F
G
G
H
H
METAL ROOFING, COLOR TO MATCH STONE VENEER
4" WOOD RAINSCREEN SIDING (3 1/2" W/ 3/8"" REVEAL): WHITE
4" RANDOM LENGTH STONE
REBUTTED RE-SQUARED CEDAR ROOF SHINGLES W/ 6" EXPOSURE
AMERIMAX™ PAINTED METAL CLIP SNOW STOPS: BLACK
WHITE PAINTED CLADBOARD TO MATCH HISTORIC (± 4")
4" WHITE WOOD RAINSCREEN SIDING
4" RANDOM LENGTH STONE
GLAZING WITH DARK GREY ALUMINIUM CHANNEL
MIDPOINT BETWEEN EAVE AND RIDGE (MEASURED HEIGHT RESTRICTION)
WHITE PAINTED TRIM
EXISTING GRADE (DASHED LINE) AT 25'-0" OFFSET
ALL MATERIALS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION WILL BE FINALIZED AFTER STAFF &
MONITOR REVIEW & APPROVE A MOCK UP
SNOW STOPS, PER CITY REQUEST
PAINTED WOOD DOOR WITH GLASS LIGHT
EXISTING GRADE (DASHED LINE) AT 25'-0" OFFSET
PROPOSED GRADE (SOLID LINE) AT 25'-0" OFFSET
EXISTING GRADE (DASHED LINE)
PROPOSED GRADE (SOLID LINE)
PAINTED METAL DOWNSPOUT TO MATCH FLASHING
PROPOSED GRADE (SOLID LINE) AT 25'-0" OFFSET
PAINTED WOOD TRIM
WOOD STEPS (3 RISERS) UP TO WOOD PORCH
PAINTED METAL
FLASHING ON EXPOSED
FOUNDATION WALLS
K-STYLE GUTTERS, PAINTED TO MATCH TRIM
SHOP DRAWINGS FOR FRONT
PORCH POSTS WILL BE
SUPPLIED FOR REVIEW AND
APPROVAL
13
23
20
40
39
38
37 36
99'-9 3/4"
MAIN LEVEL T.O. PLY
108'-9 5/8"
ROOF TOP PLATE
118'-3 1/2"
ROOF RIDGE
111'-3"
UPPER LEVEL T.O. PLY
101'-1 1/4"
ADDITION MAIN LEVEL T.O. PLY
126'-6"
T.O. ROOF RIDGE
ROOF TOP PLATE
119'-6 7/8"
A
88'-6"
LOWER LEVEL T.O. SLAB
88'-6"
LOWER LEVEL T.O. SLAB
12"
11"
(V.I.F)
11"
(V.I.F)
12"
B
1
1
3
3
4
4
6
6
7
7
5
5 11'-3 3/4"14'-1 1/4"REBUTTED RESQUARED CEDAR ROOF
SHINGLE W/ 6" EXPOSURE
PAINTED WOOD TRIM
WHITE PAINTED CLADBOARD TO MATCH
HISTORIC (± 4")
4" WOOD RAINSCREEN SIDING (3 1/2"
W/ 1/2" REVEAL): WHITE
4" WOOD RAINSCREEN SIDING (3 1/2" W/ 1/2"
REVEAL): WHITE
4" HIGH RANDOM LENGTH STONE
2" WOOD SLAT RAIL
4" HIGH RANDOM
LENGTH STONE
GLAZING W/ DARK GREY
ALUMINUM CHANNEL
MASTER BEDROOM FIREPLACE POWER VENT
MIDPOINT BETWEEN EAVE AND RIDGE (MEASURED
HEIGHT RESTRICTION)
EXISTING GRADE (DASHED LINE) AT
25'-0" OFFSET
BASEMENT FIREPLACE CHIMNEY FLUE,
VENTED THROUGH KITCHEN CABINETRY
PAINTED WOOD DOOR
WITH GLASS LIGHT
EXISTING GRADE (DASHED LINE) AT 25' OFFSET
ALL MATERIALS FOR NEW
CONSTRUCTION WILL BE FINALIZED
AFTER STAFF & MONITOR REVIEW &
APPROVE A MOCK UP
PROPOSED GRADE (SOLID LINE) AT 25'-0" OFFSET
EXISTING GRADE
(DASHED LINE)
PROPOSED GRADE
(SOLID LINE)
EXTERIOR BBQ GRILL AND CABINETS
PAINTED METAL FLASHING ON EXPOSED
FOUNDATION WALLS
PAINTED WOOD SKIRT BOARD TO WRAP
PORCH AND BUILDING: WHITE
PAINTED METAL DOWNSPOUT TO MATCH
FLASHING
AMERIMAX™ PAINTED METAL CLIP SNOW
STOPS: BLACK
FALL PROTECTION RAILING OUTSIDE MASTER BEDROOM
WOOD STEPS (3 RISERS) UP TO WOOD
PORCH
BRICK STAIRS TO
INOPERABLE DOOR PER
HPC REQUEST
16
15
VERIFY SIZE AND
LOCATION OF WINDOW
PENDING DEMOLITION W/
HPC MONITOR/STAFF
14
WOOD WINDOW WITH INTERIOR STORM
PANEL TO MATCH EXISTING
44
K-STYLE GUTTERS, PAINTED TO MATCH TRIM
22
111'-3"
UPPER LEVEL T.O. PLY
101'-1 1/4"
ADDITION MAIN LEVEL T.O. PLY
88'-6"
LOWER LEVEL T.O. SLAB
126'-6"
T.O. ROOF RIDGE
ROOF TOP PLATE
119'-6 7/8"
T.O. BALCONY RAIL
114'-1 1/4"
99'-9 3/4"
MAIN LEVEL T.O. PLY
108'-9 5/8"
ROOF TOP PLATE
118'-4 5/8"
T.O. VIC. ROOF RIDGE
88'-6"
LOWER LEVEL T.O. SLAB
12"
11"
(V.I.F)
12"
11"
(V.I.F)
12"
6"
12"
6"
A
107'-3"
WINDOW HEAD AT HISTORIC
D
87'-0"
BOTTOM OF FOOTER
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 NORTH
A 4.3
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
2 EAST
A 4.3 Proposed changesP47 II.F.
Scale:
ISSUE
HPC SET
PERMIT SET
RND1 COMMENTS
RND2 COMMENTS
RND 3 COMMENTS
CD SET417 HALLAM RESIDENCE417 WEST HALLAM STREETASPEN, CO1" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N D
SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR
BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL
BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
AS NOTED
A 4.4
7/24/17 PROPOSED ELEVATIONSwww.KimRaymondArchitects.comtel 970-925-2252 email kim@krai.usDATE
10/22/14
12/23/15
7/25/16
9/22/16
10/13/16
6/22/17
E
E
D
D
C
C
A
A
F
F
H
H
G
G
METAL ROOFING, COLOR TO MATCH STONE VENEER
4" WHITE WOOD RAINSCREEN SIDING (3 1/2" W/ 1/2" REVEAL)
4" RANDOM LENGTH STONE
PAINTED WOOD TRIM
2" WOOD SLAT RAILING
GLAZING WITH DARK GREY ALUMINUM FRAME
GLAZING WITH DARK GREY ALUMINUM FRAME
MIDPOINT BETWEEN EAVE AND RIDGE (MEASURED
HEIGHT RESTRICTION)
FALL PROTECTION RAILING
4" WHITE WOOD RAINSCREEN SIDING (3 1/2" W/ 1/2"
REVEAL
PAINTED METAL DOWNSPOUT
EXISTING GRADE (DASHED LINE) AT 25' OFFSET
RADON PIPE
ALL MATERIALS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION WILL BE FINALIZED
AFTER STAFF & MONITOR REVIEW & APPROVE A MOCK UP
A/C UNITS (NOT IN THE SETBACK)
EXTERIOR BBQ GRILL AND CABINETS
HPC CHANGE: SNOW STOPS PER CITY REQUEST
HPC CHANGE: BASEMENT FIREPLACE CHIMNEY
FLUE, VENTED THROUGH KITCHEN CABINETRY
FROSTED GLASS GARAGE DOOR
PROPOSED GRADE (SOLID LINE) AT 25'-0" OFFSET
PROPOSED GRADE (SOLID LINE)
EXISTING GRADE (DASHED LINE)
PROPOSED GRADE (SOLID LINE)
EXISTING GRADE (DASHED LINE)
EXISTING SITE UTILITY BOXES MOVED NORTHWEST OUT OF THE
WAY OF GARAGE & ONTO PROPERTY
3031
231724
31
3234
33
30111'-3"
UPPER LEVEL T.O. PLY
101'-1 1/4"
ADDITION MAIN LEVEL T.O. PLY
126'-6"
T.O. ROOF RIDGE
ROOF TOP PLATE
119'-6 7/8"
T.O. BALCONY RAIL
114'-6 1/4"
UPPER LEVEL T.O. PLY
101'-1 1/4"
ADDITION MAIN LEVEL T.O. PLY
126'-6"
T.O. ROOF RIDGE
111'-3"
ROOF TOP PLATE
119'-6 7/8"
C D
88'-6"
LOWER LEVEL T.O. SLAB
88'-6"
LOWER LEVEL T.O. SLAB
1
1
3
3
4
4
6
6
7
7
5
5 14'-1 1/4"3'-0"
REBUTTED RESQUARED CEDAR ROOF
SHINGLE W/ 6" EXPOSURE
WHITE PAINTED CLADBOARD TO MATCH
HISTORIC (± 4")
4" WOOD RAINSCREEN SIDING (3 1/2" W/ 1/2"
REVEAL): WHITE
GLAZING WITH DARK GREY ALUMINUM FRAME
2" WOOD SLAT RAIL
PAINTED WOOD TRIM: WHITE
4" HIGH RANDOM LENGTH STONE
WOOD WINDOW WITH INTERIOR STORM
PANEL TO MATCH EXISTING
MIDPOINT BETWEEN EAVE AND RIDGE (MEASURED
HEIGHT RESTRICTION)
EXISTING GRADE (DASHED LINE) AT
25'-0" OFFSET
PROPOSED GRADE (SOLID LINE) AT
25'-0" OFFSET
PROPOSED GRADE (SOLID LINE) AT 25'-0" OFFSET
EXISTING GRADE (DASHED LINE)
PROPOSED GRADE (SOLID LINE)
1x SKIRT BOARD AROUND HISTORIC
PRESERVE/REPAIR, OR REPLICATE
CORNER BOARDS, PAINTED WHITE
NEW FRONT PORCH OVERHANG, SEE
DETAIL 2 ON A 9.2
ALL MATERIALS FOR NEW
CONSTRUCTION WILL BE FINALIZED
AFTER STAFF & MONITOR REVIEW &
APPROVE A MOCK UP
PAINTED METAL DOWNSPOUT
TO MATCH FLASHING
AMERIMAX™ PAINTED METAL
CLIP SNOW STOPS: BLACK
BASEMENT FIREPLACE CHIMNEY FLUE, VENTED
THROUGH KITCHEN CABINETRY
EXISTING SITE UTILITY BOXES MOVED NORTHWEST OUT OF
THE WAY OF GARAGE & ONTO PROPERTY
WINDOW LOCATIONS TBD PENDING
DEMOLITION AND COORDINATION
WITH HPC STAFF/MONITOR
12 11 2718
K-STYLE GUTTERS, PAINTED TO
MATCH TRIM
TWO RISERS INTO MUDROOM DOOR
35
AIR CONDENSING UNITS ON CONCRETE SLAB
GAS AND ELECTRIC METERS
PAINTED METAL GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT
111'-3"
UPPER LEVEL T.O. PLY
101'-1 1/4"
ADDITION MAIN LEVEL T.O. PLY
88'-6"
LOWER LEVEL T.O. SLAB
126'-6"
T.O. ROOF RIDGE
ROOF TOP PLATE
119'-6 7/8"
T.O. BALCONY RAILING
114'-1 1/4"
99'-9 3/4"
MAIN LEVEL T.O. PLY
108'-9 5/8"
ROOF TOP PLATE
118'-3 1/2"
ROOF TOP PLATE
B
88'-6"
LOWER LEVEL T.O. SLAB
12"
11"
(V.I.F)
12"
11"
(V.I.F)
12"
6"
12"
6"
GAS
C
87'-0"
BOTTOM OF FOOTER BOTTOM OF FOOTER
87'-0"
ELEC.
AIR CONDENSING UNITS ON CONCRETE SLAB
GAS AND ELECTRIC METERS
PAINTED METAL GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT
AIR CONDENSING UNITS ON CONCRETE SLAB
GAS AND ELECTRIC METERS
PAINTED METAL GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT
GLAZING WITH DARK
GREY ALUMINUM FRAME
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 SOUTH
A 4.4
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
2 WEST
A 4.4P48 II.F.
P49
II.F.
P50II.F.
A second alternative to resolve the waterproofing issue at the upper floor windows has been
submitted. According to the architects, “the goal of this solution would be to make the
framed wall look like glazing. Instead of siding it would get glass, probably back painted, as
the facade. So it would not be transparent at all really. We would add 2” metal clips that
continue the look of the mullions that are on the windows above. With no lights on inside,
the wall would like glazing from floor to ceiling as originally intended. Once the master bath
was lit, you would see the opaque pony wall carrying the windows.”
P51
II.F.
210 W. Main Street
Staff memo
8.9.2017
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, Setback
Variances, Continued Public Hearing
DATE: August 9, 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:
a. FAR increase from 1:1 to 1.25:1
b. reduction of 1 parking space (7 required and 6 proposed)
c. reduced front yard setback to 5 feet
4. Setback Variances for porches and balconies
5. Conceptual Commercial Design Review to allow a height of 29 ft.
6. Residential Design Standard review for multi-family buildings
HPC reviewed this project at public hearings on April 26th, 2017 and May 31st, 2017. HPC voted
to continue the project suggesting smaller modules incorporating green roofs and site plan
adjustments to provide more definition on Main Street. The vote was 4-2.
The applicant has revised the design based on comments from staff and HPC. The revised design
is attached as Exhibit I.
Staff recommends continuation.
APPLICANT: King Louise, LLC, PO Box 1467, Basalt, CO 81621, represented by
BendonAdams.
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-40-009.
P52
III.A.
210 W. Main Street
Staff memo
8.9.2017
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
DISCUSSION:
In general, staff supported the project at the May 31st meeting, except for roof form. Staff
recommended continuation to further study the incorporation of a sloped roof form into the
project to better relate to the historic district. One of the core design 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
P53
III.A.
210 W. Main Street
Staff memo
8.9.2017
3
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 historic district is largely comprised of historic residential structures. The form is important
to compatibility and sloped roofs are an important element that ties the district together. Staff
continues to recommend the applicant explore adding sloped forms on at least one of the three
proposed masses on Main Street to maintain the continuity and compatibility that is stated in the
guidelines. All of the other structures in the block include some sloped aspect of the roof profile,
as demonstrated in the proposed streetscape (Exhibit I). HPC was generally comfortable with flat
roofs on this project, particularly if used as green roofs. Although staff recommends a sloped roof
form, a resolution has been prepared accommodating the board’s comments with flat roofs
conditioned on the installation of a green roof system.
The other main points of discussion related to outdoor space and the building modules created by
the proposed site plan and building design. HPC wanted to see more definition created on Main
Street, particularly through the use of outdoor space, porches, and balconies. The applicant has
modified the design to increase the size of the proposed porches and balconies and make them
more prominent. Due to the increase size, these features extend into the front and side yard
setbacks, requiring variances. The front yard setback in the Mixed Used zone district may be
reduced through Special Review, while the side yard setbacks require Dimensional Variances.
The Special Review criteria (Exhibit B) requires compatibility with the surrounding land uses
and purposes of the zone district, while mitigating the adverse impacts of the development.
Porches, porticos, and stoops are an important aspect within the guidelines to the massing of
structures and defining entries on Main Street. They add a one-story element to the building
front, help establish a uniform sense of human scale along the block, and tie the historic district
together. Balconies provide important outdoor space for the upper floor units and help to further
break down the perceived mass of the building. Staff is supportive of a reduced front yard
setback to accommodate the porches on the east and west sides of the front buildings as these are
traditional in character and help relate to the historic development on Main Street. The revised
application (Exhibit I) included a porch that connected the two Main Street masses. This has
since been removed from the design per staff recommendation (Exhibit K).
The proposed porches and balconies also extend into the side setbacks. The side yard setback
variance criteria (Exhibit C) are different than the preservation related variations HPC often
considers. They require the determination of an unnecessary hardship being placed on the
applicant, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience. As a new construction project on a
generally flat lot, the Applicant has every opportunity to revise the porch and balcony design to
be more south-oriented and contained within the side yard setbacks. This would seem to be the
more desirable solution, as the views would be oriented toward Aspen Mountain and more
daylight instead of neighboring properties. Staff recognizes the Applicant’s desire to provide
outdoor space that is protected from the noise of Main Street, however staff is not supportive of
the side yard setback variances as there are no unique site conditions or circumstances that could
be considered a hardship.
P54
III.A.
210 W. Main Street
Staff memo
8.9.2017
4
Staff believes it is worth mentioning that many of the design issues may be a result of the
Applicant’s desire to provide an interior courtyard for the project. Although staff understands the
desire to provide outdoor space protected from Main Street and HPC was generally supportive of
this feature, staff questions whether the proposed design will result in a desirable space. Privacy,
views and sun are limited. At the May 31st meeting, some members of HPC suggested the use of
rooftop decks as a potential alternative to achieve common outdoor space. Being able to use the
space where the interior courtyard is located may provide additional opportunity to vary the
massing of the project and/or create a front yard that is a typical feature consistent with historic
development in the district.
Discussion of the other aspects of this project are summarized below and evaluated in more
detail in the staff memo from the May 31st HPC meeting (Exhibit J).
Height: The current design requires a height increase, but only for one additional foot above the
Code allowance, from 28 feet to 29 feet on the alley mass. The two smaller masses have heights
of 19 feet and 22 feet. A height of up to 32 feet may be granted by HPC through Commercial
Design Review1. 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 current design
requests a FAR increase to 1.25:1. With a more appropriate massing along Main Street and lower
heights across the project, staff believes that the current proposal reduces the potential impacts of
the development and is supportive of the FAR increase.
Other issues: The other items that require HPC approval include Demolition, Special Review for
a parking reduction of one space, and Residential Design Standard Review. HPC did not have
any concerns with these at previous meetings.
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 design features that do not support the characteristics of
historic development in the district and staff will look for significant improvement on these
aspects moving forward.
1 This is no longer permitted under the current Land Use Code.
P55
III.A.
210 W. Main Street
Staff memo
8.9.2017
5
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
Reduced Front Setback Yes
Setback Variances No
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends continuation to:
1. incorporate a sloped roof on one of the Main Street building masses
2. restudy the balconies and porches so that they are located out of the side yard setbacks
3. consider modifying the site plan to create a front yard similar to the historic development
in the district
EXHIBITS (UNLESS BOLDED, INCLUDED IN APRIL 26TH AND MAY 24TH PACKETS):
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
H. Variance Review Criteria
I. Application Update 7.17.17
J. Staff memo 5.31.17
K. Updated perspectives 8.2.17
P56
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, CONCEPTUAL
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, AND SETBACK VARIANCE APPROVALS 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 August 9, 2017, continued from April 26, 2017, May 24, 2017, May
31, 2017, June 28, 2017, and July 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.
P57
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 July 26, 2017, with the following
conditions:
1. The applicant shall re-design the porches and balconies to be entirely out of the side yard
setbacks.
2. Green roof systems are required on all structures.
3. HPC grants Special Review approval to reduce the front yard setback from ten (10) feet
to five (5) feet for porches and balconies only.
4. HPC grants Special Review approval to increase the maximum allowable cumulative
FAR to 1.25:1.
5. HPC grants Special Review approval for the reduction of one (1) parking space on-site.
Six (6) parking spaces shall be provided on-site.
6. HPC grants a maximum allowable height of 29 feet, pursuant to Section 26.412,
Commercial Design Review.
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.
P58
III.A.
Historic Preservation Commission
Resolution No. -, Series 2017
Page 3 of 3
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 9th day of August, 2017.
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
_________________________________ ____________________________________
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Jeffrey Halferty, Chair
Attest:
_________________________________
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
P59
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.
JULY 26TH UPDATE: The applicant is also requesting Special Review to reduce the
front yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet in order to accommodate larger porches and
balconies. Porches, porticos, and stoops are an important aspect within the guidelines
to the massing of structures and defining entries on Main Street. They add a one-story
element to the building front and help establish a uniform sense of human scale along
the block and tie the historic district together. Balconies provide important outdoor
space for the upper floor units and help to further break down the perceived mass of
the building. For these reasons, staff is supportive of the reduced front yard setback for
porches and balconies only and 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
P60
III.A.
210 W. Main Street
Exhibit D – Special Review
Page 2 of 3
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.
JULY 26TH UPDATE: Staff finds that the increased size of porches and balconies has
little to no additional impact to the surrounding uses. These features will likely serve as
a benefit to neighboring development by breaking down the scale of the proposed
development and creating more visual interest. 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.
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
P61
III.A.
210 W. Main Street
Exhibit D – Special Review
Page 3 of 3
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
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.
P62
III.A.
210 W. Main Street
Exhibit H – Variance
Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT H
VARIANCE
26.314.040. Standards applicable to variances.
A. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the
appropriate decision-making body shall make a finding that the following three (3)
circumstances exist:
1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and
policies of this Title and the Municipal Code; and
Staff Findings: The requested variances are side yard setback variances for balconies
and porches associated with a new affordable housing development. The Land Use
Code supports the development and livability of affordable housing, while the Mixed
Use zone district promotes standalone residential uses as a reflection of the historic
nature of the district. Although balconies and porches are not, certain features are
permitted to project into setbacks in recognition of the limited impact that these
features have on bulk and mass of a development. For a long time, balconies were
permitted to project up to 1/3 into the setback, however that allowance has recently
been removed from the Code. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use
of the parcel, building or structure; and
Staff Findings: The Code currently allows architectural projections that are
nonfunctional or ornamental to project into the setback by 18 inches. This allows
features such as roof overhangs or window sills to project into the setback, however
balconies are viewed as a functional feature and therefore are not permitted. The
Applicant is requesting only 18 inches into the setback for the balconies and porhces,
which would align with the maximum allowed for features that have a similar impact
on the massing of a structure. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would
deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone
district and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship, as distinguished from mere
inconvenience. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the
Board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply:
a) There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel,
building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings
in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or
b) Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied
by the terms of this Title and the Municipal Code to other parcels, buildings or
structures, in the same zone district.
Staff Findings: The subject property is a 6,000 square foot lot that is rectangular in
shape and mostly flat. The proposed development includes complete demolition and
new construction. There are no special conditions or circumstances which are
P63
III.A.
210 W. Main Street
Exhibit H – Variance
Page 2 of 2
unique to this parcel versus any other parcel in the Main Street Historic District or
Mixed Use zone district. The Applicant is requesting both Floor Area and height
increases, which would already provide for more development than the underlying
zoning allows by right without Special Review. The addition of porches and
balconies that encroach into the side yard setback would be a special privilege for
this property that would not be permitted for similar properties, particularly with an
increased Floor Area and height. Staff does not find this criterion to be met.
P64
III.A.
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
July 26, 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.
This project has been considered by HPC during two public hearings. The applicant has continually revised
the application to address HPC’s comments. On May 31, 2017, HPC provided the following direction:
1) Rethink the site plan/ add front porches along Main Street/ look at larger front setback.
The site plan has been altered to provide larger front porches for the ground level units facing Main
Street. The front porches for Units 102 and 103 extend 18” into the 10 ft. setback and require
setback variances. A large front porch is proposed between the modules at the center of the
P65
III.A.
210 West Main Street
Conceptual HPC Review
Revised 7/26/17
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
building facing Main Street. Required walkway width and a desire to maximize net livable area
within the units caused the front porch element to extend to the 5 ft. setback toward Main Street.
The building façade is on the 10 ft. setback line. A request for a front yard setback variance through
special review is requested as noted below. Setback variances for the porches and balconies on
the east and west elevations that extend 18” into the setback are requested, as the allowance of
18” into the setback for architectural elements does not apply to porches or balconies. Blue
highlights below show intrusion into setbacks. The existing buildings in the block have a variety of
front yard setbacks. The proposed slight intrusion for front porches softens the existing setbacks
(currently ranging from 0 ft. to 10 ft.).
2) Provide more architectural detail along Main Street and smaller modules.
Architectural detail, windows, and initial materials are more developed than previously shown to
HPC. The eastern module (at right below) is more contemporary than the western module facing
Main Street. The proposed window and material changes between the east and west module start
to represent the project as two separate buildings which reduces the scale of the building. The two
different modules better relates to the rhythm of smaller buildings along the west end of Main
Street which meets guidelines 7.14 and 7.15. A rendering will be presented to HPC on July 26th.
P66
III.A.
210 West Main Street
Conceptual HPC Review
Revised 7/26/17
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
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.
4) General consensus was that provided parking is adequate.
Parking is unchanged from May 31st. The proposed 6 parking spaces, including 1 accessible van
space, remains unchanged.
5) General consensus was that the flat roofs are ok.
Flat roofs are unchanged from May 31st. 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. The applicant further
studied the impact of gable roofs on the project and surrounding neighbors, paying close attention
to the Tyrolean Lodge’s rooms along the shared property line. A gable roof raises the height of the
building and presents snow shedding issues for walkways. The majority of HPC at the May 31st
meeting expressed support for flat roofs; therefore, the roof forms of the project are unchanged.
6) Addition height request is generally ok.
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
P67
III.A.
210 West Main Street
Conceptual HPC Review
Revised 7/26/17
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
along the east lot line. The minimum height of 29 ft. needed for a 3-story residential building is
requested with this 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.
P68
III.A.
210 West Main Street
Conceptual HPC Review
Revised 7/26/17
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
Unit Bed-
rooms
Unit
Net
livable
Assigned
Storage
Outside
Unit
Total Net
livable
Area
(including
storage)**
Minimum
Size
Requirement
%
reduction
Amount
over
minimum
counting
storage
Cat. FTE
101 2 846.1 159.7* 1005.8 900 6% 105.8 sf 3 2.25
102
(stacked
unit) 2 849.5 80 929.5 900 6% 29.5 sf 3 2.25
103 2 757.2 161* 918.2 900 16% 18.2 sf 3 2.25
201 2 839.3 80.5 919.8 900 7% 19.8 sf 3 2.25
202 2 848.8 80.5 929.3 900 6% 29.3 sf 3 2.25
203 2 756.7 80.1 836.8 900 16% -63.2 sf 3 2.25
301 2 848.8 80.9 929.7 900 6% 29.7 sf 3 2.25
302 2 868.9 81 949.9 900 3% 49.9 sf 3 2.25
TOTALS 16 7,419 18
* note: ADA units 101 and 103 each have 2 assigned 80 sf storage units on the basement level and
level 1.
** note: The recent 834 W. Hallam (Poppie’s) application counted exterior storage toward total net
livable area for each unit.
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 7,300 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)
• Special Review for front yard setback for front porch roofs (Exhibit 18)
• Side yard variance for porch overhangs of 18” (Exhibit 19)
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
P69
III.A.
210 West Main Street
Conceptual HPC Review
Revised 7/26/17
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 – 17 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
18 – Special Review for front yard setback.
19 – Variance request for side yard setback.
20 – updated drawings 7 – 26- 17
P70
III.A.
Exhibit 18 –
Special Review
210 W. Main St.
Page 1 of 3
Exhibit 18
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 reduce the front yard setback from 10 feet to 5
feet for front porch projections. The building façade sits at the 10 feet setback line. The applicant has
revised the project countless times to respond to HPC and Staff’s concerns. One reason for continuance at
the May 31st HPC meeting was for the addition of front porches along Main Street. The applicant has
added more prominent front porches facing Main Street to better relate to the historic residential context
of the District; however these elements require relief from the 10 feet required setback. The Main Street
Historic District permits a front yard setback of up to 5 feet through Special Review.
Figure 1: Existing setbacks within blockface. Arrow indicates subject property.
Note: Anabelle Inn – 0 ft. setback and Tyrolean – about 3 ft. setback.
0’
~3’
10’
P71
III.A.
Exhibit 18 –
Special Review
210 W. Main St.
Page 2 of 3
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.
Figure 2: Proposed setback reductions for front yard.
18” front porch
intrusion
5’ front
porch
intrusion
18” front porch
intrusion
P72
III.A.
Exhibit 18 –
Special Review
210 W. Main St.
Page 3 of 3
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. Street parking is readily available at nighttime.
P73
III.A.
Exhibit 19 –
Setback Variances
210 W. Main St.
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit 19
Setback Variances
Setback Variances: The following setback variances are requested:
East side yard: 5’ required, building façade is at 5’ but front porch and upper balconies
extend 18”
West side yard: 5’ required, building façade is at 5 ‘, but front porch and upper balconies
extend 18”
The property is located within the Main Street Historic District but is not a designated landmark. As such,
it is subject to the following review criteria for setback variances:
26.312.040.A Standards applicable to variances. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional
requirements of Title 26, the appropriate decision making body shall make a finding that the following
three (3) circumstances exist:
1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals and objectives of
this Title and the Municipal Code; and
2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of
the parcel, building or structure; and
3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive
the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district and would
cause the applicant unnecessary hardship, as distinguished from mere inconvenience. In
determining whether an applicant’s rights would be deprived, the Board shall consider
whether either of the following conditions apply:
a) There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building
or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same
zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or
b) Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by
the terms of this Title and the Municipal Code to other parcels, buildings or structures, in
the same zone district.
The rear elevation, shown below, highlights the front porches and balconies on the east and west
elevations that overhang 18” into the setback. The porches and balconies allow private outdoor open space
for the tenants. These elements are just large enough to place a chair. The elements only extend 18” into
the setback. The Land Use Code currently allows building eaves, bay windows, window sills, and similar
architectural projections to extend 18” into the setback; however, Planning does not consider the front
porch or balcony elements to fall under this provision. Previous Land Use Codes have allowed balconies to
extend 1/3 into the setback, but that allowance is no longer in the Code. The roof eave is permitted to
extend 18” as shown below.
P74
III.A.
Exhibit 19 –
Setback Variances
210 W. Main St.
Page 2 of 2
The requested variances of 18” is generally consistent with the goals of Title 26 and the Municipal Code
which promotes livability of affordable housing units. The requested 18” does not add bulk or mass to
the building, but provides usable outdoor space for the residents. Private porches and balconies are not
required for these units. The applicant feels strongly that a private outdoor space for each unit is
important for the livability of the project. The requested 18” is the minimum needed to accomplish a
small private outdoor space to fit a chair. Limiting the request to 18” is consistent with years past when
Planning allowed balconies and porches to utilize the 18” projection into the setback provision.
Figure 1: rear elevation showing projections into side setbacks.
P75
III.A.
KING LOUISE AHASPEN, COLORADOARCHITECTS ANDSTRUCTURAL ENGINEERSP.O. BOX 164023280 TWO RIVERS ROADBASALT, COLORADO 81621PHONE (970) 927-3167FAX (970) 927-4813THEODORE K GUYASSOCIATES PCISSUE #, 02/15/17TKGAP76III.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 Rev062917-JS-20170705.vwx
7/10/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016
NEW GROSS FAR
& DECK AREA
Concrete side walk (typ)Bike RackP77III.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 Rev062917-JS-20170705.vwx
7/10/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016
NEW NET
LIVABLE AREA
Concrete side walk (typ)Bike RackNET LIVABLE FLOOR AREAUNIT 101846.2 SFUNIT 102868.9 SFP78III.A.
A1.1
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 Rev071017-JS rev.vwx
7/10/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
11 X 17 DRAWINGS ARE SCALED BY HALF.DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016
LIVING
UNIT STORAGE
TRASH
UNIT STORAGE
DINING
KITCHEN
ADA BATH
BEDROOM 2BEDROOM 1
HALLPANTRY UNIT 101
UNIT 102
DINING
LIVING
24'-0"5'-0"37'-0"2'-2"
24'-0"21'-8"22'-6"50'-1 1/2"68'-2"
5 1/2"7'-8 1/2"3 1/2"3'-4 3/4"3 1/2"3'-4 3/4"3 1/2"7'-8 1/2"5 1/2"
2'-6"3 1/2"
3'
2'
3'
5'W. MAIN STREETALLEYXPARKING SPACE 2
PARKING SPACE 3
PARKING SPACE 4
PARKING SPACE 5
PARKING SPACE 6
HANDICAPPED
PARKING SPACE 1
5 1/2"10'-8 1/2"3 1/2"2'-0"3 1/2"10'-4 1/2"3 1/2"10'-4 1/2"3 1/2"14'-7"5 1/2"W/D
Concrete side walk (typ)Bike Rack
4'-10 1/2"16'-4 1/2"14'-5"KITCHENSTAIR
UP
10'-0"
21'-9"
5'-0 x 9'-0"
PORCH
3'-9 3/8"18'-0"5'-0 x 7'-6PORCHUPDN
PORCH
2 BDRM SOUTHUNIT 103
DINING
BEDROOM 2BEDROOM 1
BATH
BATH
LIVING
W/D
HALL
ENTRY KITCHEN5'-0 x 7'-6PORCHEDGE OF SITE
SETBACK
W. MAIN STREETALLEY5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"10'-0"
FRONT YARD SETBACK
SIDE YARD
SETBACK
REAR YARD SETBACK
SIDE YARD
SETBACK
SETBACK
SITE PLAN
1/4" = 1'-0"1a
NORTHLAWN
LAWN
LAWN
5'-0"7'-2"
SETBACK SETBACKPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
SETBACK
PROPERTY LINE846.1 NET LIVABLE
846.1 NET LIVABLE
STREET
TREES
REPLACE EXISTING LILACS
STREET
TREES
STREET
TREES
STREET
TREES
STREET
TREESP79 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 Rev062917-JS-20170705.vwx
7/10/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016
BASEMENT
LEVEL PLANP80
III.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 Rev062917-JS-20170705.vwx
7/10/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016
X
Concrete side walk (typ)Bike Rack
P81III.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 Rev062917-JS-20170705.vwx
7/10/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016P82
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 Rev062917-JS-20170705.vwx
7/10/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016P83 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
July 14 16103 Rev071417-JS.vwx
7/17/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016P84
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
July 14 16103 Rev071417-JS.vwx
7/17/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016P85 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 Rev062917-JS-20170705.vwx
7/10/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016P86
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 Rev062917-JS-20170705.vwx
7/10/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016P87 III.A.
P88III.A.
P89III.A.
P90III.A.
P91III.A.
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.
P92
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
P93
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
P94
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
P95
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
structures 1, 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.
P96
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.
P97
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.
P98
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.
P99
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 review 2. 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.
P100
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
P101
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
P102
III.A.
RIGHT ISOMETRIC MODELP103 III.A.
LEFT MODEL VIEWP104 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 Rev062917-JS-20170705.vwx
7/10/17
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
11 X 17 DRAWINGS ARE SCALED BY HALF.DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016
A9.5
FRONT MODEL VIEWP105 III.A.
209 E. Bleeker Street
Page 1 of 15
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 209 E. Bleeker Street- Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, Relocation,
Residential Design Standards, Floor Area Bonus, and Variations, PUBLIC
HEARING CONTINUED FROM JULY 26TH
DATE: August 9, 2017
______________________________________________________________________________
In June, HPC reviewed a project proposed at 209 E. Bleeker and continued it for restudy.
While the board indicated support for many aspects of the proposal, there was discussion
regarding variations to setbacks and floor area. There was some indication that the board
wished to see all setback variations removed from the project before a 500 square foot floor
area bonus would be considered to be appropriate. The premise, as staff understood it, was
that extra floor area allowed as an incentive for preservation was acceptable if it could be
accommodated within the building envelope established by setback requirements.
The applicant has restudied the project and proposes two alternatives; neither of which
remove the setback variations. In fact a new variation has been added along the rear of the
property, where the basement level is now 5’ from the rear lot line instead of 10’. In both
new alternatives, the design creates more separation between the above grade structures by
moving the historic resource 2’ forward of its historic location, to the minimum front
setback. No variance is required to do this. Also in both alternatives the applicant has
reduced the length of the new unit along the east lot line so that a previous conflict with a
Residential Design Standard limiting that length to 50’ is eliminated.
Aside from those changes, the new information provided for this meeting is illustrated in
plan form, where portions of the new unit to be deleted are shown in red and portions being
added are shown in blue. The applicant requests either a 500 square foot bonus or a 400
square foot bonus.
Following this summary is the staff memo from June 28th, without edits. Our
recommendation at that time was to continue the project in order to reduce the floor area
bonus request to approximately 250 square feet and to eliminate the Residential Design
Standards conflict mentioned above. At that time there were some additional drawings
needed and some lightwells to be relocated to meet code requirements and these were
mentioned as reasons for continuation. The drawings and lightwell tweaks were
accomplished and are no longer issues for staff.
Totally eliminating the setback variations requested in this project may be unreasonable or
undesirable. The historic house has always been located very close to the west property line.
It was built 1’ from that line and after the new basement is built, it will be 2’ from the west.
This causes the project to not meet the minimum west sideyard. It also causes the project to
not meet the minimum combined sideyard of 15’, since this measurement is taken from the
“worst case scenario” on each side so that the 2’ setback on the west would need to be
countered with a 13’ swath left undeveloped along the east.
P106
III.B.
209 E. Bleeker Street
Page 2 of 15
Staff remains more concerned with an excessive amount of floor area on the site, between
the additional square footage allowed for a duplex instead of single family (a 360 square
foot increase) and the full 500 square foot bonus request. We recommend that HPC
continue the project again, indicating that the floor area bonus request must be reduced to
250 square feet.
In the alternative, if HPC wishes to acknowledge the quality of the project with the full
bonus, we recommend that 250 square feet of the floor area allocated to the property must
be converted into a Transferable Development Right (requiring approval by City Council)
and sold for use on a non-historic site.
A third option is for HPC to require that the new unit itself meet the minimum sideyard
and combined sideyard requirements, providing at least 5’ on each side and a combined
total of 15’ on the sides. The placement of the Victorian would not be factored in.
A letter from the property owner has been added to this packet as Exhibit D.
If HPC wishes to award an approval to one of the alternatives provided for this hearing,
conditions should include:
1. This approval allows for the historic home to be raised above its current elevation. Once re-
grading has occurred, the finished floor of the historic home may be no more than 12” above
the new finished grade. Before and after topographical elevations must be provided to
confirm this condition is met at Final review.
2. As part of a building permit review, the applicant will be required to submit a report from a
licensed engineer, architect or housemover demonstrating that the structure can be moved,
and the method for moving and protecting the structure must be submitted with the building
permit application. In addition the applicant must provide a bond, letter of credit or cashier’s
check in the amount of $30,000 per cabin to be held by the City during the duration of the
relocation process. The applicant must relocate the structure as a whole and may not
undertake demolition of the walls and roof until the building is set on a new foundation. The
goal is to maintain the greatest possible integrity of the remaining historic fabric in place.
3. No stormwater features, including retention areas or drywell covers, will be permitted
forward of the front façade of the historic resource.
4. HPC grants a 3’ setback reduction for the west sideyard along the historic resource, an 8’
combined sideyard reduction and a 5’ rear setback reduction for a deck over the garage and
for the basement level. Regarding the west yard, the applicant must demolish the concrete
block wall on that lot line in order to open up a view of that side of the house given the
minimal setback.
5. HPC grants a waiver to the Residential Design Standards Build-to Requirement.
6. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1)
year of July 26, 2017, 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.
P107
III.B.
209 E. Bleeker Street
Page 3 of 15
The balance of this memo was provided to HPC on June 28th.
SUMMARY: 209 East Bleeker is a designated landmark located in Aspen’s West End
neighborhood. The home belonged to the Hayes family for 60 years. In 2015/2016, HPC
reviewed a proposal by a new owner to renovate the home, which was approved and proceeded
to building permit. The property was then sold again and the most recent buyer has a revised
proposal which requires a new board review.
This 6,000 square foot, R-6, Medium Density Residential property has an allowable floor area of
3,240 sf for a single family home or 3,600 square feet for a duplex, which is proposed.
Demolition of non-historic construction, relocation of the resource onto a new foundation, a floor
area bonus, setback and Residential Design Standards variations are requested from HPC.
This historic resource on this property was significantly altered decades ago to provide more
space for the Hayes’ expanding family. A second floor was added on top of what was a classic
Aspen miner’s cottage. A c. 1950s photo is below left and a current photo is below right. There
is enough historic fabric, along with photographs and maps available to inform the restoration of
the resource, but it will admittedly require a good deal of reconstruction.
APPLICANT: Cathedral Cutthroat, LLC, represented by Z Group Architects.
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-20-002.
ADDRESS: 209 E. Bleeker Street, Lots C, D and a portion of Lot B, Block 73, City and
Townsite of Aspen Colorado
ZONING: R-6
P108
III.B.
209 E. Bleeker Street
Page 4 of 15
DEMOLITION
The applicant has provided photographs of the existing structure, indicating areas to be
demolished. These demolished areas include an addition to the house on the east side of the
original structure, walls which were built to infill historic porches on the front and southeast
corner of the building, and the entire upper floor/roof of the building. Following are the criteria
for demolition.
26.415.100.4. 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.
Staff Response: The applicant proposes demolition of the non-historic additions to the
landmark in order to restore the original form of the building. Historic photographs are available
to guide the restoration and the demolition effort. For instance, the 1904 Sanborn map shown
below left identifies the original footprint of the home, and indicates the location of the original
front porch (shown with a dashed line.) The map also indicates that the small shed currently
located in the southeast corner of the site, shown below right, is not the same as the larger
structure that sat at the rear of Lot D historically. This low head height building appears to have
been a toolshed or playhouse and is proposed to be removed.
P109
III.B.
209 E. Bleeker Street
Page 5 of 15
The photo below shows the east side of the home before an addition
was constructed along that wall.
Staff finds that the review criteria for demolition of the non-historic aspects of the building are
met and recommends approval, however, the applicant must supplement the application with a
west elevation of the existing house (difficult to document due to the proximity to a concrete
block wall) and floor plans indicating the areas of demolition. There is historic framing and a
few historic doors and windows in the areas to be retained. Those elements will be required to
be preserved in place.
P110
III.B.
209 E. Bleeker Street
Page 6 of 15
RELOCATION
The historic home appears to be in its original location, although a basement was built beneath it
several decades ago. The foundation has a number of unsatisfactory structural conditions that
require it to be rebuilt.
Relocation of a historic buildings will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one
of the following standards:
1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not
affect the character of the historic district; or
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it
is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or
property; or
3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the
character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely
affect the integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish
the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and
Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met:
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the
physical impacts of relocation;
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and
preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary
financial security.
Staff Response: Lifting the house for a new foundation is a necessity. In the process, the
applicant intends to shift the house about 9” west of its current location, so that instead of being
1.2’ away from the west lot line the house will be 2’ away from it. Anytime a structure is this
close to a property line, there are numerous building code requirements that come into effect to
slow fire from travelling from one building to another. The applicant will be required to add
additional layers of drywall to the interior of the structure and protect the eave. No windows will
be allowed on this façade, which in this unusual case will be acceptable because there are no
west facing windows on the historic photo shown on the first page of this memo. Staff
recommends HPC discuss the possibility of placing the house 3’ from the lot line and/or
requiring the demolition of the concrete block wall along the property line in order to expose
some view down the side of the resource. The distance between the east side of the historic
house and the west side of the new house would likely be reduced from about 9’ to 8’.
P111
III.B.
209 E. Bleeker Street
Page 7 of 15
CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT
The application notes the fact that the house is sitting rather low in comparison to the street and
alley, which have been built up over the years. Relocation will allow the house to be set at a
more proper elevation, with new grading of the site. The application indicates that the floor level
of the house will be just over a foot above grade, which is appropriate. More information about
the treatment of the exposed foundation will be required at Final review.
The applicant will be required to provide a financial assurance in the amount of $30,000, to be
held by the City to provide for the safe relocation and repair of the building if needed. The
applicant must relocate the structure as a whole and may not undertake demolition of the walls
and roof until the building is set on a new foundation. The goal is to maintain the greatest
possible integrity of the remaining historic fabric in place. Staff recommends relocation be
approved, with the conditions mentioned above.
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows.
Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project’s
conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This
report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the
reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis
report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project’s conformance
with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve,
disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional
information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny.
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. Given the extent of the project,
HPC’s approval will be subject to Call-Up review by City Council.
Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the site plan, height, scale, massing and
proportions of a proposal. A list of the relevant HPC design guidelines is attached as “Exhibit
A.”
The proposal before HPC is to reconstruct the miner’s cottage for use as a residence, and to build
a new home along the east and rear of the historic resource. The units have full basements which
abut below grade.
In terms of site plan, the historic house will remain essentially in its historic location. The
proposed new structure does not attach the resource above grade, which is commendable.
P112
III.B.
209 E. Bleeker Street
Page 8 of 15
VARIANCES: FAR BONUS, SETBACK VARIATIONS, RDS VARIANCES
Placement of a second structure on the lot does entail setback variations, which are discussed
later in the memo.
The new HPC design guidelines which are applicable to this project require some level of
discussion of stormwater design at Conceptual review. While engineering may not be the main
focus of the design team at this point, staff has found that waiting until permit to design the
system often ends up with unexpected features in the foreground of the historic structure. Since
information has not been provided, staff recommends a condition of approval that no stormwater
features, including retention areas or drywell covers, will be permitted forward of the front
façade of the historic resource.
Reviewing the floor plans, there are two minor adjustments that will be needed due to zoning
requirements and design standards. First, duplex units can only abut along a common, unpierced
wall. The central lightwell which is meant to serve both units below grade provides an
opportunity for the two units to be combined illegally at some point in the future. In order to
avoid that scenario, a solid concrete wall must be added to separate access.
Regarding the lightwell which is proposed along the west façade of the new unit, the Residential
Design Standards require all lightwells to be recessed behind the front most wall of the unit
which they serve. This lightwell encroaches past the façade, alongside the front porch and must
be moved southward.
Looking at the height, scale, massing and proportions of the proposal, staff finds that the
applicant is successfully addressing the guidelines. The height of the ground floor on the historic
structure and new structure are very similar, and the front porches relate strongly to each other.
The upper floor of the new house is not taller than the lower level, and the 12:12 roof pitches,
street facing gable ends and east-west cross gable all relate well to the resource. The outdoor
deck on the new house faces the alley, allowing the new building to be relatively simple in
character behind the resource.
To create compatibility between the units, the applicant has indicated that they are relating in
form and materials and will depart from the Victorian vocabulary with their fenestration, to be
discussed in more detail at Final review. Staff finds that the Conceptual design guidelines are
met, however we have some objections to the award of a full floor area bonus (which contributes
to the size of the project), discussed below.
The application includes requests for a 500 square foot floor area bonus, Setback variations, and
Residential Design Standards variations.
26.415.110.F. Floor area bonus.
1. In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional
square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic
properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that:
P113
III.B.
209 E. Bleeker Street
Page 9 of 15
a) The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines;
b) The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is
incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building;
c) The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance;
d) The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic
building's form, materials or openings;
e) The construction materials are of the highest quality;
f) An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building;
g) The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or
h) Notable historic site and landscape features are retained.
2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent
upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits
of the proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic
preservation practices. Projects that demonstrate multiple elements described
above will have a greater likelihood of being awarded additional floor area.
3. The decision to grant a floor area bonus for major development projects will occur
as part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Subsection
26.415.070.D. The floor area bonus may also be approved as part of a Historic
Landmark Lot Split Review.
4. Floor area bonuses are cumulative. A property shall receive no more than 500
square feet total.
Staff Response: The applicant requests the 500 sf floor area bonus. Extensive
restoration/reconstruction of the miner’s cabin is proposed. Historic photographs are available to
inform the reconstruction but many details will need to be based on general architectural details
of the Victorian era. The diminished level of historic integrity for this building calls into
question whether the entire 500 sf Bonus is appropriate. In reality, this particular project is
mostly new construction, such that the cost and effort of preserving historic materials is not as
much of a factor.
The application is already receiving 360 square feet of additional floor area, and a second unit on
the site, since landmarks are able to have a duplex on a 6,000 square foot lot where other
properties are not. Significant affordable housing and other fee waivers will be part of the permit
process.
Staff does find that floor area bonus criteria a, b, c, d, e, and f are arguably met. The design
appears to accommodate the requested square footage appropriately, but the new structure is in
fact about three times the size of the Victorian above grade. The restored building will add value
to the neighborhood as a representation of a miner’s cottage.
Staff recommends that HPC discuss a reduced bonus, perhaps half, in light of other benefits that
are available to the project.
P114
III.B.
209 E. Bleeker Street
Page 10 of 15
26.415.110.C. Variances. Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving
designated properties to create development that is more consistent with the character of
the historic property or district than what would be required by the underlying zoning's
dimensional standards.
1. The HPC may grant variances of the Land Use Code for designated properties to
allow:
a) Development in the side, rear and front setbacks;
b) Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between
buildings;
c) Up to five percent (5%) additional site coverage;
d) Less public amenity than required for the on-site relocation of commercial historic
properties.
2. In granting 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.
The applicant requests the following variations (bold numbers indicate a variation request):
Required Provided
East side yard setback 5’ 5’
West side yard setback 5’ 2’
Combined side yard setback 15’ 7’
Rear yard setback 5’ required for garage;
10’ required for living space
and decks
5’ for garage;
10’ for living space above and
below grade
5’ for a deck on top of the garage
Staff Response: Staff is supportive of a west sideyard setback variation to allow the historic
resource to sit 2-3’ from the west property line, close to the existing location. Staff is also
supportive of a combined sideyard setback variation, which will be measured from the smallest
distance from property line to a structure on each side, meaning 5’ provided on the east and 2’
provided on the west totalling 7’ of combined sideyard. Finally, because pushing the mass and
activity of the new house towards the alley and away from the historic resource is appropriate,
staff supports a variation to allow a rear deck to be 5’ closer to the alley than typically permitted.
26.410 Residential Design Standards. The Residential Design Standards apply to most
residential development throughout Aspen.
P115
III.B.
209 E. Bleeker Street
Page 11 of 15
An application requesting a variation from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate to
the review board that the variation, if granted would:
a) Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the
standard as indicated in the intent statement for that standard, as well as the
general intent statements in Section 26.410.010.A1-3; or
b) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific
constraints.
The proposal as designed includes two RDS variations; Articulation of Building Mass and Build-
to Requirement. In order to avoid a variation related to lightwells, staff has mentioned earlier in
the memo that the applicant must shift the location of a lightwell serving the basement below the
new unit. At Final review, Residential Design Standards concerning fenestration will be
considered. The General intent statements of the guidelines are:
The specific standards for Articulation of Building Mass read:
P116
III.B.
209 E. Bleeker Street
Page 12 of 15
P117
III.B.
209 E. Bleeker Street
Page 13 of 15
The language related to Build-to Line reads:
Staff response: With regard to Articulation of Building Mass, staff finds that a variation is not
appropriate. The applicant has three design options to meet the requirements to reduce the length
of continuous sidewall along the east property line. The maximum unbroken length of wall that
is permitted is 50,’ not including the front porch. The applicant proposes 55.’ Staff has
consistently upheld this standard on other residential properties and does not support a variation
in this case.
Adhering to the Build-to Requirement would mean that the new house would have to be placed
almost in alignment with the historic resource. While this would not necessarily be
inappropriate, staff does prefer the deeper front setback of the new house, which sends the
message that this unit is to some extent secondary. The applicant also has to recess the new
house due to trees at the front of the site.
Staff supports HPC granting a variation on Build-to Requirement.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff has suggested a number of areas of restudy on the
project, which requires a continuation and resubmittal of drawings. Recommended amendments
to the project and/or likely conditions of approval are:
P118
III.B.
209 E. Bleeker Street
Page 14 of 15
1. Provide a representation of the west elevation of the existing house indicating proposed
demolition.
2. Provide floor plans of the existing house indicating proposed demolition.
3. This approval allows for the historic home to be raised 12-18” above its current elevation.
Once re-grading has occurred, the finished floor of the historic home may be no more
than 12” above the new finished grade. Before and after topographical elevations must
be provided to HPC, to be included in this Resolution.
4. As part of a building permit review, the applicant will be required to submit a report from
a licensed engineer, architect or housemover demonstrating that the structure can be
moved, and the method for moving and protecting the structure must be submitted with
the building permit application. In addition the applicant must provide a bond, letter of
credit or cashier’s check in the amount of $30,000 per cabin to be held by the City during
the duration of the relocation process. The applicant must relocate the structure as a
whole and may not undertake demolition of the walls and roof until the building is set on
a new foundation. The goal is to maintain the greatest possible integrity of the remaining
historic fabric in place.
5. No stormwater features, including retention areas or drywell covers, will be permitted
forward of the front façade of the historic resource.
6. The lightwell in the center of the property must be divided into two separate lightwells;
one for each unit. The lightwell divider must be a concrete wall.
7. In order to meet the Residential Design Standards, the applicant must shift a lightwell on
the northwest side of the new residence so that it is aligned with or located behind the
north façade of the new residence.
8. Staff recommends that HPC discuss a reduced bonus, perhaps half, in light of other
benefits that are available to the project.
9. Staff supports the granting of a 2-3’ setback requirement for the west sideyard, a 7’
combined sideyard and a 5’ rear setback requirement for a deck over the garage.
Regarding the west yard, staff recommends demolition of the concrete block wall sitting
close to the house in order to open up a view of that side of the house given the minimal
setback.
10. Staff supports HPC granting a variation on Build-to Requirement but not Articulation of
Building Mass.
11. 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:
Exhibit A: Relevant design guidelines
Exhibit B: Application text provided for July 26, 2017
Exhibit C: Application drawings provided for July 26, 2017
Exhibit D: Letter from property owner
P119
III.B.
209 E. Bleeker Street
Page 15 of 15
P120
III.B.
pg. 1
2015 HP Design Guidelines
Exhibit A: 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.
1.3 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.
• 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.
P121
III.B.
pg. 2
2015 HP Design Guidelines
• 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.
3.2 Preserve the position, number, and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall.
• Enclosing a historic window is inappropriate.
• Do not change the size of an original window opening.
3.7 Adding new openings on a historic structure is generally not allowed.
• Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear or secondary walls.
• New windows should be similar in scale to the historic openings on the building, but should in
some way be distinguishable as new, through the use of somewhat different detailing, etc.
• Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a façade.
• Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character defining façade will negatively affect
the integrity of a structure.
4.1 Preserve historically significant doors.
• Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These include the door, door
frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware, detailing, transoms and flanking
sidelights.
• Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances.
• If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be reversible so that the
door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place, in its historic position.
• Previously enclosed original doors should be reopened when possible.
4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening.
• Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height.
4.5 Adding new doors on a historic building is generally not allowed.
• Place new doors in any proposed addition rather than altering the historic resource.
• Greater flexibility in installing a door in a new location may be considered on rear or secondary
walls.
• A new door in a new location should be similar in scale and style to historic openings on the
building and should be a product of its own time.
• Preserve the historic ratio of openings to solid wall on a façade. Significantly increasing the
openings on a character defining façade negatively affects the integrity of a structure.
5.4 If reconstruction is necessary, match the original in form, character and detail.
• Match original materials.
• When reconstructing an original porch or balcony without historic photographs, use dimensions
and characteristics found on comparable buildings. Keep style and form simple with minimal, if
any, decorative elements.
P122
III.B.
pg. 3
2015 HP Design Guidelines
5.5 If new steps are to be added, construct them out of the same primary materials used on
the original, and design them to be in scale with the porch or balcony
• Steps should be located in the original location.
• Step width should relate to the scale of entry doors, spacing between posts, depth of deck, etc.
• Brick, red sandstone, grey concrete, or wood are appropriate materials for steps.
6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features are required to be based on
original designs.
• The design should be substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a
misrepresentation of the building’s heritage.
• When reconstruction of an element is impossible because there is no historical evidence, develop
a compatible new design that is a simplified interpretation of the original, and maintains similar
scale, proportion and material.
6.5 Do not guess at “historic” designs for replacement parts.
• Where scars on the exterior suggest that architectural features existed, but there is no other physical
or photographic evidence, then new features may be designed that are similar in character to related
buildings.
• Using ornate materials on a building or adding new conjectural detailing for which there is no
documentation is inappropriate.
7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof.
• Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Preserve the orientation and slope of the roof as seen from
the street.
• Retain and repair original and decorative roof detailing.
• Where the original roof form has been altered, consider restoration.
7.2 Preserve the original eave depth.
• Overhangs contribute to the scale and detailing of a historic resource.
• AspenModern properties typically have very deep or extremely minimal overhangs that are key
character defining features of the architectural style.
7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices.
• Skylights and solar panels are generally not allowed on a historic structure. These elements may
be appropriate on an addition.
7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they are made non-functional.
• Reconstruct a missing chimney when documentation exists.
9.2 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
• In general, on-site relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in
a historic district.
• In a district, where numerous adjacent historic structures may exist, the way that buildings were
placed on the site historically, and the open yards visible from the street are characteristics that
should be respected in new development.
• Provide a figure ground study of the surrounding parcels to demonstrate the effects of a building
relocation.
• In some cases, the historic significance of the structure, the context of the site, the construction
technique, and the architectural style may make on-site relocation too impactful to be appropriate.
It must be demonstrated that on-site relocation is the best preservation alternative in order for
approval to be granted.
P123
III.B.
pg. 4
2015 HP Design Guidelines
• If relocation would result in the need to reconstruct a substantial area of the original exterior
surface of the building above grade, it is not an appropriate preservation option.
9.3 Site a relocated structure in a position similar to its historic orientation.
• It must face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. In general, a forward movement,
rather than a lateral movement is preferred. HPC will consider setback variations where
appropriate.
• A primary structure may not be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in
front of it.
• Be aware of potential restrictions against locating buildings too close to mature trees. Consult with
the City Forester early in the design process. Do not relocate a building so that it becomes obscured
by trees.
9.4 Position a relocated structure at its historic elevation above grade.
• Raising the finished floor of the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable if needed
to address drainage issues. A substantial change in position relative to grade is inappropriate.
• Avoid making design decisions that require code related alterations which could have been avoided.
In particular, consider how the relationship to grade could result in non-historic guardrails, etc.
9.5 A new foundation shall appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation.
• On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a
miner’s cottage where there is no evidence that one existed historically is out of character and is
not allowed.
• Exposed concrete or painted metal flashing are generally appropriate.
• Where a stone or brick foundation existed historically, it must be replicated, ideally using stone
salvaged from the original foundation as a veneer. The replacement must be similar in the cut of
the stone and design of the mortar joints.
• New AspenModern foundations shall be handled on a case by case basis to ensure preservation of
the design intent.
9.6 Minimize the visual impact of lightwells.
• The size of any lightwell that faces a street should be minimized.
• Lightwells must be placed so that they are not immediately adjacent to character defining features,
such as front porches.
• Lightwells must be protected with a flat grate, rather than a railing or may not be visible from a
street.
• Lightwells that face a street must abut the building foundation and generally may not “float” in
the landscape except where they are screened, or on an AspenModern site.
10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed.
• For Aspen Victorian properties, HPC generally relies on the 1904 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps to
determine which portions of a building are historically significant and must be preserved.
• HPC may insist on the removal of non-historic construction that is considered to be detrimental to
the historic resource in any case when preservation benefits or variations are being approved.
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.
P124
III.B.
pg. 5
2015 HP Design Guidelines
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
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.
10.8 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.
P125
III.B.
pg. 6
2015 HP Design Guidelines
• 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.
11.1 Orient the new building to the street.
• Aspen Victorian buildings should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional
grid pattern.
• AspenModern alignments shall be handled case-by-case.
• Generally, do not set the new structure forward of the historic resource. Alignment of their front
setbacks is preferred. An exception may be made on a corner lot or where a recessed siting for the
new structure is a better preservation outcome.
11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using
a front porch.
• The front porch shall be functional, and used as the means of access to the front door.
• A new porch must be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally.
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale and proportion with the historic
buildings on a parcel.
• Subdivide larger masses into smaller “modules” that are similar in size to the historic buildings on
the original site.
• Reflect the heights and proportions that characterize the historic resource.
11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building.
• The primary plane of the front shall not appear taller than the historic structure.
11.5 The intent of the historic landmark lot split is to remove most of the development potential
from the historic resource and place it in the new structure(s).
• This should be kept in mind when determining how floor area will be allocated between structures
proposed as part of a lot split.
11.6 Design a new structure to be recognized as a product of its time.
• Consider these three aspects of a new building; form, materials, and fenestration. A project
must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from the
historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design
response.
• When choosing to relate to building form, use forms that are similar to the historic resource.
• When choosing to relate to materials, use materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those
used historically on the site and use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of
human scale
• When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that are similar in size and shape
to those of the historic resource.
11.7 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
• This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
• Overall, details shall be modest in character.
P126
III.B.
P127
III.B.
P128III.B.
P129III.B.
P130III.B.
P131III.B.
P132III.B.
P133III.B.
P134III.B.
P135III.B.
P136III.B.
P137III.B.
P138III.B.
P139III.B.
P140III.B.
P141III.B.
P142III.B.
P143III.B.
From: Andy Fromm
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 1:59 PM
To: Seth Hmielowski
Subject: Hayes Historic FAR request
I purchased the Hayes House property at 209 E Bleeker with my wife Laurie Bomba. The
property came with an HPC-approved design for 500 feet of FAR. Since then, we have created a
better architectural design that improves the property in the views of the City of Aspen, the
neighbors and preserving the historical asset. Specifically, we are:
• Moving the historic cabin closer to the street to make it more prominent per HPC comments.
• Keeping it roughly 10’ from the new structure so that it looks like a stand-alone cabin.
• Raising the elevation of the historic cabin so it better relates to the street and sidewalk.
• Improving the grade which improves site drainage.
• Removing the concrete-block wall which is unsightly and non-conforming.
None of these improvements were included in the design that had been approved by the HPC at
the time of purchase.
As you can imagine, retaining the historic cabin is expensive. Picking up the historic structure,
protecting it and resetting it on a new foundation is just the tip of the iceberg. In order to make
this project cost effective, we elected to make it a multi-family residence. We are building a new
home for ourselves and selling the historic cabin to my brother, Dan Fromm and his family.
We understand that our request for a duplex is a different project and this is a different
review. We also believe that this newly proposed project will better preserve the integrity and
value of the historic cabin. Our proposal does require a variance for the combined side setbacks
of 15 feet (which is a less restrictive variance than was approved).
Per the request of the HPC, we are submitting a 400 foot and a 500 foot request. The difference
between these two requests gets Laurie and I approximately 3000, vs. 3100 feet in the new home
we hope to build.
Finally, I would like the committee to know that we are attempting to build an environmentally
friendly structure including reclaimed materials, solar energy and hopefully geothermal
exchange. (In 2009, we renovated a 50,000 foot office building for my Kansas City-based
company, Service Management Group (SMG). The building is on the historical register and we
achieved LEED Gold environmental certification).
Like you, we appreciate historic structures. Based on the improvements proposed, we are
requesting the full 500 square foot bonus. Our proposal for preserving the historic structure and
making the outlined upgrades to the property are significantly better and more costly than the
already approved plans. Granting the full 500 foot bonus will have no adverse impact on the
neighbors or the city of Aspen, and it improves the historic asset dramatically. Granting this
request will help offset the financial burden of saving the historic cabin and would ensure that
the Hayes House will forever be an historic asset for the city of Aspen to enjoy. I wish I could
be there to make this request in person, but work obligations are keeping me away.
Respectfully submitted,
Andy Fromm & Laurie Bomba
P144
III.B.
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 415 E. Hyman Avenue- Minor Development, View plane exemption, Public
Hearing
DATE: August 9, 2017
______________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY: 415 E. Hyman Avenue was built in 1972, shortly before the Commercial Core
Historic District was created.
A fourth floor condominium unit in the building has recently been purchased, and a full remodel
of the interior is underway. The owner is interested in replacing the three street-facing windows
and adding new windows on the east and west sides of the unit. Staff determined that the work
was beyond the scope permitted for a Certificate of No Negative Effect.
HPC is asked to conduct Minor Development review and to acknowledge a Main Street View
Plane exemption for this project, since it does not alter the form of the subject building.
APPLICANT: White River Holdings, LLC, represented by Alius Design Corp. and
BendonAdams.
ADDRESS: 415 E. Hyman Avenue, Roaring Fork Condominiums, Unit 1, City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado.
PARCEL ID: 2737-182-16-101.
ZONING: CC, Commercial Core.
MINOR DEVELOPMENT
Because this property is located in a historic district, HPC design review is required, and since
the use of the property is commercial, Commercial Design Review is also needed. The design
guidelines for these processes are one and the same, and the scope of work involved in this
application is limited, so the process has been identified to be Minor Development review.
The procedure for a Minor Development Review is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal
materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project’s conformance with the design
guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC
with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve,
disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will
review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to
determine the project’s conformance with the Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve,
P145
IV.A.
2
disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information
necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall
issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall issue a
Development Order. The HPC decision shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a
landowner within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property in accordance with the
procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316.
Staff Response: The applicant requests approval to replace three existing windows on the front
of the structure with matching new windows, except that the existing windows are wood and the
proposed new windows are clad. Staff does not object to the metal clad exterior given the height
of these windows above the pedestrian vantage point. This was permitted in the recent window
replacement project at the Hotel Jerome. On a non-historic building, this request is viewed as
normal maintenance.
Regarding the request for new windows; four facing west and one facing east, HPC needs to
consider the relevant design guidelines found in the Commercial, Lodging and Historic
District Standards and Guidelines. Only a few guidelines are relevant in staff’s opinion. They
are listed in Exhibit A, specifically guidelines 1.22, 1.23, 1.35, 2.3, 2.8, 2.12 and 2.14.
Staff finds the proposal as designed to be in conflict with the following guidelines:
P146
IV.A.
3
In general, window openings are not common on party walls where historic commercial
buildings abut each other in the downtown core. There are a few examples, for instance the Red
Onion. There are more examples of windows appearing on alley facades. On buildings such as
312 S. Galena (Prada), the sidewall faces the alley and there numerous windows. The pattern
staff observes in all of these instances is that the secondary windows are identical in design and
spacing to the street-facing windows. Staff finds this characteristic to be lacking in the 415 E.
Hyman application. The side windows don’t match each other on the east and west facades and
do not match the street façade. On the west, the windows must be fire-rated and cannot be
operable, but they could be more similar to the street-facing windows.
Staff recommends HPC require a redesign of the east and west windows. We recommend that
they be set back from the front façade a distance at least equal to their height. We recommend
the east and west windows be the same overall size as the street-facing windows, that they match
in design (even if the east window is an operable casement), and that they are spaced consistently
with the front windows. Staff recommends the applicant provide this re-design by Tuesday,
August 8th at noon, so that the board may approve it at the hearing. Otherwise, staff recommends
continuation to bring the proposal into compliance with the design guidelines.
Regarding view plane, City Council has recently adopted code amendments affecting how
development is regulated within view planes. There are seven designated view planes in the
City. The location and extent of the view planes have not changed at all, but now development
within the view planes is treated differently depending on whether the subject site falls within a
defined “foreground,” “midground,” or “background,” relative to where the view plane
originates. This project falls in the midground of the Main Street View Plane.
The amended Municipal Code states that “any addition or remodel of an existing structure that
does not change or decreases a building’s height at any point or visible mass from the view plane
reference point,” may proceed directly to zoning compliance check or building permit review.
______________________________________________________________________________
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
· approve the application,
· approve the application with conditions,
· disapprove the application, or
P147
IV.A.
4
· continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
______________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC require redesign as noted in this memo.
Exhibits:
A. Design Guidelines
B. Application text and drawings
P148
IV.A.
Materials and Details
In the 19th Century, Aspen had a limited range of
architectural materials: red brick, painted wood,
glass, and locally sourced sandstone. In the mid-
century the palette expanded to include natural
wood, stucco, river rock and moss rock, metal,
concrete block, and bricks of other tones. It is
important to maintain a relationship to the existing
material palette evident in the general vicinity
while allowing some new materials and material
technology to be used.
The color palette of natural materials throughout
the commercial and lodging neighborhoods
represents Aspen’s environment, with browns
and reds being the predominant colors. High
quality materials that relate to the context of the
neighborhood and the building type are important.
Carefully consider existing color schemes and
textures within a neighborhood before selecting
materials. Paint color is variable and is not subject
to review.
Introducing a new material may require other
aspects of the architecture to show restraint.
Materials must have a proven performance in
Aspen’s extreme climate.
1.22 Complete and accurate identification of
materials is required.
•Provide drawings that identify the palette of materials,
specifications for the materials, and location on the
proposed building as part of the application.
•Physical material samples shall be presented to the
review body. An onsite mock-up prior to installation
may be required.
1.23 Building materials shall have these features:
•Convey the quality and range of materials found in
the current block context or seen historically in the
Character Area.
•Convey pedestrian scale.
•Enhance visual interest through texture, application,
and/or dimension.
•Be non-reflective. Shiny or glossy materials are not
appropriate as a primary material.
•Have proven durability and weathering characteristics
within Aspen’s climate.
•A material with an integral color shall be a neutral
color. Some variation is allowed for secondary
materials.
1.24 Introducing a new material, material application,
or material finish to the existing streetscape
may be approved by HPC or P&Z if the following
criteria are met:
•Innovative building design.
•Creative material application that positively
contributes to the streetscape.
•Environmentally sustainable building practice.
•Proven durability.
1.25 Architecture that reflects corporate branding
of the tenant is not permitted.
Materials are required to convey the range and quality found in
the Character Area.
Sustainable design is encouraged through
materials, energy efficiency, fenestration, site
planning, and thoughtful open space. AACP
Policy I.1 Achieve sustainable growth practices to
ensure the long term viability and stability of our
community and diverse visitor based economy.
Page 20 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P149
IV.A.
Remodel
Upgrading an existing building through a remodel
can improve energy efficiency, building function and
appearance, and meet community goals to reduce
construction waste. Altering specific features of a
building, such as replacing exterior materials or
constructing an addition to an existing building,
is considered a remodel project. A project that
reaches the demolition threshold as defined in the
Land Use Code is not considered a remodel. It
is important to carefully plan a remodel to meet
the design guidelines and neighborhood character
where feasible. Gradually bringing remodel projects
into conformance with design guidelines reinforces
neighborhood character.
These guidelines apply to projects that are
proposing changes to an existing building but do
not reach the demolition threshold.
1.33 All remodel projects shall meet Standards
1.22 and 1.23.
1.34 Consider updating windows, doors, and/
or primary entrances to better relate to the
Character Area and pedestrian experience.
1.35 Design alterations to relate to the existing
building style and form that may remain.
1.36 Incorporate elements that define the property
line in accordance with Guideline 1.6.
1.37 Creative solutions that incorporate ADA
compliance into the architecture are encouraged.
•Minimize the appearance of ramps by exploring other
on-site options such as altering interior floor levels
or exterior grade.
Replacing features such as balconies is considered a remodel.
Alterations should relate to the existing building style.
Exterior grade altered for an accessible entrance.
Page 22 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P150
IV.A.
Development should be sensitive to single story historic
structures.
Punched openings on upper floors are common.
2.3 Development should be inspired by traditional
late 19th-century commercial buildings to
reinforce continuity in architectural language
within the Historic District. Consider the
following design elements: form, materials,
and fenestration. Pick two areas to relate
strongly to the context.
•When relating to materials, use traditional
application of materials commonly found in the
Historic District, such as wood, brick and stone, and
use similar texture and color to the historic context.
•When relating to fenestration, large vertical
windows on the ground level and punched vertical
openings on upper levels, with a similar solid to void
ratio, are appropriate.
•When relating to form, note that rectangular forms
are predominant with limited projecting or setback
elements. Most roofs are flat, but some gables
are present and these may be a reference for new
design.
Pedestrian experiences should always be considered.
Commercial Core Page 47P151
IV.A.
2.7 Buildings on lots larger than 6,000 square feet
should incorporate architectural features
that break up the mass.
2.8 Composition of the façade, including choices
related to symmetry and asymmetry,
should reflect the close readings of patterns
established by the 19th-century structures.
•The pattern of building widths or bays within
a building varies from 20 to 30 feet. Variety is
preferred.
•Provide historic precedent using historic maps
and adjacent landmarks to determine appropriate
building width, height, and form. Photographs,
dimensional drawings, figure-ground diagrams, are
all examples of tools that can be used to illustrate
precedent.
•Align architectural details and features with the
surrounding context.
Articulation of building materials can break up mass.
There are many historic references for material, symmetry, and
asymmetry in Aspen.
Reference to historic lot width is preferred.
Commercial Core Page 49P152
IV.A.
Window design has an influence on architectural expression.
Photo by Brent Moss Photography.
Storefront proportions are important for the pedestrian
experience.
Window rhythm is important for retail storefronts.
2.11 Maintain a floor to ceiling height of 12 to
15 feet for the first floor and 9 feet for the
second floor.
•The ability to vary this requirement shall be based
on demonstration of historic precedent amongst
adjacent landmarks. Storefronts should be taller
than the upper floors.
•The floor to ceiling height of the first floor may be
dropped to 9 feet after the first 25 feet of building
depth from a street facing facade.
2.12 Maintain an architectural distinction between
the street level and upper floors.
•Material changes, placement of fenestration, and
architectural details may be appropriate tools to
differentiate between floors.
2.13 Street level commercial storefronts should
be predominately transparent glass.
•Window design, including the presence or
absence of mullions, has a significant influence
on architectural expression. Avoid windows which
suggest historic styles or building types that are not
part of Aspen’s story.
Commercial Core Page 51P153
IV.A.
Details and Materials
As 19th-century commercial construction evolved,
the amount of ornamentation and high style
influences evolved as well. Cornice and mid-belt
moldings became more prominent, more elaborate
window and door openings were used and much
of the facade was covered with varying degrees of
applied ornamentation. Architectural details and
material selection for new buildings or remodels are
paramount to a successful and contextual building
within the Commercial Core Historic District.
While it is inappropriate to mimic historic details
because it creates a false sense of history, subtle
reference to 19th-century commercial details may
be appropriate.
Materials should reflect those found within the
Commercial Core Historic District: unpainted brick,
textured large pieces of locally sourced sandstone,
and painted wood. Painted metal details are found
on some historic landmarks.
2.14 Architectural details should reinforce historic
context and meet at least two of the following
qualities.
•Color or finish traditionally found downtown.
•Texture to create visual interest, especially for
larger buildings.
•Traditional material: Brick, stone, metal and wood.
•Traditional application: for example, a running bond
for masonry.
Unpainted brick is an appropriate building material.
Cornice and mid-belt moldings were a prominent detail in 19th-
century design.
Historic buildings create a unique context for visitors to Aspen.
Page 52 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P154
IV.A.
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
August 2, 2017
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
c/o Amy Simon
Re: Minor Development application for 415 E. Hyman Ave.
Dear Commission members and Planning Staff;
Please accept this application for Minor Development
review for the addition of windows to the fourth floor of 415
East Hyman Avenue also known as the Roaring Fork
Condominium Building. Street facing windows on the north
façade are proposed to be replaced with metal clad
windows (the existing windows are wood). The north facing
windows will exactly match the size and shape of the
existing windows. Four new window openings are
proposed along the west elevation to provide natural light
into the unit; and one new windows on the east elevation is
proposed. Below please find responses to pertinent
Design Guidelines and Standards for the Commercial Core
Historic District.
Background and Context:
415 East Hyman is not a historic landmark but is located
on the Hyman Pedestrian Mall and is within the
Commercial Core Historic District. The Pitkin County
assessor lists the building construction date as 1972.
Historic landmarks are located on either side of the subject
property - 419 E. Hyman (Paragon Building) and 413 E.
Hyman (Reide’s City Bakery). 415 East Hyman is 3.5
stories tall and has traditional 19th century commercial
features such as double hung windows, flat roof, and the
primary material is brick. The building features a split level
at grade which accesses a real estate office on the “ground
floor” and the old Finnbar’s space on the lower level. The
east elevation has an existing window and door on the
upper floor that is not easily visible from streetlevel. A
bump-out with windows facing the street is on the east
elevation, shown in Figure 2.
Figure 1: Subject property
Figure 2: East elevation of 415. Note the
window bump out on the 3rd floor.
P155
IV.A.
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
View Plane and Height Limits
Under the new Land Use Code, buildings in the Commercial Core Historic District are
limited to 28 feet in height. In addition, buildings located to the west of 415 are within the
foreground of the Wheeler Opera House view plane, which further limits height to 15 feet.
415 East Hyman is located in the mid-ground of the Main Street View Plane (which
originates at the J-Bar). The proposed windows do not increase the height within the
viewplane and therefore are exempt from viewplane review pursuant to the exemptions
listed in Section 26.435.050.D.1.a:
26.435.050.D. Exemptions. The following development activities on properties
located in the mid- and background of a view plane are exempt from the provisions
of this Section and may proceed directly to zoning compliance check and building
permit review, where the applicant shall demonstrate the improvement meets the
following review criteria.
D.1.a: Any addition or remodel of an existing structure that does not change or
decreases a building’s height at any point or visible mass from the view plane
reference point.
Requested Reviews
As described in Exhibit A, the project meets all applicable Design Guidelines & Standards
and improves the existing building appearance. The surrounding height limits associated
with the new Land Use Code and the adjacent landmarks prohibit new buildings that would
cover the proposed windows, essentially avoiding a conflict along the west elevation in the
future. The new windows break up the tall CMU block wall that is visible from the Hyman
Mall.
This application requests the following reviews of the Historic Preservation Commission:
• Minor Development Review (Exhibit A)
• Consolidated Commercial Design Review (Exhibit A)
The Minor Development application includes the following in accordance with
26.415.060.C.2:
• General requirements.
• Scaled drawings/elevations. (Exhibit B)
• Representation of all building materials and finishes proposed. (Exhibit B)
• Photographs of context and existing building. (Exhibit C)
• Verification that the proposal complies with the Residential Design Standards
(RDS).
o The RDS are not applicable to this commercial project.
P156
IV.A.
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
• Site plan and survey: Due to the limited scope of the exterior changes to the
project, we request that the Community Development Director determine that this
project not warrant a survey document as authorized in Section 26.304.030.B.6 of
the Land Use Code.
• Verification that proposal complies with Land Use Code and Commercial and
Lodging Design Objectives and Guidelines. (Exhibit A)
The Commercial Design application includes the following in accordance with
26.412.050.1 – 2:
• General requirements.
• Site plan and survey: Due to the limited scope of the exterior changes to the
project, we request that the Community Development Director determine that this
project not warrant a survey document as authorized in Section 26.304.030.B.6 of
the Land Use Code.
• Scale drawings/elevations. (Exhibit B)
• Visual depiction of building within the block. (Exhibit C)
• Representation of all building materials and finishes proposed. (Exhibit B)
• Supplemental materials to provide visual context. (Exhibit C)
• Verification that proposal complies with Land Use Code and Commercial and
Lodging Design Objectives and Guidelines. (Exhibit A)
Thank you for your consideration of this application. We look forward to discussing it with
you and with the Historic Preservation Commission.. Please contact me with any
questions or concerns: 925-2855 or sara@bendonadams.com
Kind Regards,
Sara Adams, AICP
Principal
BendonAdams, LLC
Attachments:
A – Minor Development Review
B – Drawings, example of window frame material
C – Context photographs
D - Pre-Application conference summary
E - Land Use Application and Dimensional Requirements Form.
F – Vicinity Map
G – Authorization to represent
H – Disclosure of ownership
P157
IV.A.
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
I – Agreement to pay form
J – HOA compliance form
P158
IV.A.
Exhibit A – Minor Development
Commercial Design Review
Exhibit A
HPC Minor Development and Commercial Design Review
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 Commercial Core Historic District Design Standards and
Guidelines. Commercial Design Standard Review uses the same design guidelines for the
Commercial Core Historic District and the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. As described
below, the project conforms with the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines/ Commercial,
Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines.
26.412.040. Commercial Design Procedures for Review.
E. Consolidation of applications and combining of reviews. If a development project includes
additional City land use approvals, the Community Development Director may consolidate or
modify the review process accordingly, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.B of this title.
If a proposed development, upon determination of the Community Development Director in
consultation with the applicant, is of limited scope, the Director may authorize the application to
be subject to a one-step process that combines both conceptual and final design reviews…
Response - This application proposes to replace fourth floor street facing windows to
match the current openings with metal clad windows painted black, to add 4 new windows
on the fourth floor of the west elevation, and 1 new window on the east elevation. Windows
are proposed to be black metal clad. Pedestrian amenity and second tier commercial are
not altered with the proposed windows.
All pertinent guidelines listed in the Commercial Core Historic District Character Area are
addressed below.
26.412.060 Review Criteria.
An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or
denied based on conformance with the following criteria:
A. Guidelines and Standards
1. The Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines are
met as determined by the appropriate Commission. The Standards and Guidelines
include design review criteria that are to be used to determine whether the application is
appropriate.
2. All applicable standards in the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design
Standards and Guidelines shall be met unless granted a variation pursuant to Section
26.412.040.D.
P159
IV.A.
Exhibit A – Minor Development
Commercial Design Review
3. Not every guideline will apply to each project, and some balancing of the guidelines
must occur on a case-by-case basis. The applicable Commission must:
a. determine that a sufficient number of the relevant guidelines are adequately
met in order to approve a project proposal.
b. weight the applicable guidelines with the practicality of the measure.
Response - Building Placement (2.1 – 2.2), Building Proportion, Scale, Height, and Width
(2.4 - 2.6), First Floor (2.9 and 2.13) do not apply to the proposed scope of new windows.
The following Standards and Guidelines address windows:
2.3 Development should be inspired by traditional late 19th-century commercial buildings
to reinforce continuity in architectural language within the Historic District. Consider the
following design elements: form, materials, and fenestration. Pick two areas to relate
strongly to context.
• When relating to materials, use traditional application of materials commonly found in the
Historic District, such as wood, brick and stone, and use similar texture and color to the
historic context.
• When relating to fenestration, large vertical windows on the ground level and punched
vertical openings on upper levels, with a similar solid to void ratio, are appropriate.
• When relating to form, note that rectangular forms are predominant with limited projecting
or setback elements. Most roofs are flat, but some gables are present and these may be
a reference for new design.
Response – The 1970s building is related to traditional 19th century commercial buildings
with a flat roof, punched vertical openings on the upper floors, and traditional brick
materials with architectural detailing around the windows.
North Elevation: The proposed windows are metal clad (existing condition is wood),
painted to match the existing windows on the front elevation. The windows are located on
the upper floor, far enough away from street level to be impossible to discern metal from
wood windows. The new window size and shape will exactly match the existing windows
on the north elevation.
West Elevation: The proposed windows (shown below) are consistent with the existing
architecture – vertical punched openings – with dimensions of 3’6”w x 4’h. The existing
upper floor windows facing the street are 4’w x 5’h.
P160
IV.A.
Exhibit A – Minor Development
Commercial Design Review
East Elevation: The east elevation already has a window and door opening. One new
window, 3.5’ w x 3’ h, is proposed to match an existing window. A vertical mullion is
proposed to match existing as shown below.
Figure 1: East elevation, upper floor. Existing (left) and proposed (right) openings.
2.8 Composition of the façade, including choices related to symmetry and asymmetry,
should reflect the close readings of patterns established by the 19th-century structures.
• The pattern of building widths or bays within a building varies from 20 to 30 feet. Variety
is preferred.
Figure 2: proposed windows in upper floor- west elevation.
P161
IV.A.
Exhibit A – Minor Development
Commercial Design Review
• Provide historic precedent using historic
maps and adjacent landmarks to determine
appropriate building width, height and form.
Photographs, dimensional drawings, figure-
ground diagrams, are all examples of tools
that can be used to illustrate precedent.
• Align architectural details and features with
the surrounding context.
Response – Windows would not typically be found on
a party wall mid-block on a 19th century building. An
advertising mural may be painted on the side of the
building (for example – at right a repainted mural on
the adjacent Paragon Building, and a historic mural
from c.1900 shown below), or it would be left blank.
The addition of upper floor windows in a location that
is not consistent with 19th century structures
strengthens the representation of this building as a
product of its own time. There are numerous
elements on the building that directly relate to 19th
century commercial architecture; providing a subtle
element like the upper floor windows on a side
elevation successfully reminds the public that 415 is
not a historic building.
Figure 4: Cooper Street
Figure 3: Repainted mural on Paragon Building.
P162
IV.A.
Exhibit A – Minor Development
Commercial Design Review
2.12 Maintain an architectural distinction between the street level and upper floors.
• Material changes, placement of fenestration, and architectural details may be appropriate
tools to differentiate between floors.
Response - The upper floor windows proposed on the east and west elevations differentiate
between floor levels on the side of the buildings. They also break up the massive CMU wall that
is visible along the Hyman Mall.
2.14 Architectural details should reinforce historic context and meet at least two of the
following qualities.
• Color or finish traditionally found downtown.
• Texture to create visual interest, especially for larger buildings.
• Traditional material: brick, stone, metal and wood.
• Traditional application: for example, a running bond for masonry.
Response – The architectural details of 415 are very traditional. The proposed window
replacement facing Hyman and the proposed new window along the east elevation on the upper
floor are proposed to be metal clad, painted black. The windows along the west elevation are
special fire rated windows since they are located along the property line, and are proposed to be
metal (painted black).
In addition to the Commercial Core Historic District Character Area, the Commercial, Lodging and
Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines specifically address remodels that do not trigger
demolition and are found below:
1.33 All Remodel projects shall meet Standards 1.22 and 1.23.
[1.22 Complete and accurate identification of materials is required.]
[1.23 Building materials shall have these features:
• Convey the quality and range of materials found in the current block context or
seen historically in the Character Area.
• Convey pedestrian scale.
• Enhance visual interest through texture, application, and/or dimension.
• Be non-reflective. Shiny or glossy materials are not appropriate as primary
material.
• Have proven durability and weathering characteristics within Aspen’s climate.
• A material with an integral color shall be a neutral color. Some variation is allowed
for secondary materials.
Response – The proposed windows (east, west, and north elevations) are painted metal material
which is non-reflective and relates to the existing windows on the 1970s building. They will be
painted black.
1.34 Consider updating windows, doors, and/or primary entrances to better relate to the
Character Area and pedestrian experience.
Response – New windows are proposed on the upper floors which break up the large CMU wall
that is visible from the Hyman Mall.
1.35 Design alterations to relate to the existing building style and form that may remain.
P163
IV.A.
Exhibit A – Minor Development
Commercial Design Review
Response – The new upper floor vertical punched-openings on the east and west elevations
relate to the existing building style and form. Larger openings are found at grade with smaller
openings on upper floors to be consistent with traditional window hierarchy found on 19th century
commercial buildings.
1.36 Incorporate elements that define the property line in accordance with Guidelines 1.6.
Response – n/a.
1.37 Creative solutions that incorporate ADA compliance into the architecture are
encouraged.
Response – n/a.
P164
IV.A.
DESIGN CORPS
ALIUS
DESIGN CORPS
ALIUS
ASPEN, CO415 E. HYMAN AVE.MTE
1616
ISSUE
PROJECT No:
DRAWN BY:
DRAWING SET
COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN
CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
TITLE SHEET
1.1
01/10/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN
02/15/2017PERMIT SET
7/10/2017CHANGE ORDER I
415 E. HYMAN AVE.
ALIUS DESIGN CORPS. | ASPEN, CO 81611
exhibit B
P165IV.A.
DESIGN CORPS
ALIUS
DESIGN CORPS
ALIUS
ASPEN, CO415 E. HYMAN AVE.MTE
1616
ISSUE
PROJECT No:
DRAWN BY:
DRAWING SET
COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN
CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
PROJECT
INFORMATION
1.2
01/10/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN
02/15/2017PERMIT SET
7/10/2017CHANGE ORDER I
1. The Contract Documents include: (1) general notes; (2) architectural, mechanical, and structural drawings. All additional specifications, details, drawings,
clarifications, or changes shall automatically become part of the Contract Documents. Any discrepancy between any components of any of the drawings shall
be reported to the Architect immediately for clarification.
2. Alius Design Corps, LLC, shall not be liable in any way for problems which arise from failure, by any third party or any party to this Contract, to follow the
design plans. The Contractor shall obtain and/or request guidance of Alius Design Corp., with respect to any errors, omissions, inconsistencies, or conflicts or
unclear information which may be discovered or alleged.
3. The Plans and Specifications are the intellectual and other property of the Architect and shall not beused without the permission of same.
4. All work shall comply with all state and local codes, ordinances, rules, regulations and laws of building officials or authorities having jurisdiction. All work shall
be performed to the highest standards or craftsmanship by all tradesman. Alius Design Corps, LLC., shall not be responsible for overseeing third party work,
nor shall Alius Design Corps, LLC., be liable for any errors or omissions of third parties who perform work on the Project.
5. The Contract Documents represent the finished structure. They do not indicate the method of construction. The Contractor shall provide all measures
necessary to protect the structure during construction. Observation visits to the site by the Structural Engineer or Architect shall not include inspection of the
____________, nor will the architect or structural engineer be responsible for the contractor's means, methods, techniques, sequences for procedure of
construction, or the safety precautions and the techniques, sequences for procedure of construction, or any safety precautions. The Contractor and not the
Architect shall be responsible for all Federal and OSHA regulations.
6. THE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE SCALED. Written dimensions must be used. In the event of a discrepancy in dimensions, the Architect should be timely
notified for clarification. All dimensions on the drawings shall be verified against the existing conditions. All dimensions are to rough framing or face of
concrete unless noted otherwise.
7. The Construction Documents are intended to include all labor, materials, equipment, and services required to complete all work described herein. It is the
responsibility of the Contractor to bring to the attention of the Architect any conditions which will not permit construction according to these Construction
Documents.
8. The Building Inspector shall be notified by the Contractor if there is need of an inspection as required by the I.R.C., or by any local code or ordinance.
9. LOT STAKED: The Contractor shall arrange for the building to be located and staked after demolition or site clearing, to be approved by the Architect. The
Contractor shall review the lot staking and verify, to the best of his ability, its accuracy. The Contractor shall also check the grade where it meets the building
to evaluate the consistency with the drawings during excavation. All work to be done by a certified surveyor.
10. RECORD DRAWINGS: Contractor shall maintain a complete set of blue/black-line prints of contract drawings and shop drawings for record mark-up purposes
throughout the Contract time. Mark-up drawings during course of the work shall show changes and actual installation conditions, sufficient to form a complete
record for Owner's purposes.
11. SOILS AND CONCRETE: The General Contractor shall arrange for a visual site inspection at the completion of excavation by a soils engineer, and the
required concrete testing prior to any foundation work.
12. Property lines, utilities and topography shown is representative of information taken from a survey. Contractor shall notify Architect of any discrepancy or
variation between the Drawings and actual site conditions.
ABREVIATIONS
A.F.F. ABOVE FINISH FLOOR
ADJ. ADJUSTABLE
ALT. ALTERNATE
A.B. ANCHOR BOLTS
& AND
ARCH. ARCHITECTURAL
@ AT
BM. BEAM
BM. PKT. BEAM POCKET
BRG. BEARING
BLK’G. BLOCKING
BOT. BOTTOM
BLDG. BUILDING
B.O. BY OWNER
CLG. CEILING
CL. CENTER LINE
CLR. CLEAR
COL. COLUMN
CONC. CONCRETE
CONN. CONNECTION
CONT. CONTINUOUS
DTL. DETAILS
DWL. DOWEL
E.W. EACH WAY
ELEV. ELEVATION
EXISTG EXISTING
EXT. EXTERIOR
FLR. FLOOR
FTG. FOOTING
FND. FOUNDATION
GA. GAUGE
G.L. GLU-LAM
G.W.B. GYPSUM WALL BOARD
HORIZ. HORIZONTAL
INFO. INFORMATION
INSUL. INSULATION
JST. JOIST
N.I.C. NOT IN CONTRACT
O.C. ON CENTER
OPP. OPPOSITE
PERF. PERFORATED
PL. PLATE
PLY. PLYWOOD
PROP. LINE PROPERTY LINE
REINF. REINFORCEMENT
REQ. REQUIRED
REV. REVISED
SIM. SIMILAR
S.F. SQUARE FEET
STD. STANDARD
THK. THICK
T.P. TOP OF PLATE
T.L. TOP OF LEDGE
T.W. TOP OF WALL
TOT. TOTAL
TYP. TYPICAL
U.N.O. UNLESS NOTED UTHERWISE
V.I.F. VERIFY IN FIELD
033
LBB
CLIENT
RossMore Enterprises
605 E. Main Street Suite 7
Aspen, CO 81611
ARCHITECT
Alius Design Corps, LLC
1331 East Sopris Creek Rd.
Basalt, CO 81611
719.331.9211
michael@aliusdc.com
GENERAL CONTRACTOR
Gary M. Johnson
GENERAL RENOVATION NOTES
1.0 All existing conditions must be verified by the contractor in the field. Unknown and varied conditions may be found. Notify the structural engineer and/or architect of any
structural or architectural conditions found to vary from that indicated from the drawings. Design revisions may be required, and are to be expected as a process of remodel
work.
2.0 All new work, details, surfaces, or finishes shall match adjacent existing surfaces unless noted or directed otherwise by the owner or interior designer. Contractor to verify with
architect any conflict between existing and new conditions.
3.0 All electrical modifications and/or additions to be as directed by owner/lighting designer during construction. Contractor/lighting designer to verify electrical capacity and review
new designs or alterations with architect, prior to implementation.
4.0 All interior electrical fixtures, plumbing fixtures and trim, cabinet design, and other finishes to be at the directive of the owner or interior designer unless noted otherwise in the
drawings. Contractor to provide all necessary prep work for installation of any materials as required.
5.0 Structural engineering – if any modifications to the existing structural system are deemed necessary beyond these shown in the drawings, all existing conditions are to be verified
in the field by a registered structural engineer before proceeding. The architect will not be responsible for any structural modifications not verified or approved by a structural
engineer.
6.0 Contractor will verify and coordinate all openings through floors, ceilings, and walls with all architectural, structural, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical design and
construction.
ARCHITECTURAL
1.1 TITLE SHEET
1.2 PROJECT INFORMATION
1.3 UNIT BUILDING RELATIONSHIP
1.4 FLOOR AREA CALCS
1.5 FLOOR AREA CALCS / COM CHECK & LIGHTING SPECS
3.1 1/4” FLOOR PLANS
3.2 1/4” FLOOR PLANS
3.3 1/4” FLOOR PLANS
7.1 1 ½” FLOOR ASSEMBLIES AND DETAILS
8.1 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS
10.1 DOOR AND WINDOW SCHEDULE
PROJECT INFORMATION
OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION ........................................................................................................................................... BUSINESS (B)
MAX OCCUPANCY DESIGN LOAD ..................................................................................................................................... SEE SHEET 1.3
ZONE DISTRICT ................................................................................................................................................ COMMERCIAL CORE (CC)
LOT SIZE .................................................................................................................................................................................................. N/A
PARCEL I.D. ............................................................................................................................................................................. 73718222006
BUILDING SIZE ....................................................................................................................................................................................... N/A
5.1A
REFERENCE GRID LINE
SPOT ELEVATION
WINDOW MARK
DOOR MARK
ROOM NUMBER
DRAWING REVISION
ASSEMBLY DETAIL CUT
SECTION CUT
EXTERIOR ELEVATION
DETAIL CALLOUT
INTERIOR ELEVATION
ROOM
100
F11
1
T. O. RIDGE
BEAM
123'-6 1/2"
4.4
1
1
7.1
8.1
1
2
3
4
SYMBOL & MATERIAL LEGEND
PROJECT INFORMATION
DRAWING INDEX
PROJECT DIRECTORY
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
ABBREVIATIONS
CHANGE ORDER I 06/06/2017GENERAL NOTES
415 E. HYMAN AVE.
I
I
I
8
P166IV.A.
DESIGN CORPS
ALIUS
DESIGN CORPS
ALIUS
ASPEN, CO415 E. HYMAN AVE.MTE
1616
ISSUE
PROJECT No:
DRAWN BY:
DRAWING SET
COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN
CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
UNIT BUILDING
RELATIONSHIP
1.3
01/10/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN
02/15/2017PERMIT SET
7/10/2017CHANGE ORDER I
415 E. HYMAN BUILDING
415 UNIT 401, 4TH FLOOR
1 BUILDING UNIT RELATIONSHIPP167 IV.A.
DESIGN CORPS
ALIUS
DESIGN CORPS
ALIUS
ASPEN, CO415 E. HYMAN AVE.MTE
1616
ISSUE
PROJECT No:
DRAWN BY:
DRAWING SET
COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN
CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
FLOOR AREA CALCS
1.4
01/10/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN
02/15/2017PERMIT SET
7/10/2017CHANGE ORDER I
1,133 sq ft
AREA OUTSIDE OF
WORK SCOPE
EXIST. DECK
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA
FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
EXISTING FLOOR AREA....................1,133 sq ft
NEW FLOOR AREA...................................0 sq ft
TOTAL FLOOR AREA.......................1,133 sq ft
P168IV.A.
DESIGN CORPS
ALIUS
DESIGN CORPS
ALIUS
ASPEN, CO415 E. HYMAN AVE.MTE
1616
ISSUE
PROJECT No:
DRAWN BY:
DRAWING SET
COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN
CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
COM CHECK &
LIGHTING SPECS
1.5
01/10/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN
02/15/2017PERMIT SET
7/10/2017CHANGE ORDER I
LY4RCS / 30K
Applications Recessed Ceiling Mount
DESCRIPTION Energy Used 9 W
Recessed 4" Round LED With Integral Driver In Connection Box.Colour Temperature 3000° K
Fits Where No Other Recessed Fixture Can.Light Output 560 lm
Halogen Equivalent 50 W
FEATURES & BENEFITS Beam Angle 105°
1/2" Thin - Install Directly Under Joists, Maximum Layout Flexibility CRI 84
Type IC Rated - No Housing Required Driver Input 120V AC or 277V-347V AC 50/60 Hz
Fast & Easy To Install - Save On Labour Power Factor 0.98
Driver Inside Connecton Box - No Junction Box Needed Dimming TRIAC Dimmers 10% - 100% (120V only)
Approved Location Insulated Ceiling & Damp Locations
MOUNTING Air Tight Yes
Cut Hole In Ceiling And Snap Fixture In Opening With Attached Spring Clips.Ambient Temperature -40°F (-40°C) to +104°F (+40°C)
2" Above Ceiling Clearance Required For Driver.Projected Life 70% Light Output at 50,000 Hours
Certification cULus, cETLus, Energy Star
Warranty 5 Year on Fixture & Driver
277V - 347V Driver Option Available
Not Dimmable
COMPLIANCE
Project:
Location:
Trim Finish: Qty:
4" Round Super Thin Recessed LED 9W
Notes:
SPECIFICATION
tel: 1-844-24-LOTUS (56887) fax. 1-877-561-6306 www.lotusLEDlights.com
Warehouses
Vancouver, BC Toronto, ON Las Vegas, NV Naples, FL
Type IC & Airtight
CHARACTERISTICS
Body: Durable, Die Cast Aluminum Alloy for Optimal Heat Dissipation.
Paint: Oil Based Spray Painted - Scratch Resistant And Smooth Finish.
LEDs: 77 Pieces Of Custom Packaged LM80 Epistar 3014. Guaranteed 98% Lumen Maintenance After 6,000 Hours.
Strict Binning To Ensure Consistent Light Colour.
Driver: 4th Generation Lotus Designed. Field Proven Since 2011.
Connection Box: Patented Invention By Lotus LED Lights. Saves Contractors Labour In Installation On Every Job.
Testing: Every Single Driver Is Powered For Minimum 24 Hours Together With The Fixture That It Is Shipped With.
Every LED Is Visually Checked Before And After The PCB Is Mounted On The Fixture. No Random Tests – We Hand Test Every Fixture & Driver.
ORDERING GUIDE Example: LY4RCS / 30K / WH ACCESSORIES Sold Separately
Trim Finish Low Volage Extension Cables
6ft - cat # EXC6, 20ft - cat # EXC20
WH : White Max 40 ft Extension Allowed
BK : Black
BN : Brushed Nickel Rough-In Plates - cat # RIP4
Order 277V - 347V Optional Driver Separately As cat # LLL-LD1535H Goof Ring White OD 5 3/4" - cat # GR4
tel: 1-844-24-LOTUS (56887) fax. 1-877-561-6306 www.lotusLEDlights.com
PHOTOMETRIC DATA
Warehouses
Vancouver, BC Toronto, ON Las Vegas, NV Naples, FL
LY4RCS / 30K /
Project Title: 415 East Hyman Report date: 06/03/17
Data filename: C:\Users\Michael\Documents\ARCH\Alius Design Corps\Projects\2016\1616_415 E Hyman\Documents\Permit\415 E
Hyman_2.cck Page 1 of 2
COMcheck Software Version 4.0.3.1
Interior Lighting Compliance
Certificate
Section 1: Project Information
Energy Code: 2009 IECC
Project Title: 415 East Hyman
Project Type: Alteration
Construction Site:Owner/Agent:Designer/Contractor:
415 East Hyman
Aspen, CO 81621
RossMore Enterprises
415 East Hyman St.
Aspen, CO 81621
eric@rossmoreproperty.com
Michael Edinger
A.D.C.
1331 East Sopris Creek Road
Basalt, CO 81621
719.331.9211
michael@aliusdc.com
Section 2: Interior Lighting and Power Calculation
A
Area Category
B
Floor Area
(ft2)
C
Allowed
Watts / ft2
D
Allowed Watts
(B x C)
Office 1333 1 1333
Total Allowed Watts =1333
Section 3: Interior Lighting Fixture Schedule
A
Fixture ID : Description / Lamp / Wattage Per Lamp / Ballast
B
Lamps/
Fixture
C
# of
Fixtures
D
Fixture
Watt.
E
(C X D)
Office (1333 sq.ft.)
LED 1: LED A Lamp 9W:1 23 9 207
Track lighting 1: Wattage based on 15 feet of track 0 0 0 450
Track lighting 2: Wattage based on 15 feet of track 0 0 0 450
Total Proposed Watts =1107
Section 4: Requirements Checklist
Interior Lighting PASSES
Lighting Wattage:
q 1.Total proposed watts must be less than or equal to total allowed watts.
Allowed Watts Proposed Watts Complies 1333 1107 Passes
Controls, Switching, and Wiring:
q 2.Daylight zones under skylights more than 15 feet from the perimeter have lighting controls separate from daylight zones adjacent to
vertical fenestration.
q 3.Daylight zones have individual lighting controls independent from that of the general area lighting.
Exceptions:
q Contiguous daylight zones spanning no more than two orientations are allowed to be controlled by a single controlling device.
q Daylight spaces enclosed by walls or ceiling height partitions and containing two or fewer light fixtures are not required to have a
separate switch for general area lighting.
q 4.Independent controls for each space (switch/occupancy sensor).
Project Title: 415 East Hyman Report date: 06/03/17
Data filename: C:\Users\Michael\Documents\ARCH\Alius Design Corps\Projects\2016\1616_415 E Hyman\Documents\Permit\415 E
Hyman_2.cck Page 2 of 2
Exceptions:
q Areas designated as security or emergency areas that must be continuously illuminated.
q Lighting in stairways or corridors that are elements of the means of egress.
q 5.Master switch at entry to hotel/motel guest room.
q 6.Individual dwelling units separately metered.
q 7.Medical task lighting or art/history display lighting claimed to be exempt from compliance has a control device independent of the control
of the nonexempt lighting.
q 8.Each space required to have a manual control also allows for reducing the connected lighting load by at least 50 percent by either
controlling all luminaires, dual switching of alternate rows of luminaires, alternate luminaires, or alternate lamps, switching the middle
lamp luminaires independently of other lamps, or switching each luminaire or each lamp.
Exceptions:
q Only one luminaire in space.
q An occupant-sensing device controls the area.
q The area is a corridor, storeroom, restroom, public lobby or sleeping unit.
q Areas that use less than 0.6 Watts/sq.ft.
q 9.Automatic lighting shutoff control in buildings larger than 5,000 sq.ft.
Exceptions:
q Sleeping units, patient care areas; and spaces where automatic shutoff would endanger safety or security.
q 10.Photocell/astronomical time switch on exterior lights.
Exceptions:
q Lighting intended for 24 hour use.
q 11.Tandem wired one-lamp and three-lamp ballasted luminaires (No single-lamp ballasts).
Exceptions:
q Electronic high-frequency ballasts; Luminaires on emergency circuits or with no available pair.
Section 5: Compliance Statement
Compliance Statement: The proposed lighting alteration project represented in this document is consistent with the building plans,
specifications and other calculations submitted with this permit application. The proposed lighting alteration project has been designed to meet
the 2009 IECC, Chapter 8, requirements in COMcheck Version 4.0.3.1 and to comply with the mandatory requirements in the Requirements
Checklist.
Name - Title Signature Date
Michael T Edinger 06/03/2017Michael Edinger President
6/3/2017 14W LEDme Exterminator II Track Light by WAC Lighting at Lumens.com
https://www.lumens.com/14wledmeexterminatoriitracklightbywaclightingWACP150353.html#cgid=%0A%09%0A%09%0911060%0A%09%0A&&tileInde…1/2
CALL U
877.445.4486
Mon-Fri 6am-6pm PT
at 7am-5pm PT
Details
The WAC Lighting 14W LDme xterminator II Track Light o쮩�ers a slick, modern directional lighting head
to suppl ample projection lighting in our indoor space. Made from die-cast aluminum, the 14W LDme xterminator II Track Light
allows for 355° horizontal rotation and 180° vertical aiming. Rated for 100,000 hours of life and is dimmale with an LV dimmer
(sold separatel.) The 14W LDme xterminator II Track Light dims from 100% - 5%.
WAC Lighting, founded in 1984, has developed a strong reputation for high qualit decorative and task lighting. ased in Garden
Cit, New York, WAC Lighting is a leading manufacturer of low voltage, line voltage and LD lighting, including track sstems,
transformers, lamps, cainet lighting and recessed downlights.
The 14W LDme xterminator II Track Light is availale with the following:
Details:
Designed in 2015
Material: Die-cast Aluminum
uperior illumination with compact design
355° horizontal rotation
180° vertical aiming
Accomodates one lens accessor and one glare control accessor
Rated Life: 100,000 hours
Dimming: 100% - 5%
Dimmale when used with lectronic low voltage (LV) Dimmer dimmers(not included)
Title 24 compliant
TL Listed
Warrant: 5 Years Functional, 2 Years Finish
Made In China
Options:
Finish: lack, rushed Nickel, White
Track Tpe: H-Track, J-Track, L-Track
Light Temperature: 2700K, 2700K (90 CRI), 3000K, 3000K (90 CRI), 3500K, 4000K
eam pread: 20 Degree, 40 Degree
Lighting:
$143.50 - $161.50
FR HIPPING on orders over $75.
FR GIFT ONLY AT LUMN: Use code ALANC to get a FR alance
LD Task Lamp (retail value of $159.50) with qualifing $350+ dweLD or
WAC Lighting purchase during the ummer ale. Limited time onl.
FR VINTAG TRING LIGHT KIT: Use code TRING at checkout to get a
FR Vintage tring Light Kit ulrite (a $100 value) with qualifing $350
purchase during the ummer ale. Limited time onl. One per customer,
while supplies last.
14W LDme xterminator II Track Light
WAC Lighting
elect items in stock, choose options to view or check availailit.
Finish:
Track Tpe:
Light Temperature:
eam pread:
lack rushed Nickel White
H-Track J-Track L-Track
2700K 2700K (90 CRI)3000K 3000K (90 CRI)3500K 4000K
20 Degree 40 Degree
hown in rushed Nickel
CUTOMIZAdd custom contact info, project, logo and more.CRATGenerate PDF pec heet to save, print and share.
Product Options
Finish: lack, rushed Nickel, White
Track Tpe: H-Track, J-Track, L-Track
Light Temperature: 2700K, 2700K (90 CRI), 3000K, 3000K (90 CRI), 3500K,
4000K
eam pread: 20 Degree, 40 Degree
Details
Designed in 2015
Material: Die-cast Aluminum
uperior illumination with compact design
355° horizontal rotation
180° vertical aiming
Accomodates one lens accessor and one glare control accessor
Rated Life: 100,000 hours
Dimming: 100% - 5%
Dimmale when used with lectronic low voltage (LV) Dimmer
dimmers(not included)
Title 24 compliant
TL Listed
Warrant: 5 Years Functional, 2 Years Finish
Made In China
Dimensions
Fixture Width 3.75", Depth 2":
Maximum Hanging Length 4.5":
Lighting
2700K Option: 14 Watt (852 Lumens) 12 Volt Integrated LD: CRI: 85
2700K Option: 14 Watt (860 Lumens) 12 Volt Integrated LD: CRI: 85
2700K (90 CRI) Option: 14 Watt (624 Lumens) 12 Volt Integrated LD: CRI:
90
2700K (90 CRI) Option: 14 Watt (627 Lumens) 12 Volt Integrated LD: CRI:
90
3000K Option: 14 Watt (857 Lumens) 12 Volt Integrated LD: CRI: 85
3000K Option: 14 Watt (872 Lumens) 12 Volt Integrated LD: CRI: 85
3000K (90 CRI) Option: 14 Watt (663 Lumens) 12 Volt Integrated LD: CRI:
90
3000K (90 CRI) Option: 14 Watt (677 Lumens) 12 Volt Integrated LD: CRI:
90
3500K Option: 14 Watt (912 Lumens) 12 Volt Integrated LD: CRI: 85
3500K Option: 14 Watt (917 Lumens) 12 Volt Integrated LD: CRI: 85
4000K Option: 14 Watt (965 Lumens) 12 Volt Integrated LD: CRI: 85
4000K Option: 14 Watt (980 Lumens) 12 Volt Integrated LD: CRI: 85
Additional Details
Product URL: /14w-ledme-exterminator-ii-track-light--wac-lighting-
WACP150353.html
Rating: TL Listed
hown in rushed Nickel
Notes:
14W LDme xterminator II Track Light
WAC Lighting
Call Us 877.445.4486
Product ID: WACP150353
Prepared :Prepared for:
Project:
Room:
Placement:
Approval:
Created June 3rd, 2017
C Spec-Sheet-LY4RCS-30K C Spec-Sheet-LY4RCS-30K
1 compliance-report-signed_2_060317 2 compliance-report-signed_2_060317
A 14W LEDme Exterminator II Track Light by WAC Lighting at Lumens
IIP169 IV.A.
DESIGN CORPS
ALIUS
DESIGN CORPS
ALIUS
ASPEN, CO415 E. HYMAN AVE.MTE
1616
ISSUE
PROJECT No:
DRAWN BY:
DRAWING SET
COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN
CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SITE PLAN EXISTING
2.1
01/10/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN
02/15/2017PERMIT SET
7/10/2017CHANGE ORDER I
AREA OUTSIDE OF
WORK SCOPE
EXIST. DECK
0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 SITE PLAN EXISTINGP170
IV.A.
DESIGN CORPS
ALIUS
DESIGN CORPS
ALIUS
ASPEN, CO415 E. HYMAN AVE.MTE
1616
ISSUE
PROJECT No:
DRAWN BY:
DRAWING SET
COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN
CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
FLOOR PLANS
3.1
01/10/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN
02/15/2017PERMIT SET
7/10/2017CHANGE ORDER I
14.2
ALL WALLS CONNECTIONS
TO STAIR EGRESS SHALL BE PATCHED
WITH 1 HOUR CONNECTION;
SEE DETAIL 6 ON SHEET 7.1
EXIST. STAIR DOWN
TO 3RD FLOOR; SEE SITE
PLAN FOR STAIR RELATIONSHIP
TO BUILDING
AREA OUTSIDE OF
WORK SCOPE
EXIST. DECK
14.2
ALL WALLS CONNECTIONS
TO STAIR EGRESS SHALL BE PATCHED
WITH 1 HOUR CONNECTION;
SEE DETAIL 6 ON SHEET 7.1
EXIST. STAIR DOWN
TO 3RD FLOOR; SEE SITE
PLAN FOR STAIR RELATIONSHIP
TO BUILDING
AREA OUTSIDE OF
WORK SCOPE
EXIST. DECK
0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 MAIN LEVEL PLAN EXIST
0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 MAIN LEVEL PLAN DEMOP171 IV.A.
DESIGN CORPS
ALIUS
DESIGN CORPS
ALIUS
ASPEN, CO415 E. HYMAN AVE.MTE
1616
ISSUE
PROJECT No:
DRAWN BY:
DRAWING SET
COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN
CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
FLOOR PLANS
3.2
01/10/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN
02/15/2017PERMIT SET
7/10/2017CHANGE ORDER I
108107106
105
108
101
107
103
105
106
4
7.1
14'-11"51/2"9'-51/2"81/2"14'-4"51/2"25'-61/16"51/2"81/2"9'-11"51/2"11/2"51/2"7'-93/8"51/2"9'-8"51/2"10'-1111/16"51/2"3'-61/2"51/2"4'-5"20'-5"
4'-11"7'-6"7'-8"4'-9"
8'-73/4"51/2"2'-0"3'-93/4"9'-11"3'-05/8"6'-0"
115/8"9'-6"10'-7"2'-11/4"
1'-113/4"2'-0"3'-11/4"81/2"4'-9"13'-81/4"9'-11/4"4'-31/2"14.2
NEW DOOR TO EXIST. DECK;
EXIST. DOOR LOCATION TO BE FILLED;
LOCATION TO BE V.I.F. BY G.C.; SEE
DETAIL 5 ON SHEET 7.1 FOR HEADER
ALIGN W/ DOOR 108
TYPICAL WALL
CONNECTION
EXIST. STAIR DOWN
TO 3RD FLOOR; SEE SITE
PLAN FOR STAIR RELATIONSHIP
TO BUILDING
AREA OUTSIDE OF
WORK SCOPE
EXIST. DECK
W2TYP. U.N.O.
W1
EXIST. FLOOR
TO REMAIN
W3
103
102
101
104
REPLACE EXIST.
WINDOWS WITH
NEW WINDOWS TO MATCH
CONFERENCEROOM
REF.
WAITING
KITCHEN
ADA BATHROOM
OFFICE #1
OFFICE #2
STORAGE
CL
CLCL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL EGRESS PATH = 57'CL
1
1
CC
CC
CC
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
CC
C
C C
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
AREA OUTSIDE OF
WORK SCOPE
EXIST. DECK
EXIST. ROOF
STRUCTURE ABOVE
CEILING TO REMAIN; SEE
ASSEMBLY R1
C
CONFERENCEROOM
WAITING
KITCHEN
ADA BATHROOM
OFFICE #1
OFFICE #2
STORAGE
105
105
63/4"3'-0"3'-0"4'-0"3'-0"4'-6"2'-0"3'-1"
R-63 SPRAY-IN RIGID CLOSED-CELL INSULATION (ACTS AS VAPOR BARRIER)
SEE INTERIOR ELEVATIONS FOR C.T. HEIGHT
CLEAR FLOOR SPACE FOR
SHOWER ACCESS
LINE OF SINK CLEARANCE
DOOR MANEUVER CLEARANCE
SEE INTERIOR ELEVATIONS FOR
GRAB BAR AND CONTROL DIMS AND
ACCESSORY LOCATIONS
30"x48"CLEAR FLOOR
SPACE
0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 MAIN LEVEL PLAN NEW
0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 MAIN LEVEL R.C.P.
0 1'2'4'SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"2 ADA COMPLIANCE PLAN
II
IIP172
IV.A.
DESIGN CORPS
ALIUS
DESIGN CORPS
ALIUS
ASPEN, CO415 E. HYMAN AVE.MTE
1616
ISSUE
PROJECT No:
DRAWN BY:
DRAWING SET
COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN
CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
FLOOR PLANS
3.3
01/10/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN
02/15/2017PERMIT SET
7/10/2017CHANGE ORDER I
sq ft:
Modified
Limited Warranty
(Applies to these line item numbers)
Customer Signature: ________________________________________________________________
Sales Rep Signature: ________________________________________________________________
Date: ________________
(This order is subject to the terms and conditions printed on the back page. Please read them before signing.)
Ryan Kaser
0.28
Weighted Values
U-Fac:
SHGC:0.19
58
Net Total
Tax Rate
Labor Charge
Check or Cash Price $3,783.76
$3,677.12
$106.64
$0.00
2.9%
Payment if made by other than check or cash, price $3,900.78
WILD, WILD WEST DEVELOPMENT, INC.
320 BIG PINON DR
BASALT, CO 81621-____
(970)379-3632-Cell
GARY JOHNSON
johnson@sopris.net
91203752 Page 1 of 7Order Number
8.14
3/31/17
Terms:
Required Deposit:
PO # :
Job # :
Permit # :
Box Screens:
Box Hardware:
Cash on Delivery Direct Ship:
Subdivision:
Tract Number:
Property Location:
No
Yes
No
Add-On to:
415 E HYMAN
ASPEN, CO 81611-
__________ Sold To:__________ Ship To:__________ Lender:__________ Property Owner:
May 09, 2017
2:52 PM
415 E HYMAN
415 E HYMAN
ASPEN, CO 81611-
(970)379-3632-Cell
GARY JOHNSON
johnson@sopris.net
415 E HYMAN
415 E HYMAN
ASPEN, CO 81611-
(970)379-3632-Cell
GARY JOHNSON
johnson@sopris.net
________ Glazing / Lites
________ Rough Opening
________ Species
________ Quantity
________ Operation
________ Jamb Size
________ Primed vs Clear
________ Exterior Trim
________ Hardware
________ Screens
________ Drawing Page(s)
________ O/S Purchase lead time
________ O/S Purchase warranty
________ WUI Compliant
________ Terms and Conditions
________ Owners Manual/SPW Warranty
________ Installation Instructions
________ Shop Drawings
_____ (Exterior)_____ (Interior) Distressed
_____ Colonial _____ Contemporary
Color(s) (Clad) in order __________
024 Bronze 2605
Order Check List
Warranty Information
Sierra Pacific Windows
309A Meadowview Lane
Basalt, CO 81621
(970) 927-1726 (Office)
(970)309-0918 (Cell)
(970) 927-1727 (Fax)
rkaser@spi-ind.com
CUSTOMER COPY
$1,600.00
Order Summary
A Division of Sierra Pacific Industries
54''
7
54''754''7108
101
107
103
105
106
AREA OUTSIDE OF
WORK SCOPE
01
028.103
01
8.1
01
028.103
02
018.103
EXIST. DECK
INTEGRATED WORK TABLE
/STORAGE
CONFERENCEROOM
WAITING
KITCHEN
ADA BATHROOM
OFFICE #1
OFFICE #2
STORAGE
REF.
DOOR SCHEDULE
FLOOR
MAIN LEVEL
MAIN LEVEL
MAIN LEVEL
MAIN LEVEL
MAIN LEVEL
MAIN LEVEL
ID
101
103
105
106
107
108
SIZE
WIDTH
3'-0"
3'-0"
3'-0"
3'-0"
3'-0"
3'-0"
HEIGHT
6'-8"
6'-8"
6'-8"
6'-8"
6'-8"
6'-8"
HEAD HEIGHT
6'-8"
6'-8"
6'-8"
6'-8"
6'-8"
6'-8"
AREA
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
COMMENTS
1 1/2" SOLID OAK FLAT PANEL DOOR (STAINED)
3/8" TEMPERED GLASS DOOR
1 1/2" SOLID OAK FLAT PANEL DOOR (STAINED)
3/8" TEMPERED GLASS DOOR
3/8" TEMPERED GLASS DOOR
0 1/2''1''2''SCALE: 1' = 1'-0"3 DOOR #8 U-VALUE SPECIFICATION
0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 MAIN LEVEL FURNITURE PLANP173 IV.A.
DESIGN CORPS
ALIUS
DESIGN CORPS
ALIUS
ASPEN, CO415 E. HYMAN AVE.MTE
1616
ISSUE
PROJECT No:
DRAWN BY:
DRAWING SET
COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN
CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ASSEMBLIES &
DETAILS
7.1
01/10/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN
02/15/2017PERMIT SET
7/10/2017CHANGE ORDER I
3'-6"4'-0"2 HOUR RATED COMPLETE
TRANSPARENT WALL ASSEMBLY;
GLAZING MUST MEET .28 U-
VALUE PER CITY OF ASPEN
ADOPTED ENERGY CODE
3 3/8"3 3/8"1"3/8"7/8"
5/8"5 1/2"5/8"
1"7/8"3/8"3 3/8"3 3/8"3/8"
1"7/8"3 3/8"3/8"
1"7/8"1/8" x 3" ROLLED STEELBASEBOARD BEYOND
5/8" GYP. BOARD TYP.ENGINEERED 2 x 6 STUD TYP.
3/8" CLEAR GLASS
SILICON BEAD
1/8" STEEL CHANNEL TYP.
ENGINEERED 2 x 6 STUD TYP.
1/8" STEEL CHANNEL TYP.
SILICON BEAD
3/8" CLEAR GLASS
BATT INSULATION TYP.
ENGINEERED 2 x 4 STUD TYP.
1/8" x 3" ROLLED STEELBASEBOARD BEYOND
5/8" GYP. BOARD TYP.
ENGINEERED 2 x 6 STUD TYP.3/8" CLEAR TEMPERED GLASS
SILICON BEAD
1/8" STEEL CHANNEL TYP.
ENGINEERED 2 x 6 STUD TYP.
ENGINEERED 2 x 4 STUD TYP.
BATT INSULATION TYP.
1/8" x 3" ROLLED STEELBASEBOARD BEYONDMcFeelys washer head combodrive screws
5/8" GYP. BOARD TYP.
ENGINEERED 2 x 6 STUD TYP.3/8" CLEAR TEMPERED GLASS
SILICON BEAD
1/8" STEEL CHANNEL TYP.
ENGINEERED 2 x 6 STUD TYP.
ENGINEERED 2 x 4 STUD TYP.
BATT INSULATION TYP.
1 3" = 1'-0"
3" = 1'-0"2 GLASS FRAME DETAIL
CL
GLASS FRAME DETAIL
CL
CL
3" = 1'-0"3 GLASS FRAME DETAIL
CL
DOOR HEADER IN EXIST. CMW WALL53" = 1'-0"
3" = 1'-0"4 1 HOUR FIRE RATED WALL CONNECTION1 HOUR FIRE RATED WALL CONNECTION
8" NOMINAL WIDTH EXIST.
CMU EXTERIOR BEARING WALL
EXIST. WALL FURRING
NEW BLOCKING FOR FIRE RATING
NEW TYPE X 5/8" SHEET ROCK BACKER FOR
FIRE RATING
WOOD TRIM TO MATCH EXIST.
EXIST. WALL FURRING
8" NOMINAL WIDTH EXIST.
CMU EXTERIOR BEARING WALL
WT 6 x 15 STEEL HEADER; GROUTED W/ 6"
BACKSPAN BEYEOND DOOR
5/8"SEE PLAN 5/8"
5/8"SEE PLAN 5/8"
5/8" GYPSUM WALL BOARD OR OTHER INTERIOR
FINISH - SEE SCHEDULE
WALL FRAMING W/ BLOCKING AS REQUIRED
SOUND ATTENUATING INSULATION - REFER TO
SPECS
5/8" GYPSUM WALL BOARD OR OTHER INTERIOR
FINISH - SEE SCHEDULE
5/8" TYP. X GYPSUM WALL BOARD SEE INTERIOR
SCHEDULE FOR FINISH
WALL FRAMING W/ BLOCKING AS REQUIRED
SOUND ATTENUATING INSULATION - REFER TO
SPECS
5/8" TYP. X GYPSUM WALL BOARD SEE INTERIOR
SCHEDULE FOR FINISH; SEE DETAIL 4 ON SHEET
7.1 FOR PLAN DETAIL
WALL FRAMING W/ BLOCKING AS REQUIRED
SOUND ATTENUATING INSULATION - REFER TO
SPECS
8" NOMINAL WIDTH EXIST.
CMU EXTERIOR BEARING WALL
1 ½" = 1'-0"W3
1 HOUR RATED NEW WALL
@ EXIST. CMU (TYPICAL)
1 ½" = 1'-0"
INTERIOR WALL (TYPICAL)W1
GL
GL
1 ½" = 1'-0"
1 HOUR FIRE RATED INTERIOR WALL (TYPICAL)W2
GL
UL SYSTEM DESIGN NO. U314
UL SYSTEM DESIGN NO. U314
EXIST. RAFTER TO REMAIN
EXIST. ROOF DECK TO REMAIN
NEW RECESSED CAN; SEE SPECS.
SQUARLINE METAL
ACCOUSTIC CEILING PANEL;
24X24
EXIST. ROOF MENBRANE AND RIGID
INSULATION TO REMAIN
FULL COAT, COMPLETE COVERAGE
FORCEFIELD FIREGAURD E-84 INTUMESCENT
PAINT
WIRE TIE FOR DROP PANEL PER MANUF. REC.
1 HOUR RATED CEILING ASSEMBLYR11 ½" = 1'-0"
UL TEST NO. U263, SEE ASSEMBLY FC-8 ON SHEET 7.2
0 1'2'4'SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"06 TRANSPARENT WALL ELEVATION
ALL EXIST. EXTERIOR WALL CAVITIES
WILL BE FILL W/ INSULATION IF
EXPOSED.P174IV.A.
DESIGN CORPS
ALIUS
DESIGN CORPS
ALIUS
ASPEN, CO415 E. HYMAN AVE.MTE
1616
ISSUE
PROJECT No:
DRAWN BY:
DRAWING SET
COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN
CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
FLOOR ASSEMBLIES &
DETAILS
7.2
01/10/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN
02/15/2017PERMIT SET
7/10/2017CHANGE ORDER I
1 HOUR FIRE ASSEMBLY -WOOD /
STEEL CEILING ASSEMBLY
OPEN WEB STEEL BAR JOISTS WI WOOD PURLINS (SIZES VARY)AND ill ORin PLYWOOD ROOF DECK
i"ORi"
[PLYWOOD ROOFDECK
t ...·.,.t2GJi?,...;,.,.;l'rr~"."./!....../r"~,,-..t 1_,1,¥',.y.•".t ,<,..t Y";.JF 1,2.,ir .¡'........-,,,.,..f].r ~..~111.-
TO ACHIEVE l HOUR FIRE RATING:
Apply 45 mil thickness (dry)of Forcefield®Fireguard®E-84 to face of all exposed bar joists,and
30 mil thickness (dry)to purlins and underside of plywood deck.
ilt ORi"
(
PLYWOOD ROOF
DECK
I"'/-¥'¡"j/.I--'""(,,.J.),..,-,,-/-_"'''......'',-",Jr),,),;;~¿\;;:J;!;p;;""-,ß'..r.•,l!''''/_•.;,-~"..,';_,J ?{~-""<"'_".'....fi'~J.,r/ø"~.,,;r .,.$_r
WOOD PURLIN
-----OPEN WEB STEEL
BAR JOJSTS
WOOD PURLIN -APPLY
30 MILS (DRY)THICKNESS
FFG-84 INTUMESCENT
COATING
"'---OPEN WEB STEELBAR
JOISTS-APPLY 45 MILS
(DRY)THICKNESS FFG-84
INTUMESCENT COATING
FIRE TEST ENDURANCE RATING:l HOUR
STANDARD TESTED TO:ASTM E-119-1 OB,NFPA 251,UL 263,ULC-S-1 01-07
WITH NO LOAD CAPACITY,SMALL SCALE TEST
FIRE TESTED LABORATORY:GUARDIAN FIRE TESTING LABORITORIES,INC.
4BO HINMAN AVE.
BUFFALO,NY 14216
REPORT NO:GL115411,GL5BB12 s EER12513
PRODUCT:ForceField®FireGuard®E-B4
INTUMESCENT COATING (FFG E-B4)
MANUFACTURER:SHIELD INDUSTRIES,INC.
131 SMOKEHILL LANE
WOODSTOCK,GA 301BB
*SEE MANUFACTURER APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SURFACE
PREPARATION AND APPLICATION PROCESS '
UNDERSIDE OF
PLYWOOD DECK -APPLY
30 MILS (DRY)THICKNESS
FFG-84 INTUMESCENT
COATING
SCALE:N.T.S.
0 1/2''1''2''SCALE: 1' = 1'-0"01 FC-8P175 IV.A.
DESIGN CORPS
ALIUS
DESIGN CORPS
ALIUS
ASPEN, CO415 E. HYMAN AVE.MTE
1616
ISSUE
PROJECT No:
DRAWN BY:
DRAWING SET
COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN
CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
1/2" INTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
8.1
01/10/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN
02/15/2017PERMIT SET
7/10/2017CHANGE ORDER I8'-0"9'-11"5'-11"91/2"2'-10"2'-81/2"2'-8"8'-0"19" MIN1'-0"
3'-6"1'-0"3'-4"1'-8"36" MIN
12" MIN24" MIN
17-19 MIN1'-6"33"-36" MAX18"34" MAX27" MIN40" MAX8" MIN 6" MAX
17" MIN
29" MIN8'-0"3'-0"4'-93/8"
5'-0"51/2"3'-1"1'-5"3'-10"2'-10"51/2"
9'-6"13'-71/2"3'-0"4'-3"8'-0"7'-93/8"8'-0"8'-0"6'-1"2'-10"6'-91/2"51/2"1/2"2'-8"11'-6"
25'-6"8'-0"1'-3"2'-0"3'-10"1/4"1'-7"1/4"1'-6"1/4"61/4"2'-81/2"11/2"1'-8"2'-6"27" MAX
PAINTED DRWALL;
SEE FINISH SCHEDULE
PAINTED WOOD BASE BOARD;
SEE FINISH SCHEDULE
PAINTED WOOD BASEBOARD
TO MATCH WALL;
SEE FINISH SCHEDULE
CLEAR GLASS W/ 3/4" FRAME;
SEE FINISH SCHEDULE
FRAMELESS CLEAR GLASS W/ PIVOT HINGES
@ CONFERENCE ROOM;
SEE FINISH SCHEDULE
PAINTED DRWALL;
SEE FINISH SCHEDULE
BLOCKING AREA FOR
GRAB BARSBLOCKING AREA FOR
GRAB BARS
PAINTED DRWALL;
SEE FINISH SCHEDULE
PAINTED WOOD BASE BOARD;
SEE FINISH SCHEDULE
PAINTED DRWALL;
SEE FINISH SCHEDULE
PAINTED WOOD BASE BOARD;
SEE FINISH SCHEDULE
PAINTED WOOD BASE BOARD;
SEE FINISH SCHEDULE
PAINTED DRWALL;
SEE FINISH SCHEDULE
CL
CLT.P. HOLDER CLCLEAR FRAMELESS GLASS;
SEE FINISH SCHEDULE
WAITING AREA2WAITING AREA1
WAITING AREA3
KITCHEN4
ADA BATHROOM1 ADA BATHROOM3ADA BATHROOM2 ADA BATHROOM33'-6"1'-0"18"3'-1"3'-1"3'-1"33-36 MAX6"1'-6"18"
PRESSURE/BALANCE
VALVE; SEE FINISH
SCHEDULE
ROUGH IN FOR
SHOWER HEAD; SEE
PLUMBING SCHEDULE
ADA WALL MOUNT
FOLDING SHOWER
SEAT
PORCELAIN WALL TILE;
SEE FINISH SCHEDULE
PORCELAIN WALL TILE;
SEE FINISH SCHEDULE
BLOCKING FOR GRAB
BAR
BLOCKING FOR
GRAB BAR
PAINTED DRWALL;
SEE FINISH SCHEDULE
HAND SHOWER
ADA BATHROOM1 ADA BATHROOM3ADA BATHROOM2P176
IV.A.
DESIGN CORPS
ALIUS
DESIGN CORPS
ALIUS
ASPEN, CO415 E. HYMAN AVE.MTE
1616
ISSUE
PROJECT No:
DRAWN BY:
DRAWING SET
COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN
CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
DOOR & WINDOW
SCHEDULES
10.1
01/10/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN
02/15/2017PERMIT SET
7/10/2017CHANGE ORDER I
sq ft:
Modified
Limited Warranty
(Applies to these line item numbers)
Customer Signature: ________________________________________________________________
Sales Rep Signature: ________________________________________________________________
Date: ________________
(This order is subject to the terms and conditions printed on the back page. Please read them before signing.)
Ryan Kaser
0.28
Weighted Values
U-Fac:
SHGC:0.19
58
Net Total
Tax Rate
Labor Charge
Check or Cash Price $3,783.76
$3,677.12
$106.64
$0.00
2.9%
Payment if made by other than check or cash, price $3,900.78
WILD, WILD WEST DEVELOPMENT, INC.
320 BIG PINON DR
BASALT, CO 81621-____
(970)379-3632-Cell
GARY JOHNSON
johnson@sopris.net
91203752 Page 1 of 7Order Number
8.14
3/31/17
Terms:
Required Deposit:
PO # :
Job # :
Permit # :
Box Screens:
Box Hardware:
Cash on Delivery Direct Ship:
Subdivision:
Tract Number:
Property Location:
No
Yes
No
Add-On to:
415 E HYMAN
ASPEN, CO 81611-
__________ Sold To:__________ Ship To:__________ Lender:__________ Property Owner:
May 09, 2017
2:52 PM
415 E HYMAN
415 E HYMAN
ASPEN, CO 81611-
(970)379-3632-Cell
GARY JOHNSON
johnson@sopris.net
415 E HYMAN
415 E HYMAN
ASPEN, CO 81611-
(970)379-3632-Cell
GARY JOHNSON
johnson@sopris.net
________ Glazing / Lites
________ Rough Opening
________ Species
________ Quantity
________ Operation
________ Jamb Size
________ Primed vs Clear
________ Exterior Trim
________ Hardware
________ Screens
________ Drawing Page(s)
________ O/S Purchase lead time
________ O/S Purchase warranty
________ WUI Compliant
________ Terms and Conditions
________ Owners Manual/SPW Warranty
________ Installation Instructions
________ Shop Drawings
_____ (Exterior)_____ (Interior) Distressed
_____ Colonial _____ Contemporary
Color(s) (Clad) in order __________
024 Bronze 2605
Order Check List
Warranty Information
Sierra Pacific Windows
309A Meadowview Lane
Basalt, CO 81621
(970) 927-1726 (Office)
(970)309-0918 (Cell)
(970) 927-1727 (Fax)
rkaser@spi-ind.com
CUSTOMER COPY
$1,600.00
Order Summary
A Division of Sierra Pacific Industries
DOOR SCHEDULE
FLOOR
MAIN LEVEL
MAIN LEVEL
MAIN LEVEL
MAIN LEVEL
MAIN LEVEL
MAIN LEVEL
MAIN LEVEL
MAIN LEVEL
ID
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
SIZE
WIDTH
3'-0"
2'-10"
3'-0"
2'-0"
3'-0"
3'-0"
3'-0"
3'-0"
HEIGHT
6'-8"
6'-8"
6'-8"
6'-8"
6'-8"
6'-8"
6'-8"
6'-8"
HEAD HEIGHT
6'-8"
6'-8"
6'-8"
6'-8"
6'-8"
6'-8"
6'-8"
6'-8"
AREA
20.00
18.89
20.00
13.33
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
LOCATION COMMENTS
1 1/2" SOLID OAK FLAT PANEL DOOR (STAINED)
1 1/2" SOLID OAK FLAT PANEL DOOR (STAINED)
3/8" TEMPERED GLASS DOOR
1 1/2" SOLID OAK FLAT PANEL DOOR (STAINED)
1 1/2" SOLID OAK FLAT PANEL DOOR (STAINED)
3/8" TEMPERED GLASS DOOR
3/8" TEMPERED GLASS DOOR
WINDOW SCHEDULE
FLOOR
MAIN LEVELMAIN LEVELMAIN LEVELMAIN LEVELMAIN LEVELMAIN LEVELMAIN LEVELMAIN LEVEL
ID
101102103104105106107108
SIZE
WIDTH
3'-6"3'-6"3'-6"3'-6"3'-6"4'-0"4'-0"4'-0"
HEIGHT
4'-0"4'-0"4'-0"4'-0"3'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"
HEAD HEIGHT
7'-11 1/4"7'-11 1/4"7'-11 1/4"7'-11 1/4"7'-11 1/4"7'-11 1/4"7'-11 1/4"7'-11 1/4"
AREA
14.0014.0014.0014.0010.5020.0020.0020.00
COMMENTS
2 HOUR FIRE RATED TRANSPARENT WALL ASSEMBLY; SEE SPECS SHEETS BELOW2 HOUR FIRE RATED TRANSPARENT WALL ASSEMBLY; SEE SPECS SHEETS BELOW2 HOUR FIRE RATED TRANSPARENT WALL ASSEMBLY; SEE SPECS SHEETS BELOW2 HOUR FIRE RATED TRANSPARENT WALL ASSEMBLY; SEE SPECS SHEETS BELOW
MATCH EXIST. OPENING. V.I.F.MATCH EXIST. OPENING. V.I.F.MATCH EXIST. OPENING. V.I.F.
0 1/2''1''2''SCALE: 1' = 1'-0"3 DOOR #8 U-VALUE SPECIFICATIONP177 IV.A.
DESIGN CORPS
ALIUS
DESIGN CORPS
ALIUS
ASPEN, CO415 E. HYMAN AVE.MTE
1616
ISSUE
PROJECT No:
DRAWN BY:
DRAWING SET
COPYRIGHT 2017 ALIUS DESIGN
CORPS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ELEVATIONS
4.1
01/10/2017SCHEMATIC DESIGN
02/15/2017PERMIT SET
07/10/2017CHANGE ORDER I
3'-0"3'-6"1'-3"3'-6"5'-5"3'-6"2'-11/4"3'-6"15'-0" +/-415 E. HYMAN WEST ELEVATION;
EXISTING MATERIAL:
C.M.U. WALL (CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT)
LINE OF ADJACENT BUILDING;
HIEGHT CANNOT BE INCREASED
PROPOSED INTEGRAL COLOR METAL WINDOW;
COLOR TO MATCH EXIST.
HYMAN AVE. PEDESTRIAN MALL
3'-0"3'-6"17'-10"3'-6"3'-01/2"3'-1"7'-0"EXIST. DOOREXIST. WINDOW
EXIST. DECK;
RAILING NOT SHOWN
EXIST. BRICK VENEER
PROPOSED INTEGRAL COLOR METAL WINDOW;
COLOR TO MATCH EXIST.
EXIST. STUCCO
OVER STONE VENEER W/
WOOD COLUMNS
HYMAN AVE. PEDESTRIAN MALL
0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 WEST ELEVATION
0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 EAST ELEVATIONP178 IV.A.
P179
IV.A.
h h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h = historic
landmark
415Subject building.
exhibit C
P180
IV.A.
Existing street scene (above) and historic street scene (below) from corner of Galena and Hyman.
P181
IV.A.
Top: current upper floor CMU wall.
Right: proposed new windows.
Bottom: current view down Hyman Mall.
P182
IV.A.
Opposite side of
the Hyman Mall
from 415 E. Hy-
man.
P183
IV.A.
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE-APPLICATION SUMMARY
PLANNER: Amy Simon, 429-2758 DATE: 07.25.17
PROJECT: 415 E. Hyman, Minor HPC Review
REPRESENTATIVE: A. D. C., Michael Edinger
DESCRIPTION: 415 E. Hyman is a non-historic building in the Commercial Core Historic District.
The owner of a 4th floor condominium unit proposes to replace street-facing windows in kind, and
to add windows along the west property line.
In order for the work to proceed to building permit, HPC must find that the relevant review criteria
in Section 26.415 of the Municipal Code and the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District
Design Standards and Guidelines; Commercial Core Historic District.
Relevant Land Use Code Section(s):
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.415.070.C Minor Development
Below are links to the Land Use Application form and Land Use Code for your convenience:
Land Use Code:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Title-26-
Land-Use-Code/
Land Use Application:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/Apps%20and%20Fees/2011%20Historic%20
Land%20Use%20App%20Form.pdf
Design Guidelines:
https://app.box.com/s/3a0vvpgpwtdzsomb9aa9rjsfq3qx2o1b
Review by: Staff for complete application and recommendation, HPC for decision
Public Hearing: Yes, at HPC (posting of notice only)
Planning Fees: $1,300 for up to 4 billable hours. Lesser/additional hours will be refunded or
billed at a rate of $325 per hour.
Referral Fees: None
Total Deposit: $1,300
To apply, submit 1 copy of 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 (not 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.
Exhibit D
P184
IV.A.
2
A site improvement survey (not 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. (This requirement will be waived given the scope of the
project.)
HOA Compliance form (Attached)
Written responses to all review criteria.
An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
Once the application is determined to be complete, submit:
A digital copy of the application emailed to amy.simon@cityofaspen.com. Please provide
text and graphics as separate files.
12 copies of the project graphics.
Total deposit for review of the application.
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.
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.
A written description of the proposmodel 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.
P185
IV.A.
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
March, 2016 City of Apen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5050
ATTACHMENT 2 – LAND USE APPLICATION
PROJECT:
Name: _______________________________________________________________________________________________
Location:_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)
APPLICANT:
Name: _______________________________________________________________________________________________
Address: _______________________________________________________________________________________________
Phone #:
REPRESENTIVATIVE:
Name: _________________________________________________________________________________________________
Address:________________________________________________________________________________________________
Phone#:
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (Please check all that apply):
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
PROPOSAL: (Description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ ______________
Pre-Application Conference Summary
Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement
Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form
Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements – including Written Responses to Review Standards
3-D Model for large project
All plans that are larger than 8.5” X 11” must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be
submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3-D model. Your pre-application conference
summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model.
GMQS Exemption Conceptual PUD Temporary Use
GMQS Allotment Final PUD (& PUD Amendment)
Special Review Subdivision
Conceptual SPA
ESA – 8040 Greenline, Stream Subdivision Exemption (includes
Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, Condominiumization)
Mountain View Plane Final SPA (&SPA
Commercial Design Review Lot Split Amendment)
Residential Design Variance Lot Line Adjustment Small Lodge Conversion/
Expansion
Conditional Use Other:
415 E. Hyman - Roaring Fork Condos
415 E. Hyman Ave., Roaring Fork Condos, Unit 1
2737-182-16-101
White River Holdings, LLC
Michael Edinger - Alius Design Corp. + BendonAdams
300 S. Spring St., #202, Aspen
970-925-2855
MINOR HPC REVIEW
605 E. Main Street, Suire 7, Aspen CO 81611
970-429-8253
c/o/ Philip Sirianni
3.5 story building.
4 new windows along the west elevation of the top floor. Replace inkind windows on top floor facing Hyman Ave.
1300
Exhibit E
P186
IV.A.
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
March, 2016 City of Apen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5050
ATTACHMENT 3
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM
Project: ______________________________________________________________________________
Applicant: ______________________________________________________________________________
Location: ______________________________________________________________________________
Zone District: ______________________________________________________________________________
Lot Size: _______________________________________________________________________________
Lot Area: _______________________________________________________________________________
(For the purpose of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high-water
mark, easement, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal
Code.)
Commercial net leasable: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _________________________________
Number of residential units: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _________________________________
Number of bedrooms: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _________________________________
Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): ______________
DIMENSIONS:
Floor Area: Existing: _____________ Allowable: ___________Proposed ____________
Principal bldg. height: Existing: _____________ Allowable: ___________Proposed____________
Access. Bldg. height: Existing: _____________ Allowable: __________ Proposed_____________
On-Site parking: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed_____________
% Site coverage: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed_____________
% Open Space: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed_____________
Front Setback: Existing: _____________ Required ____________Proposed _____________
Rear Setback: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed _____________
Combined F/F: Existing: _____________ Required ___________ Proposed _____________
Side Setback: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed _____________
Side Setback: Existing: _____________ Required ___________ Proposed _____________
Combined Sides: Existing: _____________ Required ___________ Proposed _____________
Distance between Bldgs. Existing: _____________ Required: ___________ Proposed _____________
Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed: _____________
Existing non-conformities or encroachments: __________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Variations requested: _____________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
415 E. Hyman - Roaring Fork Condos
White River Holdings, LLC
415 E. Hyman Ave.
CC
note: no change to dimensions
height and overall floor area
none.
P187
IV.A.
514
516
505
521
517
411
433
303
305
307
501
302
304
430
309
431
430424 434
408
422
416
420
407401
419
315
415413409
418
510
426 428
432
219
308
314
312
325
315
316
314
312
320
308
307
305
400
515204
230
420
400
400
406 414410 416 217
211
209
205
203457
453
213
221320
314312
415 E. Hyman Vicinity Map
July 28, 2017
0 0.015 0.030.0075 mi
0 0.02 0.040.01 km
1:1,128
Exhibit F
P188IV.A.
WHITE RIVER HOLDINGS, LLC
July 27, 2017
City of Aspen Historic Preservation
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Attn: Amy Simon
Amy,
On behalf of White River Holdings, LLC, the owner of 415 E. Hyman Avenue, Unit #1 in Aspen, CO, please
let this letter serve as our authorization for the following individuals and/or companies to act on our
behalf.
Michael Edinger
Alius Design Corps LLC
1331 East Sopris Creek Road
Basalt, CO 81621
719-331-9211
michael@aliusdc .com
Sara Adams and Chris Bendon
BendonAdams
300 S. Spring Street, #202
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-2855
sara@bendonadams.com
chris@bendonadams.com
Eric Mangelsen
Rossmore Enterprises
605 E. Main Street, Suite 7
Aspen, CO 81611
970-429-8253
eric@rossmoreproperty.com
Please don't hesitate to let either myself or Eric Mangelsen in my office know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
White River Holdings, LLC
Its Manager
605 E. Main Street, Suite 7, Aspen, CO 81611 • Telephone: 970-429-8253
Exhibit G
P189
IV.A.
RECEPTION#: 635830, 02/01/2017 at
12:16:52 PM,
1 OF 2, R $18.00 DF $170.00 Doc Code
WO
Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
~
~~~----=-=-===---============~--------====---~
WARRANTY DEED State Doc Fee: $170.00
Recording Fee: $18.00
THIS DEED is dated the 1st day of February, 2017, and is made between
Bruce E. Carlson Trust uad October 15, 1992 a/k/a The BEC Trust uad October 15, 1992
(whether one, or more than one), the "Grantor" of the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado and
White River Holdings, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company
(whether one, or more than one), the "Grantee", whose legal address is PO Box 5405, Snowmass Village, CO 81615 of
the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado.
WITNESS, that the Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of
the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, hereby grants, bargains,
sells, conveys and confirms unto the Grantee and the Grantee's heirs and assigns forever, all the real property, together with
any improvements thereon, located in the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado described as follows:
Condominium Unit 1, THE ROARING FORK CONDOMINIUM,
according to the Condominium Map thereof recorded January 31, 1972 in Plat Book4 at Page 355 and Second
Amendment recorded November 1, 1990 in Plat Book 25 at Page 36 and Third Amendment recorded September
2, 1999 in Plat Book 51 at Page 18 and as defined and described in the Condominium Declaration for the
Roaring Fork Condominiums recorded January 31, 1973 in Book 272 at Page 7 and First Amendment thereto
recorded September 3, 1999 as Reception No. 435221
COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO
also known by street address as: 415 East Hyman Avenue, Unit 1,Aspen, CO 81611
TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging, or in anywise appertaining,
the reversions, remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof, and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand
whatsoever of the Grantor, either in law or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditaments and
appurtenances;
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described, with the appurtenances, unto the
Grantees, and the Grantees' heirs and assigns forever.
The Grantor, for the Grantor and the Grantor's heirs and assigns, does covenant, grant, bargain, and agree to and with
the Grantee, and the Grantee's heirs and assigns: that at the time of the ensealing and delivery of these presents, the Grantor
is well seized of the premises above described; has good, sure, perfect. absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance, in
law, and in fee simple; and has good right, full power and lawful authority to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in
manner and form as aforesaid; and that the same are free and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens,
taxes, assessments, encumbrances and restrictions of whatever kind or nature soever, except and subject to:
See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof
And the Grantor shall and will WARRANT THE TITLE AND DEFEND the above described premises, in the quiet and
peaceable possession of the Grantees, and the heirs and assigns of the Grantees, against all and every person or persons
lawfully claiming the whole or any part thereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Granter has executed this deed on the date set forth above.
\ . -
BRUC~iRLSON TRUST UAD OCTOBER 15, 1992 a/k/a THE SEC TRUST UAD OCTOBER 15, 1992 c\--z,,',----
Bruce B. Carlson
Trustee
CITY OF ASPEN
WRETTPAID
State of Colorado
County of Pitkin
DATE REP),.!\._ NO. ~:;_':J.,.~f?
•9 /1 / r1
GITY OF ASPEN
HRETTPAID
D.ATE/ REP /J,l NO.
:) / 1 t?
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1st day of February, 2017 by Bruce E. Carlson as
Trustee of Bruce E. Carlson Trust ua: October 15, 1992 a/k/a The BEG Trust uad October:15-,~
LESLIE HINELINE BO_Y:t.Rl Witnes. /~~ ~~iic·~. sear ---NOTARY PUBLIC / // /--
STATE Of COLORADO, ,::;;; '-'~./ . -<vc c. "'---
NOTARY ID #1996400606~ ---~.-.-r-~----r-: -----,-'-r-------
My Commission Expires April 5, 2020 No tr_bl1. . (
My comm1ss1on exp1re's:
l~i=
Stewart Title File Number: 01330-91273
932A WARRANTY DEED STCO
Page 1
j
Exhibit H
P190
IV.A.
EXHIBIT"A"
DEED EXCEPTIONS
1. Taxes and assessments for the year 2017, not yet due and payable.
2. Reservations and Exceptions as set forth in the Deed from the City of Aspen recorded January 21, 1888
in Book 59 at Page 304 and recorded January 30, 1888 in Book 59 at Page 324 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.
3. Articles of Incorporation recorded January 29, 1973 in Book 271 at Page 857.
~--,;'.,' ,';·:'•f'1tf·:'~;,;:; 1·11 t'f' \;'''',/' •;;.~~-[it,' ',.,f,:' -r:·r~cf; ;, .,ki '#
"' ~ ...... , ... , 4 .. Agree~~r1t recorde'tJanuaiy '31. 1973 in Book 272 at Page 04. :!\~1fl+J,:JE~5 f:;(·.r .:t;:,: ;;~'.~-~-~-· ... ,.
5. Condominium Declaration for the Roaring Fork Condominium recorded January 31, 1973 in Book 272 at
Page 07 and First Amendment recorded September 3, 1999 as Reception No. 435221 .
6. Condominium Map for Roaring Fork Condominium recorded January 31, 1972 in Plat Book 4 at Page 355
and Second Amendment recorded November 1, 1990 in Plat Book 25 at Page 36 and Third Amendment
recorded September 2, 1999 in Plat Book 51 at Page 18.
7. Notice of Historic Designation recorded January 13, 1975 in Book 295 at Page 515.
8. Variance Permit recorded November 04, 1983 in Book 454 at Page 970.
9. Grant of Easement recorded September 09, 1985 in Book 494 at Page 603.
10. Assignment of Right of Declarant to Subdivide recorded December 31, 1986 in Book 527 at Page 296.
11. Agreement recorded March 01, 1990 in Book 615 at Page 182.
12. Special Warranty Deed recorded November 12, 1999 as Reception No. 437727.
13. Agreement recorded February 25, 2005 as Reception No. 507357.
Stewart Title File Number: 01330-91273
932A WARRANTY DEED STCO Page 2
P191
IV.A.
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Agreement to Pay Application Fees
An agreement between the City of Aspen ("C ity") and
Property
Owner ("I"): /,llll'l-'r£ f.'£v€fL f/-otl)J;µ~ 1,.1.,e..
Address of
Property :
(Subject of
application)
tftt;° E . !f(1"t1rJV /fv!f/lvt!
4'Jf€/./, Co ~//,ti
Phone No.: 1?-o -'t'ZCi-~i~3
Email : /l,ff t,{] f<,o~;,-clt.lf/;tol€/l1Y to/A-1
Billing
Address:
(send bills here)
l,o~ £. MJf-J;,-.1 .S1/u?::l1 5v.ffE1
Jl.$/lc/J, Cu /3/6,lt
I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No ., Series of 2011, review fees for La nd Use applications and payment
of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness . I understand that as the property owner that
I am re sponsible for paying all fees for this development application.
For flat fees and referral f e es : I agree to pay the follow ing f e es for the services indicated . I understand that these flat fees are
non-refundable.
$. _____ flat fee for _______ _ $. _____ flat fee for ____________ _
$. _____ flat fee for _______ _ $. ______ flat fee for ____________ _
For Deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size , nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not
poss ible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that additional
cost s over and above the deposit may accrue . I understand and ag r ee that it is impracticable for City staff to complete
pro cess ing, review and pre sentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project
con sideration, unless invoices ar e paid in full.
The City and I understand and agree that invoices ma i led by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to
the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me . I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of
an invoice by the City for such service s.
I have read , understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for no -payment. I agree to pay
the following initial depo sit amounts for the specified hours of staff time . I understand that payment of a deposit does not
render and application complete or compliant with approval criteria . If actual recorded costs exceed the i nitial deposit, I
agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly
rates hereinafter stated .
$ !, '3,;,o . c,o deposit for i hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time
above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour.
$ _______ deposit for ______ hours of Engineering Department staff time . Additional time above the
depos it amount will be b i lled at $325.00 per hour.
City of Aspen:
Jessica Garrow, AICP
Community Development Director
Property Owner,~
Name :
t lff t-:t P > re r If#"' f
City Use: Title :
Fees Due: $ __ Received $ __ _ M 4-,v4"fs-E ~
March, 2017 City of Apen I 130 S. Galena St. I (970) 920 5090
Exhibit I
P192
IV.A.
Homeowner Association Compliance Policy
.All land use appl i1:a ·-ons wi th in the Ci ty of Asp e n a e re--~u ired to include a Homeowner Assoc i atio n
Compl i ance Fo r m (th i s form) c erti fying fh e scope of wo,n-~ i nc 1lud ed in the land use ap"""'J ication complies
'l'lit:h all app l"ic able covenants an d o n eo wn er asso-i:iation pol ici es. T e certifica ti c-must be signed bv
tne propertv owner or A tiom er1 reoresetitinq the prope.rtv mvner.
Property
Ovmer {"I"}:
Address of
P roperty :
(subject of
sppli-:::,sti o n}
'11,r tf. /-1-YM"rJJ ,'1-Vtf"IVVI;
/rS/JEJJ, Co $/hi/
I ce rtify as ifo ll mvs: (pick one)
D T ,his prope rty is no t su"j ect to a homeowner s associ at io,n or oth er ·o m of private cove n ant.
G"' T his prope y i s s bjec t t c-a home::::,vmers as s oc i at ion or p -ate cov enant and e
imp overnen ts proposed i th i s lan d use appli ca ·-on do rw ot ireq ire app oval by the ttomeowners
assoc iation or covenan " l:>e eficia ry".
D This prnpe y i s su bject to a homeowners ass,oc i atio,n or priva te cove nant and me
imp oveme n s p o pos ed in this la nd use apt;::licaticn have been approved b:f the homeowners
assoc i ation or cov enan n. be e-i:iary. Ev ide nce of approval is attached.
I u nderst and th i s pol icy an d I understand th e Ci fi.y of Aspe n does not inte r pret , en·o ce, ,::i,r manage · e
appli ca bir /, mea i ng or effect o· private covenants or on eowner association ru les or byla ws.
u derstand tha -th.is. d oc ument -· li e docu ,e t.
O•,,me r signature:
O•Nne r pr inte·d name:
ru,
P..ttomey siig natu e: ____________ d ate.._· ____ _
Attorney· print ed n.am e: ___________ _
Exhibit J
P193
IV.A.