HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20180613
AGENDA
Amended June 8, 2018
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
June 13, 2018
4:30 PM City Council Meeting Room
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
I. 12:00 SITE VISITS
A. Please meet at 304 E. Hopkins, or visit the site on your own.
II. 4:30 INTRODUCTION
A. Roll call
B. Draft minutes for May 09, 2018
C. Public Comments
D. Commissioner member comments
E. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
F. Project Monitoring
G. Staff comments
H. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
I. Submit public notice for agenda items
J. Call-up reports
K. HPC typical proceedings
III. OLD BUSINESS
A. None.
IV. 4:45 NEW BUSINESS
A. 304 E. Hopkins Avenue- Demolition, Conceptual Major Development Review,
Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Transportation and Parking
Management, Growth Management, PUBLIC HEARING
V. 6:15 ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: 9
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.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 9, 2018
1
Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Jeffrey Halferty, Bob Blaich, Roger Moyer, Nora
Berko, Willis Pember, Richard Lai and Sheri Sanzone. Absent was Scott Kendrick.
Staff present:
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney
Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner
Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner
Ben Anderson, Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Halferty moved to approve the minutes from April 25th, Ms. Sanzone
seconded. All in favor, motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Berko mentioned the Zupancis house is looking really good so if you
are in the area, go look. Ms. Simon agreed and said they will be painting it soon as well in the original
colors. Ms. Berko also asked what is happening with Main Street Bakery. Ms. Simon said she doesn’t
know and needs to follow up on what has slowed down their progress. Ms. Greenwood mentioned that
Leslie Rudd, the owner, just passed away as well. The head office from Wichita has been coming out
and working on the project. She also said she is the project monitor for that project.
Mr. Moyer said he would like everyone to start thinking about giving HPC awards to spec projects. The
more he thinks about it, he thinks they shouldn’t. If they are just out to make a buck, they shouldn’t be
awarded for that. He looked at a project on Race Street and said it was second rate and the
workmanship was shoddy and the contractors don’t give a rats about what HPC is up to. He also said he
would like some input on old houses that have many layers of paint. He said you can sand it all off or
you can leave the old paint on with a bond and retain the historic patina. It’s something to think about.
Mr. Blaich said ideas like this could be put into the information going to developers working on historic
buildings so they are aware of the possibilities of paint, etc. Ms. Simon said we will talk about all of this
at length in the next meeting when they are updated on the permit improvement process, which will
end up with them developing a few new manuals and best practices. In two weeks we will talk about all
of this so keep all of this in your head for next time. The consultants who were hired by the city to
improve the process will also be attending the next HPC meeting.
Mr. Pember asked if this includes the subject of locating vent pipes on the roof and Ms. Simon said yes.
Ms. Greenwood agreed that she is interested in getting information from different stages that isn’t
presented to HPC.
Mr. Pember said his Carbondale Library project was published recently in Arc Daily, which is an
international online journal, so he is very excited about this and as a result, other online journals want to
publish it as well.
P1
II.B.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 9, 2018
2
DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT: Mr. Halferty said he is stepping down for 300 W. Main. Ms. Berko said she
is stepping down for 232 E. Bleeker.
PROJECT MONITORING: 232 E. Bleeker
PRESENTATION:
Milo Stark of Kim Raymond Architects with Bill Boehringer representing the owner.
Mr. Stark said he is presenting options for the pipes that need to be vented and they know where they
stand with HPC. The options are written down in the packet along with renderings and photos. The
radon pipe has been shown on the plan, so the option #1 here is going back to its approved location or it
can stay in the same location on the additional roof. The plumbing stack cannot be moved and is
located on the west end of the new roof. It has been cut to six inches and painted grey so it’s not so
much of an eyesore from the street or the tenants. The fireplace flues are a bigger problem and they
have been working with Ms. Simon on where they can vent these. They proposed them going out the
west façade, which is shown on the rendering, but going out the historic façade was not the best option
so they tried to put them out the gable, but that was an eyesore so they reintroduced putting them out
the west façade. The boiler vent options show them coming out the east façade for option #1. This isn’t
ideal, but can be painted to match the siding. Option #2 for the boiler vents is creating a shroud. This is
not our preferred option, but hopefully these options are sufficient for review.
Ms. Simon said if anyone needs more information, we can walk through the options again. Page 9 of the
packet shows what is there now and a photoshop image was included with the new options. The two
direct vents on the west side, we discourage, but if you all think it’s the best solution, ok.
Mr. Halferty asked what staff’s opinion is of the shroud. Mr. Stark said the shroud will reduce the height
of the boiler vents because they can terminate them horizontally so it won’t be above the ridgeline and
see from Monarch. If the shroud isn’t there, you will see at 36-inch pipe.
Ms. Greenwood said she doesn’t think this is appropriate on a Victorian house. She asked if they ever
tried removing the plumbing stack on the eve of the dormer. Mr. Stark said yes, it can’t go down and it’s
coming up the other side of the dormer. It cannot slope back down and then out due to manufacturer
instruction.
Mr. Moyer said the shroud would be pretty damn awful to look at and he doesn’t want to create an
architectural element on the roof.
Ms. Greenwood agreed and said this is very obtrusive. She is happy to see they made some effort to
reduce the pipes because it looks very bad. She thinks their proposal is a viable solution, except a
shroud is completely unacceptable. This is not the intent of the building code much less a historic
resource or addition to a historic resource. She’s in favor of the option given on page 9. Mr. Pember
agrees with her and so does Mr. Halferty. He said they are doing their best now.
Mr. Pember said planting a bush is a good idea. Doctors bury their mistakes and architects plant bushes.
Mr. Blaich said he’s been frustrated since day one with this project and there have been a lot of
problems. This is a skin and bones problem here. We can live with the bones. Mr. Greenwood agreed
P2
II.B.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 9, 2018
3
and said they do not want to add to it. Putting penetrations on the side of the building is doing that and
it’s a visible problem.
Mr. Pember made a comment about being responsible and locating vents and showing those before the
permitting process. One can look at framing and understand a plumber’s needs. This is not all done on
paper.
Ms. Sanzone asked if the boiler vent is heated. Mr. Stark said on page 8 is the spec for the power vent.
There is heat to it, but it wouldn’t affect the intake there. Ms. Sanzone said she prefers the non-shrub
version of the plan and supports the direction the board is headed.
Mr. Lai said he agrees with the board and he thinks the proposal on the top of page 9 is making the best
of a bad situation.
Ms. Simon said the board can give direction to herself and Mr. Blaich to move forward with this plan.
Ms. Greenwood clarified they are speaking about page 9 with the picture at the top of the page. Ms.
Simon said the side vents are shown on page 10 along with the roof scape and elevations.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Howie Mallory
Mr. Mallory is a neighbor and asked what the process is to be a part of the discussion. When a change is
being requested, he thinks it should be permitted.
Ms. Simon explained there are a lot of conditions involved after this goes through HPC. This issue has
never has been a part of the public process and has always been a project monitoring issue. There is no
noticing that goes out. It’s up to Ms. Greenwood as to whether she wants to hear comment or not, but
it is not part of the typical process. Ms. Greenwood said she encourages public comment and Ms. Bryan
said it’s up to her.
Mr. Mallory said he lives at 211 E. Hallam. He thanked the board for their time and all they do. The
comments he’s heard is that the shroud would not be visible, but he feels that it would be. The applicant
is suggesting a double standard and it’s all about curb appeal. He feels the applicant is not considering
the neighbors who have to look at it from a 365. He asked for them to consider the aesthetic. These
projects are trying to get quickly sold, but by putting up unsightly add ons, it suggests an improper
standard and aesthetic. He’s asking the board to be mindful of this.
Ms. Greenwood said she’s in concert with him on that thought and she always brings this up to the
board. She said HPC doesn’t just look at one area and they are not going to approve the shroud. She
said Mr. Mallory is very affected by that roof.
PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon said there was nothing further.
STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon mentioned that at the next meeting, they will have an update on the
permit process. She mentioned the upcoming discussion of Lift 1 and reinvigoration of access to the
mountain and redevelopment. On May 15th there is an important work session, so please do not attend
since you all will be future decision makers on this project. We have completed a history paper about
Lift 1, which is a synopsis of how it came to be built and will be posted on the city’s website.
P3
II.B.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 9, 2018
4
Ms. Greenwood asked if they can move the finalization of the HPC awards to the end before
adjournment. She also said some of them have had some changes they want to make on the awards.
Ms. Simon said to please also attend the council meeting for the awards on the 29th.
Mr. Pember said he receives Ann Mullins newsletter, which said that City Council completed a review of
the boards and it was a very non-descript review. He asked what actually happened in that review. Ms.
Simon said they are looking at each board and their processes to make sure there is a line of
communication, etc. They will have an individual meeting with HPC in the future.
CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Simon said they are working on several, but she hasn’t
issued any yet.
PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Bryan said she has 400 E. Hopkins and she needs the other two. Ms. Yoon said the
applicant for 520 E. Durant has the affidavit for public notice. Ms. Simon said the applicant for 300 W.
Main has theirs so once they arrive, she will get it to Ms. Bryan.
CALL UPS: None.
NEW BUSINESS: 400 E. Hopkins
Ben Anderson
Mr. Anderson said this is a minor development for La Creperie. There are a couple of designs in front of
the board for commercial design and pedestrian amenity. Everyone is familiar with this intersection in
town, which is Mill and Hopkins and is in the commercial core district. The canopies that are down in
the space, are the subject of the review this evening. This is the third review for the canopies. They
were granted temporary use by Council for the summer of 2016. After that, the Durly’s asked them to
approve annual seasonal use of these canopies. Staff made the determination to issue a certificate of
no negative effect. The real topic is that this space (courtyard) counts as pedestrian amenity. After a
couple of years of going through this process, it’s arduous. Putting up the canopies, taking them down,
storing them in Basalt created a situation where the Durly’s decided they wanted them to be installed
permanently. This triggers a change in the commercial design review and to the pedestrian amenity
review. The pedestrian amenity basically gets lost by installing the canopies full time. There are
pictures of the courtyard in the packet. The canopies are down right now, but the plan is to go back up
within the next couple of weeks. They are made of rustic wood and weathered corrugated metal
sheeting. You can’t see them from the street, but only from the staircase. There needs to be mitigation
for the loss of public amenity space and a building permit is needed. Staff is recommending approval
with the following conditions:
1. New building permit process to handle structural loads for winter
2. Cash in Lieu fee ($13,400) for the loss of public amenity space
Ms. Sanzone asked if this would be tied to this restaurant in particular or would it be permanent for
someone else coming in. Mr. Anderson said the applicant just signed a long-term lease. It could be
something we can add if the board wishes, but it wasn’t something they considered.
Ms. Berko asked what happens to the cash in lieu. Ms. Simon said it goes into other pedestrian amenity
improvements in the downtown area.
P4
II.B.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 9, 2018
5
Mr. Anderson said they are not encouraging future construction of these subgrade courtyards. This
space is seen as vibrant and a desired seating area.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Patrick Rawley of Stan Clauson & Associates alongside Ryan Doremus of
Thunderbowl Architects.
Mr. Rawley said he has the existing structure boards and plans if anyone wants to view them. As Mr.
Anderson pointed out, the plans have been approved twice and are now seeking permanence. He said
the permanent installation provides activity to the street and additional seating for the restaurant. This
is a meaningful addition and helpful to them so they don’t have to keep taking them up and down and
storing them. The rustic nature of the canopies works with the restaurant theme and will be specific to
this business. In regard to the cash in lieu payment, they are requesting some type of reduction of this
fee. This space really doesn’t add to the public space of the downtown core. With that, possibly a
reduction could be provided. This is a locally serving business and a local restaurant, which creates
more vitality than if it were just a dense space.
Mr. Doremus said these spaces aren’t intended to be enclosed, but open air. They were never enclosed
with any other materials and it never will be completely enclosed, but always open to the public. He
agrees with Mr. Rawley from a cash in lieu prospective since it is a significant amount on top of the
permitting fees they are paying, it would be nice to have a reduction of the fee.
Mr. Pember asked what the construction costs are and Mr. Doremus said it’s the permit fees and they
don’t currently pay the fees with the temporary permit. Mr. Pember asked about the material of the
canopies. Mr. Doremus said it’s rustic wood and corrugated metal, which meets codes.
Mr. Halferty asked if they are going to substantiate it with footings and Mr. Doremus said no, they have
spoken with Mr. Murray in the Building Department and he suggested an adhesive pad to the concrete.
It will be a steel footer on the concrete slab and the snow load is minimal and will slope off with snow
fencing. There will be no excavation.
Ms. Greenwood said they are making it sound as if they don’t have the ability to change the cash in lieu
fee, but it doesn’t sound bad to her because she enjoys the Creperie a lot. Mr. Anderson clarified that in
the code it says the fee amount is determined by whichever is less; property or square footage tax.
Discretion is given to City Council and it is not about the amount of the cash in lieu figure, it’s about
whether or not the pedestrian amenity is being lost and if it’s more than 50 percent, it must be
approved by City Council. Ms. Greenwood asked if it’s more about whether we agree or don’t agree
that the pedestrian space is lost. Mr. Rawley said that is correct.
Ms. Sanzone asked if they feel the structural engineer will come back and say they can’t use the original
wood members because they need to be upsized and Mr. Doremus said potentially that could happen,
but the engineer won’t review it until we get HPC approval, but it may need additional joists and rafters.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
Mr. Moyer said this is all very amusing. If there wasn’t the hole in the ground and it was street level,
there would be an amenity to walk through. Since the restaurant has gone in, it has become a
marvelous example of messy vitality and besides, the food is good. He concurs with staff to approve this
and he is very upset about them having to pay 13,000 for that. He finds this is what makes people mad
P5
II.B.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 9, 2018
6
about government. It’s absolutely bloody ridiculous, but it’s ok because we have a marvelous city and
we have to keep it that way. All we can do is express our distaste that the City is charging them money.
The public amenity exists regardless of what they are doing with the space.
Mr. Halferty is in agreement with staff and the board, but not necessarily on the fees. The fees are
really high and this is a small-town operation and barely have any seats inside. Allowing them some
relief would be highly encouraged. They’ve done a nice job there and he remembers when it was a
jewelry store and it was just an empty courtyard with no vitality and no amenity.
Ms. Simon asked to add some clarification for the board. She said she also enjoys the restaurant as they
all do, but asked them to keep perspective of how other people have been forced to comply with design
guidelines as well. The Mi Chola trellis is an open weave trellis that is open to the sky. Grey Lady has
retractable canopies that keep things open to the sky so we are seeking consistency. It is not within
HPC’s purview to reduce this fee. Just bear in mind there is a lot of history to this.
Mr. Moyer said there is one difference to this space that is unlike any other. It’s a hole in the ground. If
it was street level, it would be different. It’s a unique, tiny little spot.
Mr. Pember said when they were reviewing the new guidelines, he vehemently argued against this open
sky provision because there are multiple occasions when the amenity is enhanced in this climate with
extreme regularity. it’s a contradiction in terms calling it a public amenity only if it doesn’t have a
covering. It hardly makes sense given the provisions and the support of things like porches. It seems at
odds with life as it’s lived. His opinion didn’t matter or evolve, but he still believes it in this situation.
Ms. Greenwood said that is an excellent point. Mr. Pember said he still doesn’t love the material.
Ms. Simon looked at the code language regarding the cash in lieu fee. HPC has the authority to decide
what methodology is used to address public amenity. The options are onsite pedestrian amenity and
offsite solutions or you can pay cash in lieu. HPC only has the option to reduce cash in lieu when it is a
landmark designated property and there is a preservation benefit. Neither HPC or Council have the right
to reduce the fee otherwise.
Ms. Sanzone said she is concerned about line of site and the amount of stuff they have added to the top
and it’s already a difficult area to walk through. She feels this is a big ask and we need something on
record that says we don’t want to see this again. She agrees with Mr. Pember and said the material is
great, but it cuts your line of sight. If there is some opportunity to make it more open, it would help the
space to be a pedestrian amenity. She loves the owners and loves their dog even more, but she would
not feel comfortable sitting in those chairs or at the bar.
She agrees with the direction the discussion is going. He particularly likes what Ms. Simon said about it
being possible to have a retractable awning. With the opaque materials that they have right now, he
doesn’t see it as a public amenity and if it stays all year round, he’s not in favor of reducing the cash in
lieu payment. If it’s retractable, everyone would win; certainly, in the summer.
Ms. Berko has a hard time with where the next person comes along taking over this space. It’s a slippery
slope regarding consistency. She said that because the applicants will no longer endure the cost of
taking down, setting up and storing the canopies, it will pay for itself so she doesn’t quite understand
the question of the cash in lieu fees and does not feel qualified coming up with an appropriate fee.
P6
II.B.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 9, 2018
7
MOTION: Mr. Moyer moved to grant the request by the applicant and follow staff’s recommendations,
Mr. Blaich seconded. Mr. Pember asked for the recommendations to be read. Mr. Moyer read aloud
the recommendations by staff. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr.
Pember, no; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes, Mr. Lai, no. 5-2, motion carried.
Mr. Blaich volunteered to be the project monitor.
NEW BUSINESS: 520 E. Durant
Sarah Yoon
Ms. Yoon stated that this is a non-historic building located in the commercial core historic district. This
is a minor development review to consider a painted mural on a secondary brick façade, which faces the
street alley. The artist plans to apply a clear coat on the brick before using household grade exterior
acrylic paint. There will be a level of durability associated with the materials that have been chosen.
Creating an appealing alley scape is encouraged in the design guidelines. HP staff has discussed in the
past the preference for unpainted brick in the commercial core area, but in this case, the mural is not
proposed to be on a primary façade, but on an alley facing facade. Examples of historic wall paintings
and images have been provided in the packet. One concern staff had was regarding maintenance of the
murals, which is dependent on the building owner. Staff recommends approval with one condition of
approval:
1. The mural be maintained to prevent appearances of neglect, such as peeling paint until the
owner decides to remove the mural.
Mr. Moyer said if you’re concerned about future removal, to seal it first with a clear sealant. Ms. Yoon
said the applicant will address different methods. Mr. Moyer said that paint is easier to remove from
modern brick than historic brick.
Ms. Greenwood asked what the subject matter is and Ms. Yoon said HPC doesn’t have purview over
content. The applicant has a presentation. Ms. Greenwood said she feels we should have some purview
over what goes up there because you can’t just go paint advertisements and we have a sign code. This
is quite a large façade for a tiny town. Ms. Yoon said the sign code applies here and the applicant has
confirmed there will be no text on this mural. Mr. Moyer said there are some new murals in town and
they never came before us. Ms. Simon said one of them is painted on a piece of plywood and is non-
historic and the other is painted on stucco. We have typically looked at public art as being exempt from
review as long as it’s removable and doesn’t damage any building material. This one is before us
because they are painting directly on the brick. Ms. Simon said we do control finish, for example, the
white wash we had to approve for O2.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION:
Katie Kiernan
Ms. Kiernan is a local who grew up in Aspen and has been in the art community for a long time and is a
supporter of cultural tourism. She has been wanting to bring public art to the community for a long
time and has been looking for ways to turn that unattractive wall and alley into an iconic space. The
project would occur between June 25th and July 1st. Shepard Fairey is an internationally renowned
artist. He does large murals all over the world and shows at the Pace Gallery in New York City. It has
taken three years to get the artist to consider Aspen to be a part of the global mural project. He is the
artist that did the hope stamp for the Obama administration. He does use his art as a platform to bring
P7
II.B.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 9, 2018
8
value to communities all over the world. Ms. Kiernan showed samples on screen of Mr. Fairey’s work
and murals, which are currently in cities such as, Miami, Detroit and Paris. His messages is all about
peace, hope, community and bringing people together. He has recently done the “We the people”
posters, which he handed out to the public for free.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Michael Brown
Mr. Brown likes this project and walks this block daily and loves the idea of art in unexpected places and
thinks it’s really cool for the city. He said the bear on the backside of Zane’s always gets overlooked and
he really likes it. He has a hotel in Sun Valley they are painting three murals on and after finishing the
first one, people really responded to it. It’s amazing that an artist like Shepard Fairey would paint here
in Aspen and it has potential to be iconic and long lasting. He knows the building owner and said they
are very particular about the way the grounds are kept and feels very confident that they will not allow
the paint to erode or fade. He thinks it’s great for community and then added that he and Mr. Pember
have beaten the owner of the building, Steve Marcus, multiple times in tennis.
Ms. Yoon sent out an email to the board earlier in the day of an additional public comment, which was
also positive feedback.
Mr. Lai applauds this project and said it’s a great idea. He asked about timing and if it is possible to have
it complete during Food and Wine. Ms. Kiernan said the only window we could confirm with the artist
were the dates that were given. The artist is very sought after so we got earliest dates that he could
manage. It’s taken a couple of years to get this commitment. Mr. Lai really believes in public art being
open to the discretion of the artist, but when we look at this site, it’s unusual. It’s a long narrow space
that people may or may not go through. You see just one portion from Galena and his suggestion to the
artist would be to consider he uses his creativity to take advantage of that stretch. Ms. Kiernan said the
artist has had them photograph that wall extensively from every angle and viewpoint so he could
prepare for the undertaking from a compositional perspective.
Mr. Moyer pointed out the cross street is Hunter rather than Galena.
Ms. Greenwood noted that it will be done during the Ideas Festival so that seems like a perfect time in
her opinion.
Ms. Berko said the mural at the Crystal Palace bugs her and said she doesn’t feel that it fits into old town
Aspen.
MOTION: Mr. Moyer moved to approve, Mr. Halferty seconded. Mr. Moyer amended the motion to
include the conditions listed in the resolution, Mr. Halferty seconded the amendment. Roll call vote: Mr.
Blaich, yes; Mr. Pember, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; 8-0
motion carried. Ms. Sanzone volunteered to be the project monitor.
NEW BUSINESS: 300 W. Main
Amy Simon
Ms. Simon reminded the board that this is a 1940’s log cabin and was designated historic many years
ago. Last December, there was a discussion about demolishing and replacing the 1980’s addition that is
on this cabin. It is a 9000-square foot lot and the cabin sits right in the middle of it and is surrounded by
P8
II.B.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 9, 2018
9
the most enormous trees in Aspen. The cabin cannot be relocated so the proposal discussed in
December was to be associated with the Annabelle Inn and turned into a lodge. It struggled with HPC
due to compatibility issues so now we have a revised concept and the hotel application has been
withdrawn. The cabin will now be kept as a single-family home, which is what it is now and recladding
the 80’s addition. There is little point in tearing down this 80’s addition. Staff has a number of concerns
and the applicant responded very well and resolved the problems so we are now changing our
recommendation from continuance to approval with the following conditions:
1. The applicant restudied the roof pitches and created taller ridgelines so HPC needs to take a
close look to make sure they don’t feel the historic resource is being overwhelmed.
2. Continued discussion on a connector.
3. Make a revision to the basement staircase so it has a cap and doesn’t need head height.
4. Staff would like the parking space that is in the City right of way, be removed.
Ms. Simon said on page 87 of the packet, there are more conditions listed, such as, showing all
mechanical vents and flues on the plans and providing information on how original historic aspects will
be restored and repaired. There is also a floor area bonus request. The exterior stair well to the
basement increases the floor area, which would be a 40-square foot request solely for that purpose.
Staff supports the floor area bonus as it’s a difficult property and the applicants are already making a
number of compromises. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions on page 87.
Mr. Lai asked about the high ridge line and if it’s in permissible bounds. Ms. Simon said yes.
Mr. Pember asked how many feet the additional height is and Ms. Simon said the architects need to
respond and she said it’s not necessarily more height, just more development up to that point, but she is
assuming it’s to the 25-foot height limit.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION:
Ashley Satterfield and Rich Pavcek of Charles Cunniffe Architects.
Ms. Satterfield said the historic log cabin is currently zoned as a single-family residence and they are
asking to re clad the existing addition, make alterations to the roof and propose the basement stair. The
front elevation is towards 2nd street, even though the address is on Main Street. The cabin is obscured
by the historic trees on site. They will work with HP staff to return the roof to its original condition and
cedar shingle. There are many gables and they would like to simplify the roof massing in the midst of re-
roofing. Ms. Satterfield continued to talk through on screen images. The footprint of the addition will
stay as is and all exterior walls will remain in place. The current basement is unfinished and they are
proposing the encroaching parking space be removed and replaced with grass. They are proposing a
standing seam metal roof in a dark grey color and a charred wood siding. They will be using a ribbed
metal panel that references the horizontality of the log cabin and they brought samples of all of the
materials with them as well. As far as the proposed lighting, there are five exterior light fixtures
currently, but they are not shielded so they want to reduce this down to four.
Mr. Moyer asked where they are proposing to buy the wood and Ms. Satterfield said there is a
manufacturer out of Texas, Delta Millworks who sources the wood. Mr. Moyer said the Japanese always
use Japanese cedar, which burns deeper. Ms. Satterfield said It’s a deep burn and she showed an
example. You can install it untreated with a clear coat finish. The example they brought is also clear
coated.
P9
II.B.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 9, 2018
10
Mr. Blaich asked if the vertical glass is a clear glass. Ms. Satterfield said they are proposing at garage
level, that it be translucent and above that, on the second floor, we could do translucent or clear. It’s a
bedroom and we are proposing clear.
Ms. Sanzone asked if the site and landscape features are existing and Ms. Satterfield said yes and the
patio will be concrete or stone. Ms. Sanzone asked about bringing down the height on the fence since
it’s taller than what would normally be allowed. Mr. Pavcek said they didn’t talk too much about it and
are leaving as is, but the client is open to discuss the fencing and it would require some extra study. He
said it was never part of the historic property to begin with. Ms. Simon agreed and said it’s something
they didn’t push since it’s already existing.
Mr. Pember asked if there are new conditions included in the resolution and Ms. Simon said pages 100
& 101 include all conditions they envisioned would be needed so you should start with these and see
what needs to be taken out or added.
MOTION: Mr. Moyer motioned to extend the meeting past 7:00 p.m., Ms. Berko seconded. All in favor,
motion carried.
Ms. Sanzone asked if they’ve had preliminary discussions with Engineering on storm water issues and
Mr. Pavcek said yes, right now everything we are doing falls outside of their purview.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None
Ms. Greenwood has issue with the gutters. It doesn’t seem like a permanent solution. Ms. Simon said
we need to see the info because engineering may require this.
Mr. Pember said they will grant exceptions for historic resources. We should just say no gutters on the
resource.
Ms. Greenwood said they are super sensitive to the mechanical vent issue and don’t want to go through
that again. She continued to read back all conditions to the board. She feels the 40 square feet for the
lightwell should be approved.
Mr. Lai said he agrees with staff. One thing he would like to add as a compliment to the owner, the fact
that they didn’t ask for the 500-sq. ft. bonus. This is the first project he’s seen where the applicant didn’t
ask for that. This is the standard he would like to go by. Right now, he feels, they give everyone
everything they want.
Ms. Simon said this project is subject to the new guidelines, but it doesn’t meet some of the guidelines
so we are trying to work within what we have and what is already existing.
MOTION: Mr. Pember motioned to accept resolution #8 with a change to the second condition to
qualify that the gutters aren’t on the resource, Mr. Lai seconded. 7-0. Roll call vote: Mr. Pember, yes;
Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Lai, yes. All in favor, motion
carried.
Mr. Lai will be the project monitor on this project.
Ms. Simon addressed the HPC awards and said they’ve already gone on site visits and we’ve made
decisions. They’ve been passed on already so we can’t change anything. 549 Race was forgotten
P10
II.B.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 9, 2018
11
unfortunately. The choices are: 211 E. Hallam. 229 W. Smuggler, 110 E. Bleeker. The Historical Society
is receiving the Elizabeth Paepcke award for their archives project and Harry Teague is receiving a design
award for his whole body of work. The only reason the awards are being talked about again tonight is
because she forgot to have the board look at 549 Race. Ms. Sanzone asked about the Red Brick project
(110 E. Bleeker) and the board collectively feels that it should be judged on restoration only. As for 549
Race, Ms. Greenwood said they did a very good job maintaining the framing and they devoted a lot of
effort to it, but not sure if we should get into the details of it. The award is the award. We need to
come up with a different method for acknowledging restoration only somehow, but not the addition.
Mr. Pember asked for clarification on what is being presented to Harry Teague. Ms. Simon said it is
called the Welton Anderson Award. He was an architect who passed away around the time that HPC
started giving the awards and it has been given only a few times. Fritz Benedict received it in the 90’s,
Robin Molny, etc. It is in regard to making a lasting design contribution to Aspen.
Mr. Lai went back to 549 Race and said the reason he wouldn’t vote for it is because although the
restoration was excellent, the old building seems like a tail to a dog and is overwhelmed by the new
addition. Ms. Greenwood said that is an interesting point. Mr. Pember said the tail is wagging the dog.
Everyone laughed and agreed on this that it is overwhelming.
Ms. Simon said they don’t need a vote on it, just sounds like the board is not awarding that project.
MOTION: Mr. Blaich motioned to adjourn, Ms. Sanzone seconded. All in favor, motion carried. 7:23
p.m.
P11
II.B.
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
MEETING DATE: June 13, 2018
RE: 304 E. Hopkins Avenue
Review, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Transportation and
Parking Management, Growth Management
APPLICANT /OWNER:
Hillstone Restaurant Group
REPRESENTATIVE:
BendonAdams
LOCATION:
Street Address:
304 E. Hopkins Avenue
Legal Description:
Units 1-5, the Seguin Building
Condominiums
Parcel Identification Number(s):
2737-073-75-001 to -005,
2737-073-75-800
CURRENT ZONING & USE
Commercial Core (CC)
Commercial space and 2 studio
affordable housing units
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Commercial
Page 1 of 10
MEMORANDUM
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
June 13, 2018
304 E. Hopkins Avenue- Demolition, Conceptual Major Development
Review, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Transportation and
Parking Management, Growth Management, PUBLIC HEARING
SUMMARY:
The Applicant requests HPC approval to demolish the
existing development, construct a new one story
commercial building with full basement, and mitigate for
the existing AH units with Affordable Housing Credits.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the project be continued to
threshold requirements identified by the Environmental
Health and Building Departments, and to better comply
with design guidelines and land use approval criteria.
Figure 1. Site Locator Map
S.
M
O
N
A
R
C
E. HOPKINS AVE.
Conceptual Major Development
Review, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Transportation and
, PUBLIC HEARING
The Applicant requests HPC approval to demolish the
existing development, construct a new one story
commercial building with full basement, and mitigate for
H units with Affordable Housing Credits.
continued to resolve
requirements identified by the Environmental
Health and Building Departments, and to better comply
land use approval criteria.
E. HOPKINS AVE.
P12
IV.A.
Page 2 of 10
BACKGROUND:
This property is a 3,015 sq. ft. lot located in the Commercial Core (CC) zone district. The structure
currently on the property was originally built in the 1980s and is a two-story commercial building
with a basement. The building also contains two deed-restricted studio affordable housing units.
The property is not designated historic, but is located within the Commercial Core Historic
District, giving HPC purview over any development.
REQUEST OF HPC:
· Demolition of a structure within a historic district
Chapter 26.415.080, demolition of a structure in the Commercial Core Historic District
· Major Development - Conceptual
Chapter 26.415.070.D, new development on a property in the Commercial Core Historic
District
· Commercial Design Review - Conceptual
Chapter 26.412.040, commercial development requiring a building permit. Includes
review of Pedestrian Amenity and Second Tier Commercial Space.
· Growth Management- Demolition of multi-family housing
Chapter 26.470, demolition of two existing deed-restricted studio affordable housing
units.
Please note that though the property sits within the Main Street view plane, the proposed
development occurs below the view plane, therefore review is not applicable. Also note that a
concurrent review is underway by Environmental Health to address requirements for on-site
Trash and Recycling.
HPC is the final review authority on this land use review. Any Conceptual approval granted will
be subject to the Call-up provision with City Council.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The Applicant is interested in demolishing the existing development on the site and constructing
a new one-story commercial building with a full basement. The new building will have an
internal connection to the White House Tavern (302 E. Hopkins) on the ground level. The
Applicant also proposes to mitigate for the two existing affordable housing units with Affordable
Housing Credits.
Gross Lot Size 3,015 sf
CC maximum Existing Proposed
Density (FAR) 2.25:1 1.94:1 0.8:1
P13
IV.A.
Page 3 of 10
Floor area 6,783 sq. ft. 5,840 sq. ft. 2,412 sq. ft.
Height 28 ft. 22 ft. 17 ft. 6 in.
CC maximum Existing Proposed
Setbacks
None required Front: 14 ft. 8 in.
Rear: 0 ft.
Side: 0 ft.
Front: 15 ft. 10 in.
Rear: 0 ft.
Side: 0 ft.
Commercial Net
Leasable
No limit 4,782 sq. ft. 3,766 sq. ft.
Housing Units 2 Deed
Restricted
Studios
None proposed
(2.5 FTEs Housing Credits)
Parking
(varies by unit
configuration)
1 parking unit per
1,000 sq. ft. net
leasable space
0 parking units
(A deficit of 4.78
parking units)
0 parking units
(The 3.77 required parking units
to be mitigated with cash-in-
lieu)
Second Tier
Commercial
The greater of
equal to 50%
existing second
tier space or 20%
total net leasable
3,177 sq. ft. 1,807 sq. ft.
(57% of existing)
Pedestrian Amenity 25% of lot size,
equal to 754 sq.
ft.
833 sq. ft. 435 sq. ft. (58% of requirement,
with the balance as cash-in-lieu)
Table 1. Existing and Proposed Dimensions
Attached to this memo are Exhibits A-C identifying the applicable review criteria and design
guidelines, and the staff response.
In addition, the attached Exhibit D is a summary of the Development Review Committee (DRC)
meeting held to receive input from affected City Departments. The most impactful comments
are from Environmental Health, who are conducting a separate Special Review process to
determine whether adequate Trash and Recycling Area is provided. Engineering has
indicated that they require an 8 ft. sidewalk along Hopkins Avenue, which may have an impact
on the proposed pedestrian amenity space and should be addressed at this time. Finally, there
are a number of comments from Building related primarily to egress from the basement of the
building. While HPC is not the arbiter of any of these issues, the tight internal programming and
the potential impacts of meeting the requirements identified at DRC are a concern in terms of
potential design amendments that could affect the exterior of the proposal. Staff has
encouraged the applicant to continue to resolve these items to the greatest extent possible.
Ultimately, if project revisions are required during building permit review, the applicant could
have to return to HPC for an Amendment review.
P14
IV.A.
Page 4 of 10
Below are the primary issues which staff recommends HPC review and respond to at this
Conceptual hearing. Staff recommends continuation of the project for restudy.
ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION:
1. Design Standard Variations. The proposed project requires variations from the following
Standards of the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and
Guidelines. As a reminder to HPC, standards must be met unless a variation is allowed.
Guidelines have flexibility.
In order to grant a variation from a Standard, HPC must find that the variation, if granted,
would
PA1.5 This standard requires street level Pedestrian Amenity to be open to the sky.
A covering, like the proposed porch roof, requires HPC approval. Staff does
not support a variation from this standard as currently designed, finding the
porch, attached to a flat roofed building, to be out of context with the
Commercial Core Historic District. Porches are only present in the
neighborhood on gable roofed structures built for residential use. A fabric
awning, or a fixed flat roof would be a more contextually appropriate
solution.
PA1.6 This standard requires meaningful street level space that is useful, versatile,
and accessible. Staff does not support a variation from this standard and
finds that much of the proposed space is occupied by large planters which
push the limited seating area back, separating it from the pedestrian way,
making it too small for outdoor dining and reducing the active use of the
space.
2.1: This standard requires a minimum of 50% of the first floor building façade to be placed
at the property line. The proposed design is a one-story building above grade, with
the entire façade set back 15 ft. 9 in. from the property line. Staff appreciates the
effort to respect the historic structure to the west. However, the redevelopment of this
property provides an opportunity to better relate to the development to the east,
1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of
the standard. The reviewing board shall consider the appropriateness of the
design features, building elements, and existing neighborhood context to
determine that the exception is appropriate; or
2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-
specific constraints.
P15
IV.A.
Page 5 of 10
which is primarily located at the property line. Staff may support a variation from this
standard, however there should be a better response to the goal. A suggested range
between 25-50% of the front façade at the property line could be more appropriate.
2.9: This standard requires primary entrances to be recessed a minimum of 4 ft. from the
front façade. The proposed design places the primary entrance on the same plane
as the front façade. This standard is more relevant for larger buildings located on the
property line in order to help define the entry and reinforce an existing rhythm of
recessed entries. Staff may be supportive of a variation from this standard to the
extent that a building setback is approved.
2.11: This standard requires a floor-to-ceiling height of 12-15 ft. for the first floor, which may
be dropped to 9 ft. after the first 25 ft of building depth. The proposed design has a
floor-to-ceiling height of 12 ft. for the first 40 ft. of the building, then drops to 8 ft. 4 in.
The area where the height drops is primarily back of house operations where floor-to-
ceiling height is less important to the public experience of the commercial space.
Staff does not support a variation from this standard finding that the 12’ internal ceiling
height is not expressed on the outside of the building given the proposed porch and
low header height on the street-facing windows.
In addition, staff finds that a number of flexible design guidelines are not met. These include
1.3, 1.5, 1.6, 1.13, 2.3, 2.5, 2.8 and 2.13. Regarding 1.3, the design includes large planters at
the front of the site that may be used to address stormwater requirements. The planters
erode the value of the open space in front of the building and may be planted in a way
that creates a visual barrier to the façade of the building, conflicting with guideline 1.6.
Guideline 1.5 asks for new buildings to be generally aligned with the sidewalk. As with the
staff response to similar language at Standard 2.1, staff finds that some of the building,
towards the eastern lot line, should meet the sidewalk. This would reinforce the building
alignment that is traditional downtown and would also avoid locating a 20’ deep void
along the street in the form of the stair to the basement.
A number of the guidelines, such as 1.13, 2.3, 2.5, 2.8, 2.13, and standards 2.9 and 2.11
above, provide direction on contextual design. Although the proposed design includes
individual elements or features that can be found on historic structures in downtown Aspen,
residential and commercial typologies are being combined in ways that do not create a
good fit with the neighborhood. For instance, a porch, generally a residential element, or
found on a wood structure in Aspen, is applied to a flat roofed brick building. The leading
edge of the porch is 8’ off the ground, as are the headers of the windows, inconsistent with
the goals to create transparency and interaction with the street and unlike the design of
most historic and new commercial structures in the district.
The proposed windows and doors are residential in scale and double hung, with sills 3’ off
the floor, rather than the “floor to ceiling” fenestration that is typical and desirable
downtown. Overall, the proportions of the new building are not tall and narrow, as
P16
IV.A.
Page 6 of 10
discussed in the guidelines. The heavy porch, supported by timber columns, disrupts the wall
above the windows, and appears to contribute to the reading of this building as horizontal.
Guideline 2.5 states that two story buildings are encouraged in the Commercial Core and
that a two-story high one-story building (this building has an overall height of 17’6” which is
beyond what is required for a one story space) should be designed with finesse and
discretion.
As will be discussed in the criteria for GMQS, this development should mitigate for affordable
housing on-site, which would likely occur on the second floor. The proposal represents
approximately 1/3 of the maximum allowed floor area. While there are some limitations on
an upper floor due to the view plane that crosses the site, it crosses at a height that does not
appear to be a significant impediment. Historically, downtown Aspen contained a mix of
building heights and residential structures abutted taller buildings.
There are too many varying factors of the proposed design that do not share a relationship
with any traditional building types in Aspen (particularly the historic structure directly
adjacent), therefore staff recommends restudy.
2. Pedestrian Amenity. Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to an
attractive, vital, human-scale downtown commercial district and a pleasant pedestrian
shopping and entertainment atmosphere. Pedestrian amenity space can take the form
of physical or operational improvements to public rights-of-way or private property within
commercial areas. New development requires that 25% of the lot area be provided as
public amenity space. This lot is 3,015 sq. ft., therefore requiring 754 sq. ft. of pedestrian
amenity space. The Applicant is proposing a combination of cash-in-lieu and a 435 sq. ft.
porch area on the south side of the property to meet the requirement. HPC may
approve any combination of
methods to meet the requirement
including on-site, off-site, cash-in-
lieu (not exceeding 50% of the
requirement without Council
approval), and other alternative
methods.
P17
IV.A.
Page 7 of 10
Approximately 324 sq. ft. (74.4%) of the proposed area is covered by an overhang (area
in red on previous page). Standard PA1.5 requires that Street level pedestrian amenity
shall be open to the sky. HPC may approve such an area to be covered, provided the
street-facing portion remains entirely open. Staff recognizes that covered amenity space
can be beneficial for a number of reasons, including providing outdoor space that is
protected from rain or harsh sun, breaking down a two-story mass with a one-story
element, or spatially helping to define an area.
The height of the overhang is less than 8 ft. at the front, which does not reinforce the
concept of larger ground level storefront in the historic downtown area. Staff is not
necessarily opposed to a covered pedestrian amenity area, however the proposed
configuration does little to support the goals of Pedestrian Amenity, which include
conveying human scale, improving the commercial experience, supporting a variety of
uses, and promoting interaction and engagement. The uncovered area of the amenity
space, 112 sq.ft. (25%), is largely devoted to oversized planters that create un-
occupiable space. Staff recommends restudy of this aspect of the design.
3. Second Tier Commercial Space. Second Tier Commercial Space is a newly defined type
of commercial space which, by virtue of its location in areas of a building without direct
access and street presence, has typically provided opportunities for a variety of
businesses. This type of space has been determined to be declining through
redevelopment and so a new requirement to preserve a certain amount of Second Tier
Spaces in any redevelopment was adopted. For this project, the application identifies
the existing Second Tier space in the basement and second floor and proposes to retain
approximately 57% that amount of net leasable area in the basement. The current
design includes a “pocket door” to separate the prime commercial space on the
ground floor from non-unit area in the back of the building. The building code requires
P18
IV.A.
Page 8 of 10
two egress routes for the Second Tier space. The Building Department has identified that
the second egress cannot pass through the prime commercial space, and a pocket
door is not an adequate separation between the prime commercial space and the non-
unit area. The applicant needs to revise the separation between the prime commercial
space and the non-unit area to meet building code requirements.
Conditions of approval will be recommended, and verified during building permit review,
to ensure that there is adequate separation between the Primary and Second Tier
spaces within the building. Staff has design concerns with the access to the Second Tier
space in the form of an exposed basement stair off of Hopkins Avenue as noted in the
staff response to the design standards and guidelines. Staff recommends restudy related
to the Hopkins Avenue access to the Second Tier space.
4. Affordable Housing Mitigation. There are two deed-restricted studio units in the existing
development. The demolition of deed-restricted multi-family housing requires the
replacement of the same number of full-time equivalents (FTEs) housed by the existing
units. Each studio unit houses 1.25 FTEs for a total of 2.5 FTEs requiring replacement. The
Code requires these units to be replaced on site unless HPC determines that
replacement of the units on site would be in conflict with the parcel’s zoning or would be
an inappropriate solution due to the site’s physical constraints.
The image below shows a section of the current proposal and where the Main Street
Mountain Viewplane crosses the property, with a low point of 25.75 ft along the alley. This
is a rectangular, generally flat lot with a slight slope of about 1.5 ft down toward the
alley.
Affordable housing is a permitted use on the second floor in the Commercial Core zone
district, specifically when required for on-site affordable housing mitigation. The height
limit for the CC zone district is 28 ft.
P19
IV.A.
A second story for this project could provide several community benefits, including but
not limited to: on-site affordable housing, additional second tier
additional pedestrian amenity space. Staff believes that the exclusion of a second floor is
an underutilization of a commercial property and recommends restudy
housing. There are no conflicts with the parcel’s zoning or signi
that staff finds warrant the acceptance of off
5. Trash Area. The Applicant proposes to combine the trash area of the new construction
with the existing trash area for 302 E. Hopkins. The combined area is approxima
sq. ft. The Municipal Code requires a minimum of 300 sq. ft. for each restaurant, for a
combined area of 600 sq. ft. Environmental Health may reduce this requirement through
Special Review but has preliminarily indicated that the area proposed for
is inadequate. An enlarged trash area may
towards the alley and must
granted. HPC does not have the authority to reduce trash area size re
RECOMMENDATION:
There are a number of requirements
reductions, or exceptions. Staff recognizes that
balance all concerns appropriately, H
compliance and resulting community benefit
Staff recommends continuation of the project to:
Page 9 of 10
A second story for this project could provide several community benefits, including but
site affordable housing, additional second tier commercial, and/or
additional pedestrian amenity space. Staff believes that the exclusion of a second floor is
an underutilization of a commercial property and recommends restudy
There are no conflicts with the parcel’s zoning or significant physical constraints
that staff finds warrant the acceptance of off-site housing.
The Applicant proposes to combine the trash area of the new construction
with the existing trash area for 302 E. Hopkins. The combined area is approxima
sq. ft. The Municipal Code requires a minimum of 300 sq. ft. for each restaurant, for a
combined area of 600 sq. ft. Environmental Health may reduce this requirement through
but has preliminarily indicated that the area proposed for
is inadequate. An enlarged trash area may significantly impact the design of this project
must be addressed before any Conceptual level approval is
HPC does not have the authority to reduce trash area size re
There are a number of requirements from which the proposed project seeks
tions. Staff recognizes that a smaller site requires creative design
appropriately, However, it is staff’s perspective that there is inadequate
community benefit in the current scheme.
Staff recommends continuation of the project to:
A second story for this project could provide several community benefits, including but
commercial, and/or
additional pedestrian amenity space. Staff believes that the exclusion of a second floor is
an underutilization of a commercial property and recommends restudy of on-site
ficant physical constraints
The Applicant proposes to combine the trash area of the new construction
with the existing trash area for 302 E. Hopkins. The combined area is approximately 170
sq. ft. The Municipal Code requires a minimum of 300 sq. ft. for each restaurant, for a
combined area of 600 sq. ft. Environmental Health may reduce this requirement through
but has preliminarily indicated that the area proposed for 304 E. Hopkins
significantly impact the design of this project
be addressed before any Conceptual level approval is
HPC does not have the authority to reduce trash area size requirements.
from which the proposed project seeks variations,
requires creative design to
there is inadequate
P20
IV.A.
Page 10 of 10
1. Reduce variations to design standards and increase compliance with design guidelines
as described in the staff findings. Bringing some of the building towards the sidewalk,
reconsidering the proportions and transparency of the structure, studying the addition of
a second floor, and improving pedestrian amenity, are among the areas of concern.
Prioritization of these issues should be addressed by HPC.
2. Design the trash area to meet Environmental Health requirements.
3. Address all Building accessibility requirements to the extent possible at this level of design.
4. Provide on-site affordable housing mitigation.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A- Demolition Review Criteria/Staff Findings
Exhibit B- HPC Major Development and Commercial Design Review Criteria/Staff Findings
Exhibit C- Growth Management Review Criteria/Staff Findings
Exhibit D- Development Review Committee Referral Comments
Exhibit E- APCHA referral comment
Exhibit F- Application
P21
IV.A.
Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT A
STAFF FINDINGS
DEMOLITION
26.415.080. Demolition of designated historic properties or properties within a historic district.
It is the intent of this Chapter to preserve the historic and architectural resources that have
demonstrated significance to the community. Consequently, no demolition of properties
designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures or properties within
a Historic District will be allowed unless approved by the HPC in accordance with the standards
set forth in this Section.
4. The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by
the property owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine
if the standards for demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if
it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria:
a) The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public
safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely
manner,
b) The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to
properly maintain the structure,
c) The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in
Aspen or
d) No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met:
a) The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic
District in which it is located and
b) The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity
of the Historic District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to
adjacent designated properties and
c) Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation
needs of the area.
Staff Finding: The existing structure was built in the early 1980s. There is no documentation
that supports or demonstrates the historic importance of this structure. It does not contribute
to the significance of the Commercial Core Historic District. Additionally, demolition will be
inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of this area. The loss would not adversely
affect the integrity of the district or the adjacent designated property (302 E. Hopkins to the
west). Staff finds that criteria d) and a) – c) above are met.
P22
IV.A.
Page 1 of 15
EXHIBIT B
STAFF FINDINGS
COMMERCIAL DESIGN
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.
Staff Finding: This property is located within the Commercial Core Historic District and is
subject to the Standards and Guidelines from that Chapter as well as the General Chapter
and Pedestrian Amenity Chapter. All relevant guidelines are listed at the end of this exhibit.
Staff evaluation of specific Standards and Guidelines can be found in sections 2. & 3. below.
2. All applicable standards in the Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design
Standards and Guidelines shall be met unless granted a Variation pursuant to Section
26.412.040.D, Variations.
Staff Findings: The proposed project requires variations from the Standards identified below.
In order to grant a variation from a Standard, HPC must find that the variation, if granted,
would
PA1.5 This standard requires street level Pedestrian Amenity to be open to the sky. A
covering, like the proposed porch roof, requires HPC approval. Staff does not
support a variation from this standard as currently designed, finding the porch,
attached to a flat roofed building, to be out of context with the Commercial Core
Historic District. Porches are only present in the neighborhood on gable roofed
1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the
overall intent of the standard. The reviewing board shall
consider the appropriateness of the design features, building
elements, and existing neighborhood context to determine that
the exception is appropriate; or
2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual
site-specific constraints.
P23
IV.A.
Page 2 of 15
structures built for residential use. An fabric awning, or a fixed flat roof would be a
more contextually appropriate solution.
PA1.6 This standard requires meaningful street level space that is useful, versatile, and
accessible. Staff does not support a variation from this standard and finds that much
of the proposed space is occupied by large planters which push the limited seating
area back from the street, separating it from the pedestrian way, making it too small
for outdoor dining and reducing the active use of the space.
2.1: This standard requires a minimum of 50% of the first floor building façade to be placed
at the property line. The proposed design is a one-story building above grade, with
the entire façade set back 15 ft. 9 in. from the property line. Staff appreciates the
effort to respect the historic structure to the west. However, the redevelopment of this
property provides an opportunity to better relate to the development to the east,
which is primarily located at the property line. Staff may support a variation from this
standard, however there should be a better response to the goal. A suggested range
between 25-50% of the front façade at the property line could be more appropriate.
2.9: This standard requires primary entrances to be recessed a minimum of 4 ft. from the
front façade. The proposed design places the primary entrance on the same plane
as the front façade. This standard is more relevant for larger buildings located on the
property line in order to help define the entry and reinforce an existing rhythm of
recessed entries. Staff may be supportive of a variation from this standard to the
extent that a building setback is approved.
2.11: This standard requires a floor-to-ceiling height of 12-15 ft. for the first floor, which may
be dropped to 9 ft. after the first 25 ft of building depth. The proposed design has a
floor-to-ceiling height of 12 ft. for the first 40 ft. of the building, then drops to 8 ft. 4 in.
The area where the height drops is primarily back of house operations where floor-to-
ceiling height is less important to the public experience of the commercial space.
Staff does not support a variation from this standard finding that the 12’ internal ceiling
height is not expressed on the outside of the building given the proposed porch and
low header height on the street-facing windows.
3. Not every guideline will apply to each project, and some balancing of the guidelines
must occur on a case-by-case basis. The applicable Commission must:
a. determine that a sufficient number of the relevant guidelines are adequately met
in order to approve a project proposal;
b. weigh the applicable guidelines with the practicality of the measure.
Staff Findings: Staff finds that the proposed design addresses many of the guidelines
appropriately. However, a number of guidelines are not successfully addressed. These
include 1.3, 1.5, 1.6, 1.13, 2.3, 2.5, 2.8 and 2.13. Regarding 1.3, the design includes large
planters at the front of the site that may be used to address stormwater requirements. The
P24
IV.A.
Page 3 of 15
planters erode the value of the open space in front of the building and may be planted in a
way that creates a visual barrier to the façade of the building, conflicting with guideline 1.6.
Guideline 1.5 asks for new buildings to be generally aligned with the sidewalk. As with the
staff response to similar language at Standard 2.1, staff finds that some of the building,
towards the eastern lot line, should meet the sidewalk. This would reinforce the building
alignment that is traditional downtown and would also avoid locating a 20’ deep void to
the basement along the street in the form of the stair to the basement.
A number of the guidelines, such as 1.13, 2.3, 2.5, 2.8, 2.13, and standards 2.9 and 2.11
above, provide direction on contextual design. Although the proposed design includes
individual elements or features that can be found on historic structures in downtown Aspen,
residential and commercial typologies are being combined in ways that do not create a
good fit with the neighborhood. For instance, a porch, generally a residential element, or
found on a wood structure in Aspen, is applied to a flat roofed brick building. The leading
edge of the porch is 8’ off the ground, as are the headers of the windows, inconsistent with
the goals to create transparency and interaction with the street and unlike the design of
most historic and new commercial structures in the district.
The proposed windows and doors are residential in scale and double hung, with sills 3’ off
the floor, rather than the “floor to ceiling” fenestration that is typical and desirable
downtown. Overall, the proportions of the new building are not tall and narrow, as
discussed in the guidelines. The heavy porch, supported by timber columns, disrupts the wall
above the windows, and appears to contribute to the reading of this building as horizontal.
Guideline 2.5 states that two story buildings are encouraged in the Commercial Core and
that a two-story high one-story building (this building has an overall height of 17’6” which is
beyond what is required for a one story space) should be designed with finesse and
discretion.
As will be discussed in the criteria for GMQS, this development arguably should mitigate for
affordable housing on-site, which would likely occur on the second floor. The proposal
represents approximately 1/3 of the maximum floor area allowed on the site. While there
are some limitations on an upper floor due to the view plane that crosses the site, it crosses
at a height that does not appear to be a significant impediment. Historically, downtown
Aspen contained a mix of building heights and residential structures abutted taller buildings.
There are too many varying factors of the proposed design that do not share a relationship
with any traditional building types in Aspen (particularly the historic structure directly
adjacent), therefore staff recommends restudy.
26.412.070.B Provision of pedestrian amenity. Unless specified, the Planning and Zoning
Commission or Historic Preservation Commission shall determine the appropriate method or
combination of methods for providing this required amenity. One (1) or more of the following
methods may be used to meet the requirement.
P25
IV.A.
Page 4 of 15
1. On-site pedestrian amenity. On-site pedestrian amenity options are provided within the
Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines.
a. For properties located on rights-of-way designated as pedestrian malls including
Hyman and Cooper Streets between Galena and Mill Streets, and Mill Street between
Hyman Street and Durant Street, new pedestrian amenity is limited to second floor or
street level. Existing on-site pedestrian amenity may be maintained, with any
difference between the existing amount and the 25% required to be provided as
cash-in-lieu.
2. Off-site pedestrian amenity. These may be improvements to private property, public
property or public rights-of-way.
a. An easement providing public access over an existing public amenity space for
which no easement exists may be accepted if the easement provides permanent
public access and is acceptable to the City Attorney.
b. Off-site improvements shall:
i. equal or exceed the value of an otherwise required cash-in-lieu payment as
determined by the City Engineer, and
ii. be consistent with any public infrastructure or capital improvement plan for
that area.
3. Cash-in-lieu provision. Cash-in-lieu for pedestrian amenity requirements may be
provided, subject to the following requirements:
a. For properties located on rights-of-way designated as pedestrian malls including
Hyman and Cooper Streets between Galena and Mill Streets, and Mill Street between
Hyman Street and Durant Street, cash-in-lieu of on-site public amenity space is
encouraged. Fees collected as cash-in-lieu for public amenity of designated
pedestrian malls shall be held in reserve by the City for the maintenance and
improvement of the pedestrian malls.
b. For properties not located adjacent to the pedestrian malls, where on-site public
amenity is not appropriate or may not be feasibly provided due to site or
development constraints, cash-in-lieu may be accepted as an alternative. Such
conditions shall be determined on a case-by-case basis at the discretion of the
Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission.
P26
IV.A.
Page 5 of 15
c. A cash-in-lieu payment for 50% or more of the required pedestrian amenity for
properties not located on a pedestrian mall or less than 100% for properties located
on a pedestrian mall requires City Council approval.
4. Alternative method. The Commission may accept any method of providing a pedestrian
amenity not otherwise described herein if it finds that the alternative method meets the
intent of pedestrian amenity, equals or exceeds the monetary value, or meets the
purpose and intent of these regulations to an equivalent extent, of an otherwise required
on-site amenity space or cash-in-lieu payment.
5. Pedestrian links. If the City has adopted a trail plan incorporating mid-block pedestrian
links, any required public amenity space must, if the City shall so choose, be applied and
dedicated for that use. The development of mid-block walkways to access second tier
commercial spaces located off the primary street frontage, which are not part of an
adopted trail plan, may be counted towards public amenity space requirements for a
property and must be designed in accordance with the Commercial, Lodging and
Historic District Standards and Guidelines.
Staff Finding: The site is required to provide 754 sq. ft. of pedestrian amenity space. HPC may
approve any combination of methods to meet the requirement including on-site, off-site,
cash-in-lieu, and other alternative methods. The cash-in-lieu amount may not exceed 50% of
the total requirement (377 sq. ft.) unless approved by City Council. The Applicant is
proposing a 435 sq. ft. porch area on the south portion of the lot at street level in
combination with cash-in-lieu for the balance (42%) of the requirement.
Approximately 324 sq. ft. (74.4%) of the proposed area is covered by an overhang (area in
red on next page). Standard PA1.5 requires that Street level pedestrian amenity shall be
open to the sky. HPC may approve such an area to be covered, provided the street-facing
portion remains entirely open. Staff recognizes that covered amenity space can be
beneficial for a number of reasons, including providing outdoor space that is protected from
rain or harsh sun, breaking down a two-story mass with a one-story element, or spatially
helping to define an area. However, the proposed amenity space is largely occupied by
oversized planters that create approximately 112 sq. ft. of un-occupiable space and largely
privatize the covered area. Additionally, the height of the overhang is less than 8 ft. at the
front, which does not reinforce the concept of larger ground level storefront in the historic
downtown area. Staff is not necessarily opposed to a covered pedestrian amenity area,
however the proposed configuration does little to support the goals of Pedestrian Amenity,
which include conveying human scale, improving the commercial experience, supporting a
variety of uses, and promoting interaction and engagement. Staff recommends restudy of
this aspect of the design.
P27
IV.A.
Page 6 of 15
26.412.080. Second Tier Commercial Space
The Aspen Area Community Plan establishes policies to encourage a balanced, diverse and
vital commercial use mix that meets the needs of the year-round residents and visitors, and to
facilitate the sustainability of essential businesses that provide basic community needs. These
design standards ensure “second tier” space in commercial zones are maintained, allows for
the redevelopment of commercial properties, maintains a meaningful ratio of commercial
space that serves the day to day needs of residents and visitors, and allows for creative designs
that add variety and interest to the City’s commercial areas.
A. Applicability.
1. Development or redevelopment. This section applies to all new development and
redevelopment in the CC, C-1, S/C/I, NC, and MU districts. Proposals that are 100%
lodge projects shall be exempted from this requirement. Remodel and renovation
activities that do not trigger demolition, and which maintain 100% of the existing second
tier space present on the site are exempt from this Section. Changes to second tier
space as a result of required accessibility or building code compliance are exempt from
compliance with the section if demolition is not triggered.
2. Second Tier Commercial Space. See Section 26.104.100, Definitions.
3. Limitations. No portion of Second Tier Commercial Space may be used as storage,
office, and the like, for another commercial space. For instance, if a retail shop is
located on the ground floor, the basement Second Tier Commercial Space may not be
used as the office or storage for that business, and must instead be an entirely separate
space.
B. Requirement.
1. The following minimum and maximum net leasable area shall be designed as second tier
commercial space:
Table 26.412.100-1
Zoning District Second tier commercial space
provided
Minimum Maximum
Commercial Core (CC) 20% 75%
Commercial (C-1) 25% 75%
Service Commercial Industrial (S/C/I) 35% --
Neighborhood Commercial (NC) 35% --
Mixed Use (MU) 25% 50%
P28
IV.A.
Page 7 of 15
2. The redevelopment of any building that includes existing second tier commercial space
shall provide the greater of fifty-percent (50%) of the existing space or the minimums
outlined in Table 26.412.100-1.
3. In order to satisfy the requirements of this Section, issuance of the Certificate of
Occupancy or Letter of Completion for ground floor commercial space is contingent
upon the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or Letter of Completion for all second
tier space located within the development. This includes the completion of all utilities,
structural assemblies and other building accessibility requirements, and life safety
elements necessary for the completion of inspections, to permit occupancy, and
facilitate the intended use of the space. This may include the installation of HVAC
systems, as well as grease traps, ventilation and fire suppression systems for restaurant,
bar, bakery, commercial kitchen and related uses. An agreement, acceptable to the
City Attorney, outlining the process for completion and occupancy of ground floor and
second tier commercial space, to be signed by the Community Development Director,
shall be required as part of the Development Documents, and shall be required prior to
issuance of a core and shell or tenant finish building permit.
4. Pedestrian amenity is encouraged to provide access to second tier commercial spaces
within a development. This access may be provided via a mid-block walkway accessing
commercial space off the primary street frontage, a sub-grade courtyard, an internal
enclosed courtyard, or access to upper level commercial areas.
Staff Finding: The basement of the proposed building provides the required Second Tier
space, slightly exceeding the minimum square footage. Conditions of approval will be
recommended, and verified during building permit review, to ensure that there is adequate
separation between the Primary and Second Tier spaces within the building. Staff has
design concerns with the access to the Second Tier space in the form of an exposed
basement stair off of Hopkins Avenue as noted in the staff response to the design standards
and guidelines. Staff recommends restudy related to the Hopkins Avenue access to the
Second Tier space.
Relevant Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Standards and
Guidelines
General
Site Planning and Streetscape
1.1 All projects shall provide a context study.
· The study should include the relationship to adjacent structures and streets through
photographs, streetscape elevations, historic maps, etc.
1.2 All projects shall respond to the traditional street grid.
P29
IV.A.
Page 8 of 15
· A building shall be oriented parallel to the street unless uncharacteristic of the area.
Refer to specific chapters for more information.
· Buildings on corners shall be parallel to both streets.
1.3 Landscape elements (both hardscape and softscape) should complement the
surrounding context, support the street scene, and enhance the architecture of the
building.
· This applies to landscape located both on-site and in the public right-of-way.
· High quality and durable materials should be used.
· Early in the design process, consider stormwater best management practices as an
integral part of the landscape design process.
1.4 Where there is open space on a site, reinforce the traditional transition from public
space, to semi-public space to private space.
· This may be achieved through a fence, a defined walkway, a front porch element,
covered walkway, or landscape.
1.5 Maintain alignment of building facades where appropriate.
· Consider the entire block of a neighborhood to determine appropriate building
placement. Carefully examine and respond to the variety of building alignments that are
present.
· Consider all four corners of an intersection and architectural context to determine
appropriate placement for buildings located on corners.
· Consider the appropriate location of street level Pedestrian Amenity when siting a new
building.
1.6 When a building facade is set back, define the property line. Review the context of the
block when selecting an appropriate technique. Examples include:
· A fence which is low in height and mostly transparent so as to maintain openness along
the street.
· Landscaping, though it may not block views of the architecture or a Pedestrian Amenity
space. Hedgerows over 42 inches are prohibited.
· Benches or other street furniture.
Alleyways
1.7 Develop alley facades to create visual interest.
· Use varied building setbacks and/or changes in material to reduce perceived scale.
1.8 Consider small alley commercial spaces, especially on corner lots or lots with midblock
access from the street (See Pedestrian Amenity Section PA4).
· Maximize visibility and access to alley commercial spaces with large windows and
setbacks.
· Minimize adverse impacts of adjacent service and parking areas through materials,
setbacks, and/or landscaping.
P30
IV.A.
Page 9 of 15
Parking
1.9 Minimize the visual impacts of parking.
· All on-site parking shall be accessed off an alley where one is available.
· Break up the massing of the alley facade, especially when garage doors are present.
· Consider the potential for future retail use accessed from alleys and the desire to create
a safe and attractive environment for cars and people.
· If no alley access exists, access should be from the shortest block length.
· Screen surface parking and avoid locating it at the front of a building. Landscaping and
fences are recommended.
· Consider a paving material change to define surface parking areas and to create visual
interest.
· Design any street-facing entry to underground parking to reduce visibility. Use high
quality materials for doors and ramps and integrate the parking area into the
architecture.
Building Mass, Height, and Scale
1.10 A new building should appear similar in scale and proportion with buildings on the
block.
1.11 A minimum building height difference of 2 feet from immediately adjacent buildings is
required.
· The height difference shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide.
· The height difference should reflect the range and variation in building height in the
block.
· This may be achieved through the use of a cornice, parapet or other architectural
articulation.
1.13 Development adjacent to a historic landmark should respond to the historic resource.
· A new building should not obscure historic features of the landmark.
· A new large building should avoid negative impacts on historic resources by stepping
down in scale toward a smaller landmark.
· Consider these three aspects of a new building adjacent to a landmark: form, materials
and fenestration.
· 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 pedestrian scale.
· When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that are similar in size,
shape, and proportion to those of the historic resource.
Street Level Design
1.14 Commercial entrances shall be at the sidewalk level and oriented to the street.
P31
IV.A.
Page 10 of 15
· Finished floor and sidewalk level shall align for at least 1/2 the depth of the ground floor
where possible. If significant grade changes exist on property, then the project will be
reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
· All buildings shall have at least one clearly defined primary entrance facing the front lot
line, as defined in the Land Use Code. An entrance located within a chamfered corner is
an alternative. (See Commercial Core Historic District).
· If a building is located on a corner lot, two entrances shall be provided; a primary
entrance facing the longest block length and a secondary entrance facing the shortest
block length.
1.15 Incorporate an internal airlock or air curtain into first floor commercial space.
· An airlock or air curtain shall be integrated into the architecture.
· Adding a temporary exterior airlock of any material to an existing building not allowed.
1.16 Entries that are significantly taller or shorter than those seen historically or that conflict
with the established scale are highly discouraged.
· Transom windows above an entry are a traditional element that may be appropriate in
neighborhoods with 19th century commercial buildings.
· Entries should reflect the established range of sizes within the context of the block.
Analyze surrounding buildings to determine appropriate height for entry doors.
Roofscape
1.18 The roofscape should be designed with the same attention as the elevations of the
building.
· Consolidate mechanical equipment, including solar panels, and screen from view.
· Locate mechanical equipment toward the alley, or rear of a building if there is no alley
access.
· Use varied roof forms or parapet heights to break up the roof plane mass and add visual
interest.
1.19 Use materials that complement the design of the building facade.
· Minimize the visual impact of elevator shafts and stairway corridors through material
selection and placement of elements.
1.20 Incorporate green roofs and low landscape elements into rooftop design where
feasible.
1.21 Minimize visibility of rooftops railings.
· Mostly transparent railings are preferred.
· Integrating the rooftop railing into the architecture as a parapet or other feature, may
be appropriate considering the neighborhood context and proposed building style.
· Set back the railing a distance that equals or exceeds the height of the railing.
Materials and Details
P32
IV.A.
Page 11 of 15
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.
Lighting, Service, and Mechanical Areas
1.26 The design of light fixtures should be appropriate to the form, materials, scale, and style
of the building.
1.27 Trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located along an alleyway where one
exists, and screened from view with a fence or door.
· Screening fences shall be 6 feet high from grade (unless prohibited by the Land Use
Code), shall be of sound construction, and shall be no less than 90% opaque, unless
otherwise varied based on a recommendation from the Environmental Health
Department.
1.28 Design trash and recycle areas thoughtfully and within the style of the building, with the
goal of enhancing pedestrian and commercial uses along alleys.
1.29 Delivery areas shall be located along an alleyway where one exists.
· Shared facilities are highly encouraged.
1.30 Mechanical equipment, ducts, and vents shall be accommodated internally within the
building and/or co-located on the roof.
P33
IV.A.
Page 12 of 15
· Screen rooftop mechanical equipment and venting with a low fence or recess behind a
parapet wall to minimize visual impacts.
1.31 Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes.
· Group and discreetly locate these features.
· Use screening and materials that compliment the architecture.
1.32 Transformer location and size are dictated by City and utility company standards and
codes.
· Place a transformer on an alley where possible.
· Provide screening for any non-alley location.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Pedestrian Amenity
Street Level Pedestrian Amenity
PA1.1 Maximize solar access to Pedestrian Amenity space on the subject property.
· At grade Pedestrian Amenity on the north side of the street is discouraged, except when
providing a front yard along Main Street.
PA1.3 Street level Pedestrian Amenity spaces should be equal to a minimum of 1/3 of the total
Pedestrian Amenity requirement.
· For example, a requirement of 300 square feet of Pedestrian Amenity can be comprised
of three 100 square feet spaces; but cannot be comprised of one 275 square feet space
and one 25 square feet space.
PA1.4 Street level Pedestrian Amenity shall be within 18 inches above or below the existing
grade of the street or sidewalk which abuts the space.
PA1.5 Street level Pedestrian Amenity areas shall be open to the sky.
· Direct access to the Pedestrian Amenity from the street is required.
· A street level Pedestrian Amenity space may be covered, subject to HPC or P&Z
approval. If the space is covered, the street-facing portion shall be entirely open.
PA1.6 Design meaningful street level space that is useful, versatile, and accessible.
· Small unusable spaces are inappropriate.
· Consider providing space for future outdoor merchandising or restaurant seating
opportunities when designing the space.
· Providing good solar access, capturing mountain views, and providing seating is
recommended.
· Do not duplicate existing nearby open space.
· Storage areas, delivery areas, parking areas, or trash areas are not allowed uses within
Pedestrian Amenity space.
P34
IV.A.
Page 13 of 15
PA1.7 Design amenity space that enhances the pedestrian experience and faces the street.
· On corner lots, Pedestrian Amenity space may be considered on side streets or adjacent
to the alley rather than facing primary streets.
PA1.8 Street level Pedestrian Amenity space should reinforce the property line. Consider the
context of the block when selecting an appropriate technique. Examples include:
· Overhangs: A cantilevered roof or retractable awning that stretches to the property line.
· Fences: A low fence, mostly transparent, that allows views into the Pedestrian Amenity
space.
· Landscape: Low planter boxes. If including trees, the mature tree canopy size should not
prohibit views into the amenity space. Hedgerows over 42 inches are prohibited.
· Street Furniture: Permanent, fixed benches or other pedestrian-related elements may be
considered to establish property lines.
· Surface Material: A change in hardscape material to differientiate between Pedestrian
Amenity and right-of-way.
PA1.9 Street level Pedestrian Amenity may be appropriate on a case-by-case basis within the
Commercial Core Historic District.
· Consider the existing context of the block .
· Clearly define the property line as defined in PA1.8.
· In this District, street level Pedestrian Amenity should be subordinate to the line of building
fronts.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Commercial Core Historic District
Building Placement
2.1 Maintain the alignment of facades at the property line.
· Place as much of a building at the property line as possible to reinforce historic
development patterns.
· A minimum of 50% of the first floor building façade shall be at the property line. This
requirement may be varied by the Historic Preservation Commission based on historic
context or in order to accommodate Pedestrian Amenity (See Pedestrian Amenity
Chapter).
· A minimum of 70% of the first floor building facade shall be at the property line for
properties on a pedestrian mall.
Architecture
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.
P35
IV.A.
Page 14 of 15
· 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.
Architecture
2.4 Respect adjacent iconic historic structures.
· Development near historic landmarks may use Pedestrian Amenity design as a transition
or buffer to highlight the importance of adjacent historic structures.
· Use simple architectural details, materials and massing that do not detract from nearby
historic landmarks.
2.5 The massing and proportions of a new building or addition should respond to the
historic context.
· Two-story buildings are encouraged. A two-story high one-story element should be used
with finesse and discretion.
· On larger buildings, stepping down to a one-story element within the composition is
appropriate and consistent with the historic pattern of the district.
· Building modules or individual features should generally be tall and narrow in proportion.
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.
First Floor
2.9 Recessed entries are required.
· Set a primary entrance back from the front façade a minimum of 4 feet.
· Alternative options that define an entry and reinforce the rhythm of recessed entryways
may be considered.
· For corner lots, primary entries must face front lot line as determined by the Land Use
Code and/or be located in the chamfered corner where applicable.
P36
IV.A.
Page 15 of 15
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.
2.13 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.
Details and Materials
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.
P37
IV.A.
Page 1 of 7
EXHIBIT C
STAFF FINDINGS
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
26.470.080 General Review Standards
All Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council applications for growth management
review shall comply with the following standards.
A. Sufficient Allotments. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to
accommodate the proposed development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.040.B. Applications
for multi-year development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.110.A shall be required to
meet this standard for the growth management years form which the allotments are requested.
Staff Finding: The proposed project is 100% commercial net leasable area and represents a
reduction from the existing development. Therefore, no development allotments are required
for this project. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
B. Development Conformance. The proposed development conforms to the requirements and
limitations of this Title, of the zone district for site specific development plan, any adopted
regulatory master plan, as well as any previous approvals, including the Conceptual Historic
Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and
the Planned Development – Project Review approval, as applicable.
Staff Finding: The project conforms to the requirements of the Commercial Core zone district.
There are no other site specific plans or regulatory plans that apply to this development. Staff
finds this criterion is met.
C. Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed development shall upgrade public
infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at the sole
costs of the developer. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage
treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection,
solid waste disposal, parking and road and transit services.
Staff Finding: The proposed development represents a reduction in commercial net leasable
space and the elimination of two residential units. Upgraded infrastructure will be provided
where existing infrastructure is not adequate for the proposed development. Staff finds this
criterion is met.
D. Affordable Housing Mitigation.
1) For commercial development, sixty-five percent (65%) of the employees generated by
the additional commercial net leasable space, according to Section 26. 470.050.B,
Employee generation rates, shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable
housing.
P38
IV.A.
Page 2 of 7
Staff Finding: The proposed development does not increase commercial net leasable
space. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
2) For lodge development, sixty-five percent (65%) of the employees generated by the
additional lodge pillows, according to Section 26.470.050.B, Employee generation rates,
shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing.
Staff Finding: There is no proposed lodge development. Staff finds this criterion is not
applicable.
3) For the redevelopment of existing commercial net leasable space that did not previously
mitigate (see Section 26. 470.070.F), the mitigation requirements for affordable housing
shall be phased at 15% beginning in 201, and by 3% each year thereafter until 65% is
reached.
Staff Finding: The existing commercial space was mitigated through the on-site
affordable housing units. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
4) Unless otherwise exempted in this chapter, when a change in use between development
categories is proposed, the employee mitigation shall be based on the use the
development is converting to. For instance, if a commercial space is being converted to
lodge units, the mitigation shall be based on the requirements for lodge space, outlined
in subsection 2, above. Conversely, if lodge units are being converted to commercial
space, the mitigation shall be based on the requirements for commercial space, outlined
in subsections 1 and 3.
Staff Finding: No change in use is proposed. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
For free market residential development, affordable housing net livable area shall be
provided in an amount equal to at least thirty percent (30%) of the additional free
market residential net livable area.
Staff Finding: There is no proposed free market residential development. Staff finds this
criterion is not applicable.
5) For essential public facility development, mitigation shall be determined based on
Section 26.470.110.D.
Staff Finding: This is not an essential public facility. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
6) For all affordable housing provided as mitigation pursuant to this chapter or for the
creation of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26. 540.
P39
IV.A.
Page 3 of 7
Staff Finding: No affordable housing is provided on site. Staff finds this criterion is not
applicable.
7) Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement (“voluntary
units”) may be deed restricted at any level of affordability, including residential
occupied (RO).
Staff Finding: No units are being provided absent a requirement. Staff finds this criterion is
not applicable.
26.470.100.E Demolition or redevelopment of multi-family housing. The City's neighborhoods
have traditionally been comprised of a mix of housing types, including those affordable by its
working residents. However, because of Aspen's attractiveness as a resort environment and
because of the physical constraints of the upper Roaring Fork Valley, there is constant pressure
for the redevelopment of dwellings currently providing resident housing for tourist and second-
home use. Such redevelopment results in the displacement of individuals and families who are
an integral part of the Aspen work force. Given the extremely high cost of and demand for
market-rate housing, resident housing opportunities for displaced working residents, which are
now minimal, will continue to decrease.
Preservation of the housing inventory and provision of dispersed housing opportunities in Aspen
have been long-standing planning goals of the community. Achievement of these goals will
serve to promote a socially and economically balanced community, limit the number of
individuals who face a long and sometimes dangerous commute on State Highway 82, reduce
the air pollution effects of commuting and prevent exclusion of working residents from the City's
neighborhoods.
The Aspen Area Community Plan established a goal that affordable housing for working
residents be provided by both the public and private sectors. The City and the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority have provided affordable housing both within and adjacent to the
City limits. The private sector has also provided affordable housing. Nevertheless, as a result of
the replacement of resident housing with second homes and tourist accommodations and the
steady increase in the size of the workforce required to assure the continued viability of Aspen
area businesses and the City's tourist-based economy, the City has found it necessary, in
concert with other regulations, to adopt limitations on the combining, demolition or conversion
of existing multi-family housing in order to minimize the displacement of working residents, to
ensure that the private sector maintains its role in the provision of resident housing and to
prevent a housing shortfall from occurring.
The combining, demolition, conversion or redevelopment of multi-family housing shall be
approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based
on compliance with the following requirements (see definition of demolition.):
P40
IV.A.
Page 4 of 7
1. Requirements for combining, demolishing, converting or redeveloping free-market multi-
family housing units.
Staff Finding: There are no existing free-market residential units on site. Staff finds this
criterion is not applicable.
2. Requirements for demolishing affordable multi-family housing units: In the event a
project proposes to demolish or replace existing deed-restricted affordable housing units,
the redevelopment may increase or decrease the number of units, bedrooms or net
livable area such that there is no decrease in the total number of employees housed by
the existing units. The overall number of replacement units, unit sizes, bedrooms and
category of the units shall be reviewed by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and
a recommendation forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Staff Finding: There are two deed-restricted Category 1 studio units located on the
second floor of the existing development. These existing units each house 1.25 full-time
equivalents (FTEs) for a total of 2.5 Category 1 FTEs on site. The Applicant is proposing to
extinguish Affordable Housing Credits for 2.5 Category 2 FTE to replace the demolished
units. The APCHA Board reviewed the application on May 16 and recommended
approval of using Affordable Housing Credits, provided they are 2.5 Category 1 FTEs.
Planning staff has concerns related to the use of Affordable Housing Credits in place of
on site housing, further discussed in section 4 below.
3. Fractional unit requirement. When the affordable housing replacement requirement of
this Section involves a fraction of a unit, fee-in-lieu may be provided only upon the
review and approval of the City Council, to meet the fractional requirement only,
pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.110.C, Provision of required affordable housing via a fee-in-
lieu payment.
Staff Finding: The Applicant has stated that they will satisfy the entire mitigation amount
through the extinguishment of Affordable Housing Credits. Staff finds this criterion is not
applicable.
4. Location requirement. Multi-family replacement units, both free-market and affordable,
shall be developed on the same site on which demolition has occurred, unless the owner
shall demonstrate and the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that
replacement of the units on site would be in conflict with the parcel's zoning or would be
an inappropriate solution due to the site's physical constraints.
When either of the above circumstances result, the owner shall replace the maximum
number of units on site which the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the
site can accommodate and may replace the remaining units off site, at a location
determined acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission, or may replace the
units by extinguishing the requisite number of affordable housing credits, pursuant to Sec.
P41
IV.A.
Page 5 of 7
26.540, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. A recommendation from the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard.
When calculating the number of credits that must be extinguished, the most restrictive
replacement measure shall apply. So, for example, for an applicant proposing to
replace one 1,000 square foot three-bedroom unit at the 50% rate using credits, the
following calculations shall be used:
· 50% of 1,000 square feet = 500 square feet to be replaced. At the Code mandated rate
of 1 FTE per 400 square feet of net livable area, this requires 1.25 credits to be
extinguished; or
· A three-bedroom unit = 3.0 FTE’s. 50% of 3.0 FTE’s = 1.50 credits to be extinguished.
Therefore, the applicant must extinguish 1.50 credits to replace a three-bedroom unit at
the 50% rate. The credits to be extinguished would be Category 4 credits.
Staff Finding: There are two deed-restricted studio units in the existing development. Each
studio unit houses 1.25 FTEs for a total of 2.5 FTEs requiring replacement. Affordable
housing is a permitted use on the second floor in the Commercial Core zone district,
specifically when required for on-site affordable housing mitigation. The height limit for
the CC zone district is 28 ft. The applicant is entirely redeveloping this lot, opening the
opportunity to accommodate housing in a new design. The diagram below shows the
Main Street View Plane passing over the site. It appears that a second floor could be
reasonably accommodated without intersecting the view plane.
P42
IV.A.
Page 6 of 7
A second story for this project could provide several community benefits, including but
not limited to: on-site affordable housing, additional second tier commercial, and/or
additional pedestrian amenity space. Staff believes that the exclusion of a second floor is
an underutilization of a commercial property and recommends restudy. There are no
conflicts with the parcel’s zoning or significant physical constraints that staff finds warrant
the acceptance of off-site housing.
Timing requirement. Any replacement units required to be deed-restricted as affordable
housing shall be issued a certificate of occupancy, according to the Building
Department, and be available for occupancy at the same time as, or prior to, any
redeveloped free-market units, regardless of whether the replacement units are built on
site or off site.
Staff Finding: The applicant will be required to provide Affordable Housing Credits prior to
issuance of a building permit. Affordable Housing Credits represent affordable housing
units that have already been constructed and issued a certificate of occupancy. This
requirement will be included as a condition in the adopted resolution. Staff finds this
criterion is met.
5. Redevelopment agreement. The applicant and the City shall enter into a
redevelopment agreement that specifies the manner in which the applicant shall
adhere to the approvals granted pursuant to this Section and penalties for
P43
IV.A.
Page 7 of 7
noncompliance. The agreement shall be recorded before an application for a
demolition permit may be accepted by the City.
Staff Finding: The requirement to provide Affordable Housing Credits to satisfy the
mitigation prior to issuance of a building permit will be included as a condition in the
adopted resolution. An additional agreement would not be necessary. Staff finds this
criterion is not applicable.
6. Growth management allotments. The existing number of free-market residential units,
prior to demolition, may be replaced exempt from growth management, provided that
the units conform to the provisions of this Section. The redevelopment credits shall not be
transferable separate from the property unless permitted as described above in
Subparagraph 4, Location requirement.
Staff Finding: The proposed project does not include free-market residential units. Staff
finds this criterion is not applicable.
7. Exemptions.
Staff Finding: The proposed application does not meet any of the available exemptions.
Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
P44
IV.A.
Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT D
DRC COMMENTS
Engineering
These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the project packet
submitted for purpose of the DRC meeting and are required at building permit submittal.
Public Improvements:
1. Sidewalk along Hopkins Ave must be 8’ in width. The concrete portion of sidewalk may
match the existing width of neighboring sidewalks, but the entire 8’ width must be walkable
and ADA compliant. The tree wells must be located outside the 8’ walkable area.
2. All adjacent curb and gutter must be replaced as part of project.
Stormwater
1. Site will be required to treat the water quality capture volume and release to the City storm
water system per Table 1.1 of URMP. Conveyance and capacity to City system must be
verified.
2. URMP states that drywells are a last resort BMP. Please provide evidence of how other BMP’s
are not applicable for the site.
3. Stormwater infrastructure exists nearby for possible tie-in. A Contech vault exists within
nearby sidewalk for a possible connection. Capacity and neighbor approval would have to
be verified. Maintenance plan would also have to be resolved.
4. Depending on timing of mudflow regulation changes, property may to be required to
perform a mudflow study due to depth of debris on site.
Utilities
1. Existing material, size and condition of water service must be investigated. Fire calculations
will be required to verify necessity of line size. Testing and disinfection will be required for
service line. Plans must demonstrate how service line reaches mechanical room in back of
building.
2. The report states the neighboring transformer will be updated and upsized. An agreement
from the neighboring owner must be included at building permit for permission to perform
work. Clearances for the upsized transformer must meet standards. An easement will also be
required for new transformer.
Parks
1. A tree removal/dripline excavation permit will be required.
2. If trees are removed, Silva Cells will be required.
3. City Forester to determine species of replacement trees.
4. Irrigation to trees will be required.
5. If trees are to remain, tree protection fencing will be required along with verification of
existing irrigation.
P45
IV.A.
Page 2 of 4
6. Will tree grates be allowed for part of the 8’ walking surface that ENG is dictating?
Building
1. Lower level
a. Bathrooms are required to be separate sex or if uni-sex the lavatories shall be in the same
room as the toilet not in a common hall.
b. The lower 2nd tier tenant space exceeds the max travel distance allowed for a single exit,
they cannot exit through the other tenant’s space for their second exit.
c. The exterior access stair from the lower level is less than 10’ from the property line and is
required to be enclosed and protected. They have discussed alternate methods of
compliance with Stephen regarding this but must submit a formal proposal of alternate
method of compliance to request relief from this code provision.
d. The second tier tenant space cannot share the restroom on the lower level with the
restaurant as they have shown it. If that is to be a common element for both tenants
there needs to be doors separating spaces and defining the common space.
2. Main level
a. They need an accessible route between spaces where the two buildings are connected
in the kitchen, that stair needs to be replaced with a ramp or a ramp provided adjacent
to it. They size of the employee work area does not meet the exception to this IBC
1104.3.1 for employee work area accessibility.
b. Accessible route to the trash enclosure shall be provided from the interior of the
building. Use of the alley is not allowed for an accessible route as it is a vehicular way.
c. As openings on a building are not permitted on a property line they must submit a
proposal for an alternate method to allow the connection between buildings in the
kitchen. This has been discussed with Stephen as well and they will need to propose a
deluge sprinkler system and obtain a recorded easement for this access across property
lines.
d. Dimension the distance to the center of the alley from the rear of the building to show
that they comply with the allowed percentage of openings on that façade of the
building. The distance needs to be shown on plan and they should show calculations of
wall opening percentage to demonstrate compliance.
3. Roof
a. Snow guards are required on the sloped roof over the entry
b. Guards are required at the access hatch on the roof
4. General
a. Blower door tests will be required per our 2015 code adoption
b. All proposals for alternate methods shall be in writing, addressed to the chief building
official, and be stamped and signed by their architect or engineer. They shall show how
what is proposed is of equivalent results as what is prescribed by code.
Environmental Health
1. The dimensions required for a commercial building and with service is 300 square feet (20’l x
15’w with 10’ height clearance) for trash and recycling storage (Municipal Code 12.10.030
A. b.). The current application would not be approved.
P46
IV.A.
Page 3 of 4
a. Applicant has proposed a total of 75 square feet for trash and recycling. Applicant was
informed that although this restaurant may qualify under Special Review for a smaller
space, any space less than a total of 150 square feet will not be considered for approval.
b. Applicant was informed that composting may required by the time this restaurant is
operational, so there must be room to collect trash, recycling and compost, each in a
2yd yard dumpster.
c. The current drawings show a door of less than 8’ in width. Applicant was informed that
the door to access the waste containers must be at least 8’ wide.
2. Applicant indicated they would investigate the possibility of working with the neighboring
restaurant (currently White House Tavern) to determine if the waste space could be
combined to get to adequate space for both facilities.
a. City staff indicated that HPC may have to approve on any combination of waste areas
with the adjoining historical structure.
3. Environmental Health staff offered to work with the applicant to find an acceptable
configuration prior to submission for permit.
Zoning
Comments attached.
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
1. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District’s rules, regulations, and
specifications which are on file at the District office at the time of construction.
2. All clear water connections are prohibited (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains).
3. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD.
4. On-site drainage and landscaping plans must accommodate ACSD service requirements
and comply with regulations.
5. Oil and Grease interceptors are required for all new and remodeled food processing
establishment.
6. Oil and Sand separators are required for garages and vehicle maintenance establishments.
7. When new service lines are required for existing development the old service line must be
abandoned according to specific ACSD requirements.
8. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system.
9. Generally one tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be
required where more than one unit is served by a single service line.
10. Permanent improvements are prohibited in areas covered by sewer easements or right of
ways to the lot line of each development.
11. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a foundation and/or building permit.
12. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned
reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an
additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system
or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over
time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements
needed.
P47
IV.A.
Page 4 of 4
13. Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned
capacity of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will be
assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be
overwhelmed. The District would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area
of concern (only for the material cost difference for larger line)
14. Where main lines are not available to serve new development, a line extension request and
collection system agreement are required.
15. Glycol snowmelt and heating systems must have containment provisions and must preclude
discharge to the public sanitary sewer system.
P48
IV.A.
Strengthening Community Through Workforce Housing
Page | 1
LAND USE RECOMMENDATION
TO: APCHA Board of Directors
FROM: APCHA Board of Directors
THRU: Cindy Christensen, Deputy Director
Mike Kosdrosky, Executive Director
DATE: May 17, 2018
RE: Recommendation for Redevelopment of 304 East Hopkins
PROJECT: The applicant for the property located at 304 E. Hopkins Avenue, Hillstone Restaurant
Group, Inc., requests approval for redevelopment.
EXISTING CONDITIONS: The existing structure contains a two-story above grade mixed use
building with a large sunken courtyard. The below grade commercial space within the two-
story building creates three levels of commercial space, along with two deed-restricted “low
income” studio units located on the upper floor.
PROPOSAL: To replace existing two-story structure with a one-story flat roof building. The
applicant is proposing to remove the existing studio units. Under Growth Management,
affordable housing credits are proposed to mitigate for the two studio units located at the rear
of the existing building, reducing net commercial space by 1,402 square feet.
The existing units are categorized as “low income.” The Aspen/Pitkin County Employee Housing
Guidelines define “low income” as Category 1. The required mitigation is 2.5 FTE’s at Category
1.
DISCUSSION:
Under Growth Management, Section 26.470.080.D(1), Affordable Housing Mitigation:
1) For commercial development, sixty-five percent (65%) of the employees generated by
the additional commercial net leasable space, according to Section 26.470.050.B,
Employee generation rates, shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable
housing.
There is no new commercial net leasable space added to the redevelopment of the property.
The table below shows a reduction in net leasable area:
P49
IV.A.
Page | 2
Existing Commercial net leasable
Net Leasable FTEs
Basement 2,647 9.34
Main floor 1,631 7.67
Upper Floor 901 3.18
TOTAL 5,179 20.19
Proposed Project
Net Leasable area FTE's
Basement 1,774 6.26
Main floor 2,003 9.41
TOTAL 3,777 15.67
Section 26.470.100.E.2, Requirements for demolishing affordable multi-family housing units,
states:
In the event a project proposes to demolish or replace existing deed-restricted affordable
housing units, the redevelopment may increase or decrease the number of units,
bedrooms or net livable area such that there is no decrease in the total number of
employees housed by the existing units. The overall number of replacement units, unit
sizes, bedrooms and category of the units shall be reviewed by the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority and a recommendation forwarded to the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Removal of the two existing studio units is considered demolition and to be replaced under
the Housing Credits program. The units are substandard in size (less than 500 square feet),
deed restricted as “low income,” and currently defined as Category 1 under the Employee
Housing Guidelines. The applicant proposes providing housing credits for 2.5 FTE’s at
Category 2 due to the site constraints, and the history of complaints between residences
above restaurants. The requirement would be at Category 1.
Although the preferred method of mitigation is to replace the units on site, the applicant
proposes a one-story structure not only to respect the adjacent landmark at 302 East
Hopkins, but to reflect development patterns in the block, both historic and current. They
also want to minimize the complaints of having residential units located above a restaurant.
Therefore, the use of the affordable housing credit program would be acceptable to mitigate
for the existing units creating the need for 2.5 FTE’s at Category 1 prior to building permit
approval.
Existing Compliance Concerns
The two existing “low income” units were approved by City Council in July of 1982, prior to the
establishment of APCHA, and are currently unoccupied creating a potential noncompliant
issue. Bringing the units back into compliance prior to any approval would be a requirement by
P50
IV.A.
Page | 3
APCHA staff. However, documentation provided to APCHA on the nature of the condition of
the property, along with a site visit conducted by APCHA Staff, substantiated the
uninhabitability of the units. Concerns have been raised by the City Attorney that any future
developer could say “my building is uninhabitable, so I’m just going to take my units out of the
rental inventory indefinitely.” Staff recognizes this broader policy concern for allowing existing
affordable housing units to remain unoccupied for an unspecified period of time during
development/entitlement review, which depends on the length of the entitlement process and
the vesting rights period prior to permit. This raises another issue for this applicant or any
other responsible for maintaining and renting out units until such time a new building permit is
issued. Maintenance, inspections, upkeep of the rental inventory is a major concern, but is not
for the APCHA Board to resolve at this time.
RECOMMENDATION:
The APCHA Board reviewed the application at their regular meeting held May 16, 2018 and
recommend approval with the following conditions:
1. The non-compliance issue for the two studio units remains; however, documentation
has been provided, reviewed by APCHA Staff and the City’s Building Department to
the extent of the inhabitability conditions of the units.
2. As stated above, the preferred method of mitigation is to replace the units on site.
The proposal for a one-story structure is not only to respect the adjacent landmark at
302 East Hopkins, but to reflect development patterns in the block, both historic and
current. Removal of the onsite units also minimizes the complaints of having
residential units located above a restaurant. Therefore, the use of the affordable
housing credit program is acceptable to the APCHA Board to mitigate for the existing
units creating the requirement to extinguish 2.5 Category 1 FTE housing credits prior
to building permit approval.
3. A release of the restriction shall be completed at the time the 2.5 Category 1 FTE
housing credits have been extinguished.
P51
IV.A.
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
March 19, 2018
City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
c/o Justin Barker and Sarah Yoon
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Demolition, Major HPC Conceptual, Commercial Design Review Conceptual including
second tier commercial and pedestrian amenity, View plane Exemption, Transportation, Trash and
GMQS Application for 304 East Hopkins Street, Aspen, Colorado
Dear Historic Preservation Commission, Mr. Barker, and Ms. Yoon:
We submit this application on behalf of Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, the
owner of 304 East Hopkins Avenue in its entirety, to request Conceptual Design Reviews, Demolition,
Growth Management, Transportation and associated reviews for the redevelopment of the property. The
subject property is located at 304 East Hopkins Avenue, Parcel IDs #2737-073-75-001 to -005, and 2737-
073-75-800.
304 East Hopkins Street is not historic; however, it is located within the Commercial Core Historic District
and is under the purview of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Zoning for the property is
Commercial Core (CC). The CC Zone District allows limited land uses including commercial, lodging and
some affordable housing residential. The owner of 304 would like to demolish the existing two story
1980s building and to construct a one story restaurant with a basement that satisfies the second tier
commercial requirement. The building is located in the foreground of the Main Street viewplane that
originates from the J-Bar at the Hotel Jerome; however the view plane is not intersected by the proposed
development.
Existing Conditions
The 3,015 square foot (sf) lot contains a two story above grade
mixed use building with a large sunken courtyard that provides
access to a basement level commercial space. In total there are
three levels of commercial space within the two-story building,
and two deed restricted “low income” studio units located on
the upper floor. The recorded condominium plat (the Seguin
Condominium) assigned Units 1, 2 and 5 to commercial use; and
Units 3 and 4 are assigned to the deed restricted studio units.
The building received a Certificate of Occupancy in 1982.
Figure 1: Current building at 304 E. Hopkins.
P52
IV.A.
Page 2 of 3
There is no onsite parking associated with this property. Trash and deliveries are located along the
alleyway.
Proposal
A one story flat roof building that is setback from Hopkins Avenue to respect the adjacent landmark at
302 East Hopkins and to reflect development patterns in the block both historic and current. The
proposed architecture relates to typical one story commercial buildings with false fronts and large
projecting awnings while balancing the existing context of the block by providing a generous setback for
outdoor dining and in deference to the setback and architecture of 302. The original 19th century building
on the site (bottom right) provided design inspiration for the proposed front porch design.
Summary of Reviews
Major Development Conceptual/Commercial Design/Demolition (Exhibit A)
Exhibit A describes in detail the design guidelines and standards in comparison to the proposed project.
Pedestrian Amenity is proposed both onsite in the form of a street level outdoor dining area on the front
porch and in the form of cash in lieu to meet the requirement of 25%. Second tier commercial space is
met in the basement, accessed directly from Hopkins Avenue. A tenant is not contemplated for the
second tier commercial space.
Growth Management (Exhibit B)
Affordable housing credits are proposed to mitigate for the two deed restricted studio units located at
the rear of the existing building on the second floor. A decrease of 1,402 sf of net leasable commercial
space is proposed compared to the existing building.
Parking and Transportation (Exhibit C and D)
Cash in lieu is proposed to meet parking requirements. Trips are significantly reduced by eliminating the
2 existing residential units and by decreasing the net leasable commercial space; however a TIA is included
as Exhibit D for review and discussion with the Engineering Department to ensure compliance.
Figure 2: Circa 1920s Galena Street. Note the one story
building at left with large projecting awning.
Figure 3: Circa 1970. One story building with prominent gable roof form at 304 E.
Hopkins.
P53
IV.A.
Page 3 of 3
View plane (Exhibit E)
The one story building does not intersection the Main Street view plane (originating from the J-bar);
therefore the project is not subject to view plane review.
Trash/Recycle/Utility (Exhibit F)
Special Review by the Environmental Health Department is requested for the trash/recyle area located
along the alley. We look forward to discussing the proposal with Environmental Health to ensure
compliance with City Codes.
We look forward to presenting the concept behind this project and are happy to provide more information
or to answer any questions.
Sincerely,
Sara Adams, AICP
BendonAdams LLC
sara@bendonadams.com
970.925.2855
Exhibits:
A – Commercial Design Review (Conceptual) + Demolition of Property within Historic District
B – Growth Management
C – Transportation and Parking Management
D – TIA
E – Viewplane Exemption and Rendering
F – Environmental Health Special Review for trash dimensions
G – Determination of Affordable Housing Mitigation
H – Determination of Second Tier
I – Land Use Application Form + Dimensional Requirements Form
J – Agreement to Pay
K – Pre- application summary
L – Proof of Ownership
M – Authorization to Represent
N – HOA form
O – Mailing list within 300 ft.
P – Vicinity Map
Q – Supplemental materials of context
R – Drawings (including site plan, existing conditions and stamped improvement survey)
S – Materials Board
T – Engineering Report
P54
IV.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design + Demolition
304 East Hopkins
Exhibit A
HPC Major Development/Commercial Design Review Conceptual 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.
26.412.060 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.
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.
General Design Standards and Guidelines
1.1 All projects shall provide a context study.
Please reference Exhibit Q and the figures below for context studies.
1.2 All projects shall respond to the traditional street grid.
The proposed building is oriented parallel to the street.
P55
IV.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design + Demolition
304 East Hopkins
1.3 Landscape elements [both hardscape and softscape] should complement the surrounding context,
support the street scene and enhance the architecture of the building.
Proposed landscape elements include planter boxes to enhance the street scene along Restaurant
Row and to create a defined area for outdoor dining. An engineering report is included as Exhibit
T which provides preliminary direction on storm water management for this small site.
1.4 Where there is open space on a site, reinforce the traditional transition from public space to semi-
public space to private space.
The proposed planters, covered front porch, and the perpendicular walkway from the sidewalk to
the restaurant entrance and to the basement commercial space delineate a transition from public
to semi-public to private space.
1.5 Maintain alignment of building facades where appropriate.
The proposed building is setback from the front property line, in a location similar to the existing
building, to respect the landmark at 302 W. Hopkins and to reveal the corner of the historic asset.
The setback also facilitates at grade pedestrian amenity which is consistent with outdoor dining
spaces along this block of Hopkins also known as Restaurant Row.
Figure 1: Existing setbacks within the block. Orange outline indicates landmark property. Black rectangle is basic outline of
proposed 304 building location and dotted line is porch roof. Refer to Sheet A-0.12 for specific setbacks.
P56
IV.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design + Demolition
304 East Hopkins
1.6 When a building façade is setback, define the property line. Review the context of the block when
selecting an appropriate technique.
The property line is defined by the planter boxes. The context of the block including adjacent
landmarks that are setback from the street, shown in Figure 1, and the location of the existing
building informed the proposed setback.
1.7 Develop alley facades to create visual interest.
The alley façade is 30 ft. wide, and is designed consistent with the rest of the proposed brick
building. The limited width of the lot does not provide much opportunity to create visual interest
considering trash/recycle and delivery requirements. Using a high quality brick material creates
visual interest and is contextual with the adjacent alley façade at 302.
1.8 – not applicable.
1.9 Minimize the visual impacts of parking.
Onsite parking is not proposed. Mitigation is proposed through cash-in-lieu payment.
1.10 A new building should appear similar in scale and proportion with buildings on the block.
A one story building with a parapet is proposed. The parapet creates the illusion of a vertical
building and is indicative of a commercial building within the Commercial Core Historic District.
The proposed front porch relates to the pedestrian and to the surrounding landmarks that all
feature front porches.
1.11 A minimum building height difference of 2 feet from immediately adjacent buildings is required.
The building to the east (308 Hopkins) is three stories and the building to the west (302 Hopkins)
is about 2 feet taller to the apex. The proposed height of 304 is 17 ft. 6 in. to the top of the parapet.
P57
IV.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design + Demolition
304 East Hopkins
Figure 2: Height comparison.
1.12 – not applicable.
1.13 Development adjacent to a historic landmark should respond to the historic resource.
• A new building should not obscure historic features of the landmark.
• A new large building should avoid negative impacts on historic resources by stepping down in
scale toward a smaller landmark.
• Consider these three aspects of a new building adjacent to a landmark: form, materials and
fenestration.
o When choosing to relate to building form, use forms that are similar to the historic
resource.
o 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 pedestrian scale.
o When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that are similar in size,
shape and proportion to those of the historic resource.
The proposed location of the new building is setback from the façade of the white house by about
5 ft. 11in. The rectangular building form is similar to traditional 19th century commercial buildings
with false fronts, and the front porch roof relates to traditional awnings used downtown during
the 19th century. Materials are primarily traditional brick with wood posts and a metal porch roof.
The proposed windows and doors distinguish the front façade as new construction and as a
product of its own time. Historic photos used as inspiration for this design are below. These
photographs of Aspen illustrate false front buildings, large awnings on one story buildings and
some historic photographs of the subject block.
P58
IV.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design + Demolition
304 East Hopkins
Figure 3: Circa 1900. Store at Hopkins and Galena Streets.
Figure 4: 1934. One story building at Hopkins and Galena Streets where Theory is now.
P59
IV.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design + Demolition
304 East Hopkins
Figure 5: 1920. Awning on one story building at left.
Figure 6: 1970. One story building next to White House Tavern. Note the prominent roof at 304 Hopkins.
P60
IV.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design + Demolition
304 East Hopkins
Figure 7: Circa 1965. Buildings within the 300 E. Hopkins block, next to Wells Fargo.
Figure 8: 1963. Corner of Monarch and Main Street. One story brick building.
P61
IV.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design + Demolition
304 East Hopkins
1.14 Commercial entrances shall be at the sidewalk level and oriented to the street.
The entrance aligns with the sidewalk level and is clearly defined as the primary entrance. A
second entrance is clearly delineated by the exterior stairway that leads to the basement
commercial space.
1.15 Incorporate an internal airlock or air curtain into first floor commercial space.
A seasonal airlock is incorporated into the front porch as shown on the floor plans. The airlock
will be removed during the warmer months and used only during the winter. The airlock is built
of very high quality materials, is integral to the building, and allows the front porch to be
completely open during seasonal months.
1.16 Entries that are significantly taller or shorter than those seen historically or that conflict with the
established scale are highly discouraged.
The proposed entry door is 8 ft. tall which reflects the established range of sizes within the context
of the block.
1.17 - not applicable.
1.18 – The roofscape should be designed with the same attention as the elevations of the building.
This property is subject to the Main Street Mountain Viewplane; however the proposed
mechanical equipment does not intersect the protected viewplane. Mechanical equipment is
consolidated and screened from view at the rear of the building, shown on the preliminary roof
plans. A parapet is located on the front and rear facades to screen mechanical and to relate to
traditional 19th century commercial buildings downtown.
1.19 – Use materials that complement the design of the building façade.
Brick is the primary material proposed for the parapet with a precast concrete cap. A painted
metal access stair for the mechanical equipment is proposed on the rooftop as required by
Building Code.
1.20 – Incorporate green roofs and low landscape elements into rooftop design where feasible.
After detailed analysis it was determined by the design team that the 304 property is not a good
candidate for a green roof due to site specific constraints; however at grade planters may be rain
gardens that filter storm water as described in the attached Engineering Report (Exhibit T).
1.21 – Minimize visibility of rooftop railings.
The parapet wall functions as a rooftop railing. The only allowed access to the roof is for
maintenance of the mechanical equipment.
1.22 – Complete and accurate identification of materials is required.
The drawing set identifies materials for consideration during Final Design Review. Material cut
sheets are included in the application submittal as Exhibit S.
1.23 – Building materials hall have these features:
• Convey the quality and range of materials fond in the current block context or seen
historically in the Character Area.
• Convey pedestrian scale.
• Enhance visual interest through texture, application, and/or dimension.
P62
IV.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design + Demolition
304 East Hopkins
• 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.
The primary material is brick. Wood columns and beams are proposed for the front porch, and a
simple wood front door is proposed. A dark metal standing seam is proposed for the front porch
roof. The brick parapet has a cast concrete cap, which is also used to cap the planter boxes. Metal
handrails with a bronze finish are proposed for the exterior stair that accesses the basement
commercial space. Impermeable black granite pavers are proposed for the seating area beneath
the front porch. All of the proposed materials are natural in finish and are non-reflective, please
refer to Exhibit S for cut sheets.
The proposed materials reflect the range of materials found in the block – brick, wood, metal, and
precast concrete. The buildings located within the vicinity (shown below) include brick, metal,
wood, ceramic tile, and precast concrete. Considering the proliferation of these materials in
Aspen, they are proven to be durable within Aspen’s climate.
1.24 - not applicable.
1.25 – Architecture that reflects corporate branding of the tenant is not permitted.
Architecture that relates to the Commercial Core Historic District is proposed and is not reflective
of corporate branding.
1.26 - The design of light fixtures should be appropriate to the form, materials, scale, and style of the
building.
Preliminary lighting locations and fixture type are indicated on sheet A-2.00 Ground Floor Plan for
general reference. Lighting fixtures will be proposed during Final Design Review.
Figure 7: Current materials directly across the street from 304 East Hopkins: brick, ceramic tile, metal , stone and precast concrete
materials.
Figure 9: The buildings to the east of 304 Hopkins include a three story infill building (308 East Hopkins) constructed about 10 years ago that includes brick,
stone, precast concrete and metal materials. To the right of 308 East Hopkins is a one story landmark that, similar to White House Tavern at 302 East
Hopkins, is primarily horizontal wood clapboard siding.
P63
IV.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design + Demolition
304 East Hopkins
1.27 – Trash and recycle service areas shall be co-
located along an alleyway where on exists, and
screened from view with a fence or door.
The proposed utility/trash/recycle area is
located along the alleyway. A metal roll down
door in burnished slate finish is proposed. The
proposed trash area greatly improves the
current condition shown at right.
1.28 – Design trash and recycle areas thoughtfully and
within the style of the building, with the goal of
enhancing pedestrian and commercial uses along the
alley.
The materials proposed for the front elevation
are carried to the rear elevation to create a cohesive building. The rear elevation is clean and
simple to support alley uses that may occur on adjacent properties in the future.
1.29 – Delivery areas shall be located along an alleyway where one exists.
The main delivery entrance is at the alley for both the main and basement levels.
1.30 – Mechanical equipment, ducts, and vents shall be accommodated internally within the building
and/or co-located on the roof.
A preliminary roof plan is included in the drawing submittal that shows consolidation of
mechanical equipment on the roof, minimal ducts and vents, and a mechanical roof is provided
in the basement. Equipment is screened by the parapet wall.
1.31 – Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes.
Utility and service boxes are located on the alley façade (only the gas meter) and within the
trash/recycle/utility room (electrical panels) to the greatest extent practical. Please refer to Sheet
A-2.00 Ground Floor Plan.
1.32 – Transformer location and size are dictated by City and utility company standards and codes.
The design team has been working with the City for almost 6 months to verify capacity and ability
to use the recently upgraded transformer at the Wells Fargo building.
1.33 to 1.37 – not applicable (these guidelines/standards pertain to remodels).
Conceptual Commercial Core Design Standards and Guidelines
2.1 – Maintain the alignment of facades at the property line.
• Place as much of a building at the property line as possible to reinforce historic development
patterns.
• A minimum of 50% of the first floor building façade shall be at the property line. This
requirement may be varied by the Historic Preservation Commission based on historic context
of in order to accommodate Pedestrian Amenity.
Figure 10: Current alley condition. Middle building is 304 E.
Hopkins.
P64
IV.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design + Demolition
304 East Hopkins
• A minimum of 70% of the first floor building façade shall be at the property line for properties
on a pedestrian mall.
Consistent with subpoint two above, the building is aligned with historic context to support and
highlight the adjacent 302 East Hopkins landmark that has a significant front yard setback and to
accommodate street level Amenity space. 304 East Hopkins has 30 feet of street frontage, so in
addition to revealing the historic corner of 302, a setback allows at grade pedestrian amenity for
outdoor dining. The proposed setback creates a softer transition between the three story 308 East
Hopkins building that sits on the property line and the setback of the historic 302 East Hopkins
building.
This property is located on “restaurant row” with ample outdoor dining – street level, on property
dining is consistent with development patterns found within the block and creates a transition from
the Commercial Core Zone District to the adjacent Mixed Use Zone District (which has a 10 ft. front
yard setback requirement) on the other side of Monarch Street.
The 1886 Sanborn Map is provided below to highlight the range of setbacks found in block which back
in 1886 was a mix of commercial and residential buildings.
302 308
Figure 11: Rendering showing reveal of historic building at 302 East Hopkins and the relationship between the subject property
and 308 East Hopkins.
P65
IV.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design + Demolition
304 East Hopkins
The property is required to provide at least 50% of the required Pedestrian Amenity onsite or to ask
City Council for a variance. The proposed at grade amenity space is appropriate for the current
conditions of the block and is appropriate considering the historic context of the area. Three of the
seven remaining one story residential miner’s cabins within the Commercial Core are found within
the block and across Hopkins Avenue. A front yard setback, while it sacrifices valuable year-round net
leasable area, is appropriate for this location and is similar to the current building setback at 304 East
Hopkins.
In addition to the site constraints related to Pedestrian Amenity, the design intent to align facades is
met through the projecting front porch and the substantial planter boxes located on the property line.
2.2 – Not applicable.
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 related 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.
Figure 12: 1886 Sanborn Map of subject block.
P66
IV.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design + Demolition
304 East Hopkins
• When relating to fenestration, large vertical windows on the ground level and punches 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.
The proposed one story flat roof building with a front porch element is inspired by the historic
photographs provided above and specifically by the original one story residence located on the site
(shown below).
The architecture relates to materials through the use of traditional brick, wood, stone and metal in a
neutral color palette. The rectangular form is consistent with typical commercial buildings. The
proposed setback relates to surrounding historic context and the projecting front porch is reminiscent
of large awnings found throughout the Commercial Core while remaining authentic to the building as
a product of its own time and not recreating history.
Figure 13: 1970s photograph of a building that is similar to the 1886 Sanborn map footprint at 304 East Hopkins.
P67
IV.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design + Demolition
304 East Hopkins
2.4 – Respect adjacent iconic historic structures.
• Development near historic landmarks may use Pedestrian Amenity designs as a transition or
buffer to highlight the importance of adjacent historic structures.
• Use simple architectural details, materials and massing that do not detract from nearby historic
landmarks.
The proposed front setback exposes the historic corner and side façade of the landmark at 302 East
Hopkins as part of the proposed at grade Pedestrian Amenity at 304. This allows diners to enjoy the
historic architecture as part of the outdoor dining experience. Simple architectural details create a
support and secondary backdrop to the Carpenter Gothic style of 302 East Hopkins.
2.5 – The massing and proportions of a new building or addition should respond to the historic context.
• Two story buildings are encouraged. A two-story high one-story element should be used with
finesse and discretion.
• On larger buildings, stepping down to a one-story element within the composition is
appropriate and consistent with the historic pattern of the district.
• Building modules or individual features should generally be tall and narrow in proportion.
A one story flat roof building directly relates to the three one-story landmarks located within the block
and directly across the street (i.e. Katie Reed building). The proposed one story building is 17.5 ft to
the top of parapet which is lower than the adjacent 302 landmark, but tall enough to avoid a short
and wide building mass.
Figure 14: Awnings along Cooper Avenue. Arrow points to a one story building with large projecting awning.
P68
IV.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design + Demolition
304 East Hopkins
In addition to historic context, a one story building is proposed in this location due to some site specific
constraints and new Land Use Code requirements. First, the Main Street view plane intersects this
property at alley and the new Land Use Code located this property in the foreground of the view plane
which places very strict height limitations. Second tier commercial requirements that require direct
access are burdensome on a 30 ft. wide interior lot with an onsite Pedestrian Amenity requirement.
After numerous studies and analysis, a one story building is the best approach to Code requirements
and to respect adjacent one story landmarks.
2.6 – not applicable
2.7 – not applicable.
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.
The 1886 and 1890 Sanborn maps show a building width of slightly less than 30 feet for most of the
buildings in the block. The proposed design extends to the side lot lines and the access stair to the
required basement second tier commercial space breaks up the façade into two modules of 24ft 6 ½
inches wide for the restaurant and 5ft 5 ¼ inches wide for the basement space. A secondary door on
the front façade of a downtown building typically provides access to the upper floors, where in this
condition it accesses a basement level as required by the Land Use Code. Proposed window height is
closely aligned with the adjacent 302 landmark to provide consistency with the surrounding context.
Figure 15: Tall one story commercial building with flat roof and parapet.
P69
IV.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design + Demolition
304 East Hopkins
Figures 16 and 17: Renderings of proposed façade.
2.9 – Recessed entries are required.
• Set a primary entrance back from the front façade a minimum of 4 feet.
• Alternative options that define an entryway and reinforce the rhythm of recessed entryways
may be considered.
The large front porch element defines the entryway and relates better to the rhythm of front porch
elements in the block than recessed entryways, which are not typical in this block of Hopkins Avenue.
The design intent of using context to drive an appropriate and identifiable entryway is met through
P70
IV.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design + Demolition
304 East Hopkins
this proposal. A recessed entryway would be appropriate on a commercial building built to the
property line, but is not appropriate for this type of building.
2.10 – not applicable.
2.11 – Maintain a floor to ceiling height of 12 to 15 feet for the first floor and 9 feet for the second floor.
Not applicable. A one story building is proposed; therefore there is no relationship between the first
and second floor. A floor to ceiling interior height of 16 feet is proposed.
2.12 – not applicable.
2.13 – Street level commercial storefronts should be predominately transparent glass.
• Window design, including the presence 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.
Large storefront windows are proposed with a horizontal mullion. The proposed windows show an
architectural rhythm and a contemporary expression that represents this building as a product of its
own time.
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.
The proposed details and materials meet three of the four qualities listed above. The primary material
is brick. Wood columns and beams are proposed for the front porch, and a simple wood front door is
proposed. A dark metal standing seam is proposed for the front porch roof. The brick parapet has a
cast concrete cap, which is also used to cap the planter boxes. Metal handrails with a bronze finish
are proposed for the exterior stair that accesses the basement commercial space. Impermeable black
granite pavers are proposed for the seating area beneath the front porch. All of the proposed
materials are natural in finish and are non-reflective, please refer to Exhibit S for cut sheets.
26.412.070. Pedestrian Amenity
B. Provision of Pedestrian Amenity. Unless specified, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic
Preservation Commission shall determine the appropriate method or combination of methods for
providing this required amenity. One (1) or more of the following methods may be used to meet the
requirement.
1. On-site pedestrian amenity. On-site pedestrian amenity options are provided within the Commercial,
Lodge and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines.
25% of the property or 753.8 sf is required Pedestrian Amenity for the property. Considering this
property is 30 ft. wide, there is limited space to accommodate the required Amenity onsite. As
such the application proposes a mix of onsite amenity and cash in lieu. Cash in lieu of less than
P71
IV.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design + Demolition
304 East Hopkins
377 sf (or 50% of the requirement) may be approved by HPC rather than City Council. 435 sf of
onsite amenity is proposed.
Pedestrian Amenity Guidelines and Standards are addressed below:
PA1.1 Maximize solar access to Pedestrian Amenity space on the subject property.
• At grade Pedestrian Amenity on the north side of the street is discouraged, except when
providing a front yard along Main Street.
The property is located on the north side of the street; however the space is proposed for
outdoor dining beneath the front porch which can accommodate heating to create a
comfortable environment.
PA1.2 - not applicable.
PA1.3 Street level Pedestrian Amenity spaces should be equal to a minimum of 1/3 of the total
Pedestrian Amenity requirement.
The proposed street level space is more than half of the requirement.
PA1.4 Street level Pedestrian Amenity shall be within 18 inches above or below the existing
grade of the street or sidewalk which abuts the space.
Street level Amenity is within 18 inches of the surrounding grade.
PA1.5 Street level Pedestrian Amenity areas shall be open to the sky.
• Direct access to the Pedestrian Amenity from the street is required.
• A street level Pedestrian Amenity space may be covered, subject to HPC or P&Z
approval. If the space is covered, the street-facing portion shall be entirely open.
A front porch element is proposed which covers approximately 319 sf of the Amenity space.
The front porch element is related to historic context as described in detail above.
PA1.6 Design meaningful street level space that is useful, versatile, and accessible.
• Small unusable spaces are inappropriate.
• Consider providing space for future outdoor merchandising or restaurant seating
opportunities when designing the space.
• Providing good solar access, capturing mountain views, and providing seating is
recommended.
• Do not duplicate existing nearby open space.
• Storage areas, delivery areas, parking areas, or trash areas are not allowed uses within
Pedestrian Amenity space.
Proposed Amenity space is proposed to be restaurant seating.
PA1.7 Design amenity space that enhances the pedestrian experience and faces the street.
P72
IV.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design + Demolition
304 East Hopkins
• On corner lots, Pedestrian Amenity space may be considered on side streets or adjacent
to the alley rather than facing primary streets.
Proposed Amenity space faces the street and enhances the current outdoor dining experience
within the block.
PA1.8 Street level Pedestrian Amenity space should reinforce the property line. Consider the
context of the block when selecting an appropriate technique.
Planter boxes are proposed to define the property line.
PA1.9 Street level Pedestrian Amenity may be appropriate on a case by case basis within the
Commercial Core Historic District.
• Consider the existing context of the block.
• Clearly define the property line as defined in PA1.8
• In this District, street level Pedestrian Amenity should be subordinate to the line of
building fronts.
The range of setbacks in this block support the proposed street level amenity which enhances
the adjacent historic landmark and is consistent with outdoor dining characteristics of the
neighborhood.
PA1.10 - not applicable.
PA1.11 - not applicable.
26.412.070.B.3 Cash in lieu provision
Cash in lieu for pedestrian amenity requirements may be provided, subject to the following
requirements:
a. For properties located on rights of way designated as pedestrian malls including Hyman and Cooper
Streets between Galena and Mill Streets, and Mill Street between Hyman Street and Durant Street, cash
in lieu of on-site public amenity is encouraged. Fees collected as cash in lieu for public amenity of
designated pedestrian malls shall be held in reserve by the City for the maintenance and improvement of
the pedestrian malls.
Not applicable. Property is not located on a Pedestrian Mall.
b. For properties not located adjacent to the pedestrian malls, where on-site public amenity is not
appropriate or may not be feasibly provided due to site or development constraints, cash in lieu may be
accepted as an alternative. Such conditions shall be determined on a case-by-case basis at the discretion
of the Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission.
The site is 30 ft x 100 ft. which limits the ability to provide onsite Pedestrian Amenity. The Main
Street view plane and an adjacent one story landmark limit the ability to provide a second floor
or rooftop Pedestrian Amenity space, and second tier commercial requirements limit the ability
to provide a subgrade courtyard. Midblock walkways and interior courtyards are not an option
P73
IV.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design + Demolition
304 East Hopkins
for this 3,015 sf lot. Cash in lieu is requested to fulfill the remaining Amenity requirement that is
not met through the onsite Amenity provided.
The calculation is provided below:
3,015 sf lot * 25% = 753.75 sf required pedestrian amenity
Total proposed onsite = 435 sf
Remainder requested as cash in lieu = 753.75 – 435 = 318.75 sf as cash in lieu
318.75 sf * $100 = $31,875 cash in lieu
c. A cash in lieu payment for 50% or more of the required pedestrian amenity for properties not located
on a pedestrian mall or less than 100% for properties located on a pedestrian mall requires City Council
approval.
The requested cash in lieu is less than 50% of the requirement.
26.412.080 Second Tier Commercial Space
B. Requirement.
2. The redevelopment of any building that includes existing second tier commercial space shall provide the
greater of fifty-percent (50%) of the existing space or the minimums outlined in Table 26.412.100-1. (The
minimum for Commercial Core is 20% and the maximum is 75%).
Existing second tier space within the 304 E. Hopkins building is located on the basement and upper
floor.
Table 1. Second Tier Calculation
Existing Proposed
Basement (second tier) 2,647 1,774
Main floor (prime) 1,631 2,003
Second floor (second tier) 901 n/a
Total commercial 5,179 3,777
Total second tier 3,548 1,774
Required second tier 50% - 1,774 sf Min. 20% - 755.4 sf
The proposed basement space is second tier commercial which meets the required 1,774 sf of net
leasable space. It has a separate entrance from Hopkins Avenue and meets the definition of
second tier space. The proposed use of the second tier commercial space is not yet determined.
26.415.080. Demolition of designated historic properties or properties within a
historic district.
It is the intent of this Chapter to preserve the historic and architectural resources that have demonstrated
significance to the community. Consequently no demolition of properties designated on the Aspen
Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures or properties within a Historic District will be allowed
unless approved by the HPC in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section.
P74
IV.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design + Demolition
304 East Hopkins
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.
The existing building, aka the Seguin Building/Renaissance Building/Smith Building, was
approved by City Council in 1979 and was completed in the early 1980s. The architect was
Donald Ball who was a partner in the local firm Jacobs/Ball & Associates. The architecture
and the architect are not recognized within the AspenModern program as important to the
Commercial Core Historic District or to the AspenModern program. The loss of the building
will not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District and demolition will be
inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area.
P75
IV.A.
Exhibit B – GMQS
304 East Hopkins
Exhibit B
Growth Management
26.470.080 General Review Standards
All Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council applications for growth management review shall
comply with the following standards.
A. Sufficient Allotments. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the
proposed development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.040.B. Applications for multi-year development
allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.110.A shall be required to meet this standard for the growth
management years form which the allotments are requested.
Sufficient growth management allotments are not required as the commercial net leasable is
significantly reduced by this proposal.
B. Development Conformance. The proposed development conforms to the requirements and limitations
of this Title, of the zone district for site specific development plan, any adopted regulatory master plan, as
well as any previous approvals, including the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the
Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the Planned Development – Project Review approval,
as applicable.
The project conforms to the requirements of the Land Use Code and to the Commercial Core Zone
District. Commercial Design and Major Development Review for a property located within a
Historic District are consolidated with the GMQS application.
C. Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed development shall upgrade public infrastructure and
facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be a the sole costs of the developer. Public
infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication
utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking and road and transit
services.
The proposed project replaces a mixed use building with a much smaller commercial building.
Sufficient infrastructure and facilities are available for the proposed smaller building as
demonstrated in the Engineering Report included as Exhibit T.
D. Affordable Housing Mitigation.
1) For commercial development, sixty-five percent (65%) of the employees generated by the
additional commercial net leasable space, according to Section 26. 470.050.B, Employee
generation rates, shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing.
Not applicable. No new commercial net leasable space is added.
P76
IV.A.
Exhibit B – GMQS
304 East Hopkins
Table 1. Existing commercial net leasable
Net leasable area FTEs
Basement 2,647 9.34
Main floor 1631 7.67
Upper floor 901 3.18
Total 5179 20.19
Table 2. Proposed project
Net leasable area FTEs
Basement 1774 6.26
Main floor 2003 9.41
Total 3777 15.67
There is no increase in FTEs associated with the project.
2) For lodge development, sixty-five percent (65%) of the employees generated by the additional
lodge pillows, according to Section 26.470.050.B, Employee generation rates, shall be mitigated
through the provision of affordable housing.
Not applicable.
3) For the redevelopment of existing commercial net leasable space that did not previously mitigate
(see Section 26. 470.070.F), the mitigation requirements for affordable housing shall be phased at
15% beginning in 201, and by 3% each year thereafter until 65% is reached.
Please refer to Exhibit G, a determination by the Community Development Department
that concludes the existing commercial is mitigated by the two onsite deed restricted
units.
4) Unless otherwise exempted in this chapter, when a change in use between development categories
is proposed, the employee mitigation shall be based on the use the development is converting to.
For instance, if a commercial space is being converted to lodge units, the mitigation shall be based
on the requirements for lodge space, outlined in subsection 2, above. Conversely, if lodge units
are being converted to commercial space, the mitigation shall be based on the requirements for
commercial space, outlined in subsections 1 and 3.
No change in use is proposed.
For free market residential development, affordable housing net livable area shall be provided in
an amount equal to at least thirty percent (30%) of the additional free market residential net
livable area.
Not applicable.
5) For essential public facility development, mitigation shall be determined base don Section
26.470.110.D.
P77
IV.A.
Exhibit B – GMQS
304 East Hopkins
Not applicable.
6) For all affordable housing provided as mitigation pursuant to this chapter or for the creation of a
Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26. 540.
Not applicable.
7) Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement (“voluntary units”) may be
deed restricted at any level of affordability, including residential occupied (RO).
Not applicable.
26.470.100.E Demolition or redevelopment of multi-family housing
26.470.100.E.2 Requirements for demolishing affordable multi-family housing units.
In the event a project proposes to demolish or replace existing deed-restricted affordable housing units,
the redevelopment may increase or decrease the number of units, bedrooms or net livable area such that
there is no decrease in the total number of employees housed by the existing units. The overall number of
replacement units, units sizes, bedrooms and category of the units shall be reviewed by the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority and a recommendation forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
There are three levels of commercial space within the two-story building, and two deed restricted
residential studio units located on the upper floor. The recorded condominium plat assigned
Units 1, 2 and 5 to commercial use; and Units 3 and 4 are assigned to the deed restricted studio
units. These units were required as housing mitigation for the commercial space.
Removal of the two studio residential units is considered demolition. The affordable units house
2.5 FTEs (1.25 FTES per studio). The existing units are both substandard in size: minimum size of
a studio is 500 sf. The units are deed restricted as “low income” with no specific Category
assignment.
Due to site constraints, the Main Street view plane, and the history of complaints between
residences above restaurants, the proposal is to replace the housing units through affordable
housing credits. Housing Credits for 2.5 FTEs at Category 2 is proposed.
26.470.100.E.4 Location requirement.
Multi-family replacement units, both free market and affordable, shall be development on the same site
on which demolition has occurred, unless the owner shall demonstrate and the Planning and Zoning
Commission determines that replacement of the units on the site would be in conflict with the parcel’s
zoning or would be an inappropriate solution due to the site’s physical constraints.
When either of the above circumstances result, the owner shall replace the maximum number of units on
site which the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the site can accommodate and may
replace the remaining units off-site, at a location determined acceptable to the Planning and Zoning, or
may replace the units by extinguishing the requisite number of affordable housing credits, pursuant to Sec.
26.54, Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority shall be considered for this standard.
P78
IV.A.
Exhibit B – GMQS
304 East Hopkins
When calculating the number of credits that must be extinguished, the most restrictive replacement
measure shall apply.
Replacement of the housing units onsite would be an inappropriate solution due to the small size
of the property, the Main Street view plane, the surrounding one story historic landmarks, and
the inability to provide onsite parking for the housing unit or units considering trash/utility,
delivery and egress requirements along the alley.
Affordable housing credits offer a great opportunity to support the Housing Credit program and
to replace the deed restricted units in a more appropriate location without compromising other
City and community goals such as view planes, adequate service along the alley, and historic
context.
26.470.100.F Expansion or new commercial development
The expansion of an existing commercial building or commercial portion of a mixed use building or the
development of a new commercial building or commercial portion of a mixed use building shall be
approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on general
requirements outlined in Section 26.470.080.
Please see General Requirements addressed above. There is no increase to the existing
commercial net leasable space.
P79
IV.A.
Exhibit C – Parking/Transportation
304 East Hopkins
Exhibit C
Transportation and Parking Management
26.515.060.C. Review Criteria
All development and redevelopment projects are required to submit a Mobility Plan, which shall include
and describe a project’s mitigations for TIA and Parking Requirements. The Engineering, Transportation,
and Community Development Department staff shall determine whether the project conforms to this
Chapter requirements using the following standards:
1. Project TIA and the resulting mitigation program meets requirements for exempt, minor or
major project categories as outlined in the TIA Guidelines.
A completed TIA is attached as Exhibit D. Due to the reduction in commercial net leasable
space, the project generates a negative number of trips.
2. Project provides full mitigation for the Parking Requirements pursuant to Section 26.515.050.
In the commercial core historic district, 100% of the parking mitigation may be through
the provision of cash in lieu. 1 parking space ($38,000) per 1,000 sf of net leasable
commercial is required = 3.777 parking spaces or $143,526 is the required cash in lieu.
3. If existing development is expanded, additional Parking Requirements shall be provided for that
increment of the expansion.
Not applicable.
4. If existing development is redeveloped, on-site parking deficits may not be maintained unless
all parking, or at least 20 spaces are provided as Public Parking.
The commercial net leasable is reduced in the proposal. A total of 3,777 sf of net
leasable is proposed (5,179 sf of nla exists onsite currently). See calculation in Section 2
above. Cash in lieu is proposed for mitigation.
P80
IV.A.
DATE:
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS:
APPLICANT CONTACT
INFORMATION:
NAME, COMPANY,
ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL
Peak Hour Max Trips Generated MMLOS TDM Total Trips Mitigated
AM -4.7 0 -0.08 -0.08 0.00
Click on the "Generate Narrative" Button to the right.
Respond to each of the prompts in the space provided.
Each response should cover the following:
1.Explain the selected measure.
2. Call out where the measure is located.
3. Demonstrate how the selected measure is appropriate to enhance the project site
and reduce traffic impacts.
4. Explain the Enforcement and Financing Plan for the selected measure.
5. Explain the scheduling and implementation responsibility of the mitigation measure.
6. Attach any additional information and a site map to the narrative report.
rep: Sara Adams
BendonAdams
300 S. Spring St., #202
925-2855; sara@bendonadams.com
Summary and Narrative:
Narrative:
3/19/2018
304 E. Hopkins
304 East Hopkins
Trip Generation
SUMMARY
Trip Mitigation NET TRIPS TO BE
MITIGATED
Project Description
In the space below provide a description of the proposed project.
A one story above grade commercial building, with a full basement, is proposed to replace the existing three story commercial and affordable
housing building. The property is 3,015 sf is size and is located between a one story historic landmark and a three story mixed use building. The
property is located within the foreground of the Main Street view plane and is located within the Commercial Core Historic District.
MMLOS
Include any additional information that pertains to the MMLOS plan in the space provided below.
Enter Text Here
TDM
Explain below how the project plans to participate in the Transportation Options Program (TOP). The successful project will work with City
of Aspen staff to determine whether TOP membership is appropriate and, if so, to join the program. Notes: This program is not typically
appropriate for employers of less than 20 employees. Grant funding from the TOP program may not be used to offset mitigation measures
until the reporting period has been successfully completed
The tenants will participate in the City's TOP program.
Exhibit D
P81
IV.A.
Explain the proposed trip reduction marketing/incentive program in the space provided. A trip reduction marketing programs should
include a number of the following strategies: orientation to trip reduction programs and benefits; orientation to specific alternative
transportation modes such as bus service information, bike/walk route maps, etc.; publishing of web or traditional informational materials;
events and contests such as commuter fairs, new employee orientations, bike to work days, etc.; educational opportunities such bicycle
commute/repair classes; web or traditional materials aimed at guests/customers such as bike/walk maps, free transit day passes, etc.;
incentive programs such as prizes, rewards or discounts for alternative commuting.
Marketing information about alternate modes of transportation will be included in break rooms.
Include any additional information that pertains to the TDM plan in the space provided below.
Enter Text Here
MMLOS Site Plan Requirements
Include the following on a site plan. Clearly call out and label each measure. Attach the site plan to the TIA submittal.
Slopes Between Back of Curb and Sidewalk
2% Slope at Pedestrian Driveway Crossings
Pedestrian Directness Factor (See callout number 9 on the MMLOS sheet for an example)
Enforcement and Financing
Provide an overview of the Enforcement and Financing plan for the proposed transportation mitigation measures.
Provide a monitoring and reporting plan. Refer to page 17 in the Transportation Analysis Guidelines for a list of monitoring plan
requirements. Components of a Monitoring and Reporting Plan should include (1) Assessment of compliance with guidelines, (2) Results and
effectiveness of implemented measures, (3) Identification of additional strategies, and (4) Surveys and other supporting data.
The City may request the tenants create and provide a monitoring and reporting plan.
Information on the transportation measures will be provided to tenants.
Scheduling and Implementation Responsibility of Mitigation Measures
Provide an overview of the scheduling and implementation responsibility for the proposed transportation mitigation measures.
Transportation measures are the responsibility of the tenant.
Monitoring and Reporting
P82
IV.A.
= input= calculation
DATE:
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS:
APPLICANT CONTACT
INFORMATION:
NAME, COMPANY,
ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL
Minor
Entering Exiting Total Entering Exiting Total
Commercial (sf)-1402.0 sf -2.20 -0.99 -3.18 -2.32 -3.48 -5.80
Free-Market Housing (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Affordable Housing (Units)-2 Units -0.72 -0.78 -1.50 -0.98 -0.80 -1.78
Lodging (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Essential Public Facility (sf)0.0 sf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
-2.92 -1.77 -4.68 -3.30 -4.28 -7.58
Land Use Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting
Commercial 2.27 0.69 0.31 4.14 0.4 0.6
Free-Market Housing 0.67 0.29 0.71 0.82 0.56 0.44
Affordable Housing 0.75 0.48 0.52 0.89 0.55 0.45
Lodging 0.25 0.57 0.43 0.31 0.52 0.48
Essential Public Facility 0.86 0.62 0.38 1.66 0.4 0.6
AM Peak Average PM Peak Average
Trips Generated
AM Peak-Hour PM Peak-Hour
TOTAL NEW TRIPS
ASSUMPTIONS
ASPEN TRIP GENERATION
Is this a major or minor project?
304 East Hopkins
304 E. Hopkins
Net New
Units/Square Feet of
the Proposed ProjectProposed Land Use
*For mixed-use (at least two of the established land uses) sites, a 4% reduction for AM Peak-Hour and a 14% reduction for PM Peak-Hour is applied to
the trip generation.
rep: Sara Adams
BendonAdams
300 S. Spring St., #202
925-2855; sara@bendonadams.com
Trip Generation
3/19/2018
Instructions:
IMPORTANT: Turn on Macros: In order for code to run correctly the security settings need to be altered. Click "File"
and then click "Excel Options." In the "Trust Center"category, click "Trust Center Settings", and then click the "Macro
Settings"category. Beneath "Macro Settings" select "Enable all Macros."
Sheet 1. Trip Generation: Enter the project's square footage and/or unit counts under Proposed Land Use. The
numbers should reflect the net change in land use between existing and proposed conditions. If a landuse is to be
reduced put a negative number of units or square feet.
Sheet 2. MMLOS: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable under each of the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections.Points
are only awarded for proposed (not existing) and confirmed aspects of the project.
Sheet 3. TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project.
Sheet 4. Summary and Narrative: Review the summary of the project's mitigated trips and provide a narrative which
explains the measures selected for the project. Click on "Generate Narrative" and individually explain each measure
that was chosen and how it enhances the site or mitigates vehicle traffic. Ensure each selected measure make sense
Minor Development -Inside the Roundabout Major Development -Outside the Roundabout
Helpful Hints:
1. Refer to the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for information on the use of this tool.
2. Refer to TIA Frequently Asked Questions for a quick overview.
2. Hover over red corner tags for additional information on individual measures.
3. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should be new and/or an improvement of existing conditions. A project will
not receive credit for measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense in the
context of project location and future use.
Transportation Impact Analysis
TIA Frequently Asked Questions
P83
IV.A.
= input
= calculation
0
Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points
1
Does the project propose a detached sidewalk where an attached
sidewalk currently exists? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer
meet standard minimum widths?
No 0
2 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width greater than the standard
minimum width?No 0
3 Does the project propose a landscape buffer greater than the
standard minimum width?No 0
0
4
Does the project propose a detached sidewalk on an adjacent
block? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer meet standard
minimum widths?
No 0
5 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width on an adjacent block
greater than the standard minimum width?No 0
6 Is the proposed landscape buffer on an adjacent block greater
than the standard minimum width?No 0
0
7 Are slopes between back of curb and sidewalk equal to or less than
5%?Yes 0
8 Are curbs equal to (or less than) 6 inches?Yes 0
9
Is new large-scale landscaping proposed that improves the
pedestrian experience? Properties within the Core do not have
ample area to provide the level of landscaping required to receive
credit in this category.
No 0
10 Does the project propose an improved crosswalk? This measure
must get City approval before receiving credit. No 0
0
11 Are existing driveways removed from the street?No 0
12 Is pedestrian and/or vehicle visibility unchanged by new structure
or column?Yes 0
13 Is the grade (where pedestrians cross) on cross-slope of driveway
2% or less?Yes 0
14
Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian access points from
the ROW? This includes improvements to ADA ramps or creating
new access points which prevent pedestrians from crossing a street.
No 0
15 Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian or bicyclist
interaction with vehicles at driveway areas?No 0
0
16 Is the project's pedestrian directness factor less than 1.5?Yes 0
17
Does the project propose new improvements which reduce the
pedestrian directness factor to less than 1.2? A site which has an
existing pedestrian directness factor less than 1.2 cannot receive
credit in this category.
No 0
18 Is the project proposing an off site improvement that results in a
pedestrian directness factor below 1.2?* No 0
19 Are traffic calming features proposed that are part of an approved
plan (speed humps, rapid flash)?*No 0PedestriansTOTAL NUMBER OF TRIPS MITIGATED:Pedestrian RoutesTraffic Calming and Pedestrian NetworkDriveways, Parking, and Access ConsiderationsMMLOS Input Page
Subtotal
SubtotalSidewalk Condition on Adjacent BlocksSidewalk Condition on Project FrontageSubtotal
Instructions: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable to each measure under the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections.
Subtotal
P84
IV.A.
0
20
Are additional minor improvements proposed which benefit the
pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of
Aspen staff?
No 0
21
Are additional major improvements proposed which benefit the
pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of
Aspen staff?
No 0
0
0
Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points
22 Is a new bicycle path being implemented with City approved
design?No 0
23 Do new bike paths allow access without crossing a street or
driveway?No 0
24 Is there proposed landscaping, striping, or signage improvements
to an existing bicycle path?No 0
25 Does the project propose additional minor bicycle improvements
which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?No 0
26 Does the project propose additional major bicycle improvements
which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?No 0
0
Bicycle Parking27 Is the project providing bicycle parking?No 0
0
0
Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points
28 Is seating/bench proposed?No 0
29 Is a trash receptacle proposed?No 0
30 Is transit system information (signage) proposed?No 0
31 Is shelter/shade proposed?No 0
32 Is enhanced pedestrian-scale lighting proposed?No 0
33 Is real-time transit information proposed?No 0
34 Is bicycle parking/storage proposed specifically for bus stop use?No 0
35 Are ADA improvements proposed?No 0
0
36 Is a bus pull-out proposed at an existing stop?No 0
37 Is relocation of a bus stop to improve transit accessibility or
roadway operations proposed?No 0
38 Is a new bus stop proposed (with minimum of two basic amenities)?No 0
0
0
SubtotalAdditional Proposed ImprovementsTransitBasic AmenitiesSubtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
Enhanced AmenitiesSubtotal
Subtotal
Pedestrian Total*
Bicycles Total*
Transit Total*BicyclesModifications to Existing Bicycle PathsP85
IV.A.
Category Measure
Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT
Reductions
Will an onsite ammenities strategy be implemented?No
Which onsite ammenities will be implemented?
Will a shared shuttle service strategy be implemented?No
What is the degree of implementation?
What is the company size?
What percentage of customers are eligible?
3 Nonmotorized Zones Will a nonmotorized zones strategy be implemented?No 0.00%
0.00%
Category Measure
Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT
Reductions
Will a network expansion stragtegy be implemented?No
What is the percentage increase of transit network coverage?
What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips?
Will a service frequency/speed strategy be implemented?No
What is the percentage reduction in headways (increase in frequency)?
What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips?
What is the level of implementation?
Will a transit access improvement strategy be implemented?No
What is the extent of access improvements?
7 Intercept Lot Will an intercept lot strategy be implemented?No 0.00%
0.00%
Category Measure
Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT
Reductions
Will there be participation in TOP?Yes
What percentage of employees are eligible?100%
Is a transit fare subsidy strategy implemented?No
What percentage of employees are eligible?
What is the amount of transit subsidy per passenger (daily equivalent)?
Is an employee parking cash-out strategy being implemented?No
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a workplace parking pricing strategy implemented?No
What is the daily parking charge?
What percentage of employees are subject to priced parking?
Is a compressed work weeks strategy implemented?No
What percentage of employees are participating?
What is the workweek schedule?
Is an employer sponsered shuttle program implemented?No
What is the employer size?
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a carpool matching strategy implemented?No
What percentage of employees are eligble?
Is carshare participation being implemented?No
How many employee memberships have been purchased?
What percentage of employees are eligble?
Is participation in the bikeshare program WE-cycle being implemented?No
How many memberships have been purchased?
What percentage of employees/guests are eligble?
Is an end of trip facilities strategy being implemented?No
What is the degree of implementation?
What is the employer size?
Is a self-funded emergency ride home strategy being implemented?No
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a carpool/vanpool priority parking strategy being implemented?No
What is the employer size?
What number of parking spots are available for the program?
Is a private employer shuttle strategy being implemented?No
What is the employer size?
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a trip reduction marketing/incentive program implemented?Yes
What percentage of employees/guests are eligible?100%
1.71%
0.00%
1.71%
1. 22% work trips represents a mixed-used site (SF Bay Area Travel Survey). See Assumptions Tab for more detail.
21
16
17
18
19
20
11
12
13
14
15
Participation in TOP
Transit Fare Subsidy
Employee Parking Cash-Out
Workplace Parking Pricing
Compressed Work Weeks
Employer Sponsored Vanpool
Carpool Matching
Carshare Program
Self-funded Emergency Ride Home
Carpool/Vanpool Priority Parking
Private Employer Shuttle
Trip Reduction Marketing/Incentive
Program
End of Trip Facilities
Cross Category Maximum Reduction, Neighborhood and Transit
Global Maximum VMT Reductions
TDM Input Page
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%Commute Trip Reduction Programs StrategiesOnsite Servicing
Shared Shuttle Service
Neighborhood/Site Enhancements Strategies0.00%
0.00%
Network Expansion
Service Frequency/Speed
Transit Access Improvement
Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Bikeshare Program
0.00%
4.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
4.00%
Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category
Maximum Reduction Allowed in CategoryTransit System Improvements Strategies1
2
4
5
6
8
9
10
Instructions TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project. Proposed TDM or
MMLOS measures should be new and/or an improvement of existing conditions. A project will not receive credit
for measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense in the context of
project location and future use.
P86
IV.A.
SUBJECT PROPERTY304 E HOPKINS AVEE HOPKINS AVE>>>>>>DIRECTNESS FACTORWALKING DISTANCE = 36 FTDIRECTNESS FACTORCROW FLIES DISTANCE = 25.5 FTACCESSPOINTFRONTENTRANCESIDEWALK CROSSSLOPE, MAX 2%LANDSCAPE AREA(BACK OF CURB TOSIDEWALK) SLOPE,MAX 5%ALLEYDIRECTNESS FACTOR36/25.5 =1.4PROPOSEDBUILDINGOPRIS ES NGINEERING, LLC.
CIVIL CONSULTANTS
TIA SITE PLAN
304 EAST HOPKINS AVE
HPC SUBMITTALJOB NO. 17221SHEET 1DATE: 03-21-18NO.REVISION BY DATE
502 MAIN STREET
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
(970) 704-0311
FAX: (970)-704-0313
ASPEN, COLORADO
G:\2017\17221\CIVIL\CIVIL DWGS\DE\17221 - DE.DWG - Mar 21, 2018 - 10:54am NORTH1 inch = 20 ft.010 2040GRAPHIC SCALE( IN FEET )Exhibit DP87IV.A.
Exhibit E – view plane
304 East Hopkins
Exhibit E
View plane
26.435.050.A Jurisdiction [emphasis added]
Unless subject to Administrative Review as described in Section 26.435.050.D, all applications for
development which infringes upon a designated view plane shall be subject to administrative review or
review for an exemption in compliance with this Section by the Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic
Preservation Commission (collectively, the Review Body). Projects unable to meet the applicable view
plane standards shall be required to obtain a variation from the requirement and standards of this section
from the applicable review body and are subject to a public vote as required by section 13.14 of the City
Charter.
26.435.050.C Applicability
1.c This section shall not limit the ability of development to occur below a view plane. If development on
a property is within the lateral extent of a view plane but does not infringe into the view plane then that
development is not subject to the requirements of this section.
As shown in the attached image and below, the Main Street view plane is not intersected by the
proposed one story commercial building or the proposed rooftop mechanical equipment, ducts,
vents, or parapet. The proposed development is not subject to view plane review.
view plane
Figure 1: Section of proposed building (A-11.0) showing Main Street view plane above.
P88
IV.A.
MAIN ST. VIEW PLANE DIAGRAMHILLSTONE ASPENMARCH 23, 2018FLEETWOOD FERNANDEZARCHITECTS7911.9’7911.9’7948.39’7947.82’Exhibit EP89
IV.A.
Exhibit F – Trash/Recycle Special Review
304 East Hopkins
Exhibit F
Trash/Recycle Area – Special Review
Sec. 12.10.030.(A).b.
For Commercial Buildings that will contain or that will have the capacity to contain an
establishment with a Retail Food Service License, as defined by the State of Colorado Retail Food
Establishment Rules and Regulations, a minimum of twenty (20) linear feet adjacent to the
alleyway must be reserved for trash and recycling facilities. The required area shall have a
minimum vertical clearance of ten (10) feet and a minimum depth of fifteen (15) feet at ground
level.
The project requests Special Review to vary the dimensional requirements. The proposed trash area is
10ft 9 ½ in. wide x 10 ft. high x 7ft ¼ in. deep. A metal rolling door is proposed.
Sec. 12.10.080.E Special Review
The Environmental Health Department may reduce the required dimensions of a trash and
recycling service area if:
(i) There is demonstration that, given the nature of the potential uses of the building and its total
square footage, the trash and recycling area proposed will be adequate:
a. For the purposes of approvals, adequate will be defined as follows:
i. For a Commercial, Lodge or Multi-family building the space must accommodate
and provide access to the following types of bins at a minimum:
• One garbage collection bin
• One comingled container recycling collection bin
• One office paper recycling collection bin
• One newspaper/magazine recycling collection bin
• One cardboard recycling collection bin or collection area where boxes can
be stacked and contained in an enclosed space.
Please refer to site plan and ground floor plan for delineated trash area.
ii. Access by both the tenants and the waste hauling companies to the trash and
recycling service area is adequate; and,
Access to the trash area is from the alley for the hauling companies and tenants.
iii. Measures are provided for locating and enclosing trash bins and making them
easily movable by trash personnel; and,
The trash area is located at the alley and is at grade.
P90
IV.A.
Exhibit F – Trash/Recycle Special Review
304 East Hopkins
iv. The proposed area meets the requirements to the greatest extent practicable
given physical constraints of the property or existing improvements.
The proposed area meets trash requirements to the greatest extent practicable
considering the small size of the lot 30 x 100 and the small restaurant and
commercial operation (3,777 sf of net leasable area total) of the proposed
building.
P91
IV.A.
Exhibit G
P92
IV.A.
P93
IV.A.
P94
IV.A.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
Resolution No. ~/
Series of 1979~
WHEREAS, in accordance with Ordinance No. 48, Series of 1977, September l,
1979, was established as a deadline for submission of 1979 applications for
commercial and office development within the City of Aspen, and
WHEREAS, in response to this ordinance six commercial projects were submitted
for a total of 28,6 square feet of commercial space within the 24,000 square
feet of commercial space available in 1979, and
WHEREAS, duly noticed public hearings were conducted before the Aspen
Historic Preservation Commission on October 4, 1979, and before the Planning
and Zoning Commission on October 23, 1979, to consider the Growth Management
applications and evaluate and score these applications in conformance with
criteria established in Ordinance No. 48, Series of 1977, and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission did evaluate, rank, and score
the projects submitted in the following order:
P and Z HPC
Average Average Total
1. Epicure Plaza Building
10,041 sq. ft.) 18.6 14.0 32.6
2. La Cocina Addn.
1,300 sq. ft.) 15.4 12.4 27.8
3. Bell Mountain Sports Addn.
2,000 sq. ft.) 16.4 11.3 27.7
4. Smith Building
5,100 sq. ft.) 14.3 13.0 27.3
5. Ajax Mountain Assoc. Bldg.
6,02~ sq. ft.) 15.7 9.0 24.7
6. First National Bank Addn.
4,203 sq. ft.) 16.2 7.9 24.1
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended, in accordance
with Section 24-10.3(a), that City Council authorize additional
commercial construction in the amount of4~669 square feet so as to approve all six
projects.NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Aspen,Colorado, hereby allocates commercial development allotment to the
Epicure Plaza Building in the amount of10,041 square feet, to La Cocina in the
amount of1,300 square feet, to Bell Mountain Sports in the amount of2,000
exhibit 4.5
P95
IV.A.
feet, to the Smith Building in the amount of 5,100 square feet, to the Ajax
C
Mountain Assoc. Building in the amount of~6~O25~square feet, and to the First
National Bank in the amount of 4,203 square feet and that these projects are
authorized to proceed further with any additional approvals needed by the
City of Aspen to secure building permits.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT special review approval be secured for
the employee housing proposals contained in the Epicure, Bell Mountain Sports
and Smith projects.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at its regular
meeting held on November 26, 1979.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S~Koch, ~City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO
Herman Edel, Mayor'---~
P96
IV.A.
exhibit 4.8
P97
IV.A.
P98
IV.A.
P99
IV.A.
P100
IV.A.
exhibit 4.9
P101
IV.A.
P102
IV.A.
Exhibit H
P103
IV.A.
P104
IV.A.
City of Aspen Community Development Department
Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016
ATTACHMENT 3 - Dimensional Requirements Form
(Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.)
Project:
Applicant:
Project
Location:
Zone District:
Lot Size:
Lot Area:
(For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high
water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the
Municipal Code.)
Commercial net leasable: Existing:__________Proposed:_________________
Number of residential units: Existing:__________Proposed:_________________
Proposed % of demolition: __________
DIMENSIONS: (write N/A where no requirement exists in the zone district)
Floor Area:
Height
Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________
Principal Bldg.: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________
Accessory Bldg.: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________
On-Site parking: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
% Site coverage: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
% Open Space: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Front Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Rear Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Combined Front/Rear:
Indicate N, S, E, W Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Combined Sides: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Distance between
buildings:
Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued:
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
Variations requested (identify the exact variances needed): ______________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit I
P105
IV.A.
City of Aspen Community Development Department
Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016
ATTACHMENT 2 - Historic Preservation Land Use Application
PROJECT:
Name:
Location:
(Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property)
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)___________________________________________________________
Applicant:
Name:
Address:
Phone #: _______________________Fax#:___________________E-mail:_______________________________________________
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name:
Address:
Phone #: _______________________Fax#:___________________E-mail:________________________________________________
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
Historic Designation
Certificate of No Negative Effect
Certificate of Appropriateness
-Minor Historic Development
-Major Historic Development
-Conceptual Historic Development
-Final Historic Development
-Substantial Amendment
Relocation (temporary, on
or off-site)
Demolition (total demolition)
Historic Landmark Lot Split
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
304 East Hopkins Avenue
Lot L, Block 80 city and townsite of Aspen; Units 1 -5 of the Seguin Building.
2737-073-75-001 thru - 005, and 2737-073-75-800
Hillstone Restaurant Group/ contact: Matthias Lenz
147 South Beverly Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90212
310-385-0333 matthias.lenz@hillstone.com
Sara Adams/ BendonAdams
300 S. Spring St. #202, Aspen
925-2855 sara@bendonadams.com
two story mixed use 1980s building with basement and sunken courtyard
one story above grade commercial building with basement and street level
Pedestrian Amenity space
Growth Management
Parking
Exhibit I
P106
IV.A.
City of Aspen Community Development Department
Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016
General Information
Please check the appropriate boxes below and submit this page along with your application. This
information will help us review your plans and, if necessary, coordinate with other agencies that
may be involved.
YES NO
Does the work you are planning include exterior work; including additions, demolitions,
new construction, remodeling, rehabilitation or restoration?
Does the work you are planning include interior work, including remodeling,
rehabilitation, or restoration?
Do you plan other future changes or improvements that could be reviewed at this time?
In addition to City of Aspen approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness or No Negative
Effect and a building permit, are you seeking to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Rehabilitation or restoration of a National Register of Historic Places
Property in order to qualify for state or federal tax credits?
If yes, are you seeking federal rehabilitation investment tax credits in
Conjunction with this project? (Only income producing properties listed
on the National Register are eligible. Owner-occupied residential
properties are not.)
If yes, are you seeking the Colorado State Income Tax Credit for
Historical Preservation?
Please check all City of Aspen Historic Preservation Benefits which you plan to use:
Rehabilitation Loan Fund Conservation Easement Program Dimensional Variances
Increased Density Historic Landmark Lot Split Waiver of Park Dedication Fees
Conditional Uses Tax Credits
Exemption from Growth Management Quota System
P107
IV.A.
Exhibit J
P108
IV.A.
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Amy Simon, amy.simon@cityofaspen.com DATE: 11.6.17
PROJECT: 304 E. Hopkins Avenue
REPRESENTATIVE: BendonAdams
DESCRIPTION: 304 E. Hopkins Avenue is a 3,000 square foot parcel, located in the Commercial Core Historic District.
The existing building on the site is considered to be “non-contributing” to the historic significance of the district and is not
landmarked. The property owner proposes full demolition. For this to proceed, HPC must make a finding that the
standards for Demolition of a building in the district are met.
A new commercial building with a basement and ground floor are proposed. The first land use review step for the project will
be Conceptual HPC Major Development Review, Commercial Design Review, Demolition, and Mountain View Plane
Review. Evaluation of Pedestrian Amenity, Second Tier Commercial Space, Formula Uses, Transportation and Parking
Management, and Trash and Recycling Storage will occur at this stage as well. HPC will use the Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines, the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines and standards found in
the Municipal Code to make their determinations.
Careful evaluation of context will be needed to ensure the new structure’s architectural compatibility with the neighborhood.
The block-face contains two landmarked Victorian era structures which are relatively unique within the downtown context;
both one story gable roofed clapboard buildings setback from the front lot lines. The majority of the structures in the area are
taller masonry structures without setbacks. The design guidelines provide direction on fundamental design patterns that will
help shape an appropriate new structure.
Regarding Pedestrian Amenity, it appears that less than 25% of the site will be devoted to on-site amenity. HPC must
approve the form of amenity provided. Options include on-site, off-site, cash-in-lieu (requiring Council approval if in excess
of 50% of the requirement) or an alternative proposal meeting the intent of Pedestrian Amenity. The applicant has mentioned
the possibility of a seasonal airlock enclosure at the front door. This may be in conflict with the design guidelines and the
area the enclosure would occupy would need to be excluded from the calculation of on-site amenity provided.
Second Tier Commercial Space review will involve a calculation of the existing qualified space on the site and replacement
of 50% of that area in the new building, according to the criteria for such spaces. Preliminary building plans provided to
Planning Staff indicate Second Tier Space in the basement. The space can be reached through a street-facing staircase,
but access to an elevator to the basement is either through the ground floor Prime Commercial Space or through the alley
doorway towards the elevator. Neither of these arrangements meet the requirements of Second Tier Space or the
Community Development Director’s Interpretation clarifying Second Tier Commercial Space attached here and issued on
May 11, 2017.
The property is in the Foreground of the Main Street view plane. It is anticipated that the development is below the height of
the view plane as it crosses the site, however this will be verified during review of the project.
As a new structure in the Commercial Core Zone District, compliance with limitations on Formula Uses will be required. This
will apply not only to the subject parcel, but may also have implications for the adjacent property at 302 E. Hopkins due to
internal connections between the structures indicated on the early plans.
Applicant has suggested that Transportation and Parking Management will all be addressed through off-site, cash-in-lieu or
operational proposals rather than allocating some of the ground plane to parking spaces. The project is required to meet the
requirements of Section 26.515, which will be verified at the Conceptual review. In the same vein, the area of the alley
dedicated to on-site Trash and Recycling Storage is envisioned to be less than the minimum required by Environmental
Exhibit K
P109
IV.A.
Health. The applicant may consider a shared arrangement with their adjacent restaurant, subject to Environmental Health
review and approval.
Given the physical connections and shared spaces the applicant envisions between the 302 and 304 E. Hopkins properties,
staff recommends the applicant pursue Subdivision approval to formalize the combined ownership that is implied by the
plans. If the applicant chooses not to pursue this, it will be expected that the application clearly demonstrate how each of the
properties, 302 and 304 E. Hopkins, individually meet their required Pedestrian Amenity, Transportation and Parking, and
Trash Storage requirements so that each lot may be transferred to other owners in the future without this redevelopment
having created non-conformities. Building Code requirements related to property lines will need to be considered as well.
It is anticipated that HPC will conduct Growth Management review of the project. This review can be consolidated with the
Conceptual design review, or conducted as a separate application. It has been determined that the existing building
received Growth Management allotments in 1979 and provided affordable housing mitigation through the provision of two
on-site deed restricted studio units. Demolition of these units requires an equivalent number of FTE’s be housed in on-site
units meeting APCHA requirements, unless HPC, in consultation with APCHA, determines that on-site replacement is not
appropriate, in which case off-site units or Certificates of Affordable Housing may be provided, or cash-in-lieu with City
Council approval.
The applicant has indicated that the new building will not represent an increase in net leasable area over the existing
structure. If this changes and there is an increase in net leasable, additional housing mitigation will be required.
In preparation for HPC review, a Development Review Committee meeting will occur to receive comments from referral
agencies including Engineering, Zoning, Fire, Utilities, Sanitation District, Building, Environmental Health and Transportation.
To further ensure that diverse perspectives are made available to assist HPC in its review, the project will be required to
undertake Neighborhood Outreach as part of the public notice effort.
Following HPC Conceptual approval, staff will inform City Council of the decision, allowing Council the opportunity to “Call-
Up” any aspects of the design approval that they find require additional HPC review. This is a standard practice for all
significant projects reviewed by HPC and P&Z.
The last review step is HPC Final design (landscape, lighting and materials). A new pre-application summary will be
prepared when the application is ready to proceed to that stage.
Below are links to relevant documents, for your convenience:
Historic Preservation Land Use Application form:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/businessnav/ApprovaltoDevelop/Land%20Use%20HPC%20Packet%20MAY
%202017.pdf
Land Use Code:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Business-Navigator/Get-Approval-to-Develop/Refer-to-Land-Use-Code/
HPC Design Guidelines:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/HPC/New%20Historic%20Preservation%20Guidelines.pdf
Commercial Design Guidelines:
https://app.box.com/s/3a0vvpgpwtdzsomb9aa9rjsfq3qx2o1b
P110
IV.A.
Land Use Code Section(s)
26.104.100 General Provisions, Definitions
26.104.110 Use Categories
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.304.035 Neighborhood outreach
26.412 Commercial Design Review
26.412.070 Pedestrian amenity
26.412.080 Second Tier Commercial Space
26.415 Historic Preservation
26.415.070 Certificate of Appropriateness for a Major development
26.415.080 Demolition
26.425.025 Standards applicable to formula uses, determination of formula uses
26.435.050 Mountain view plane
26.470.100.E.2 Requirements for demolishing affordable housing units
26.470.100.E.4 Location requirements for multi-family replacement units
26.470.100.F Expansion or new commercial development
26.470.040 Allotment Procedures
26.470.050 Calculations
26.470.080 Affordable Housing Mitigation
26.480 Subdivision
26.515 Transportation and Parking Management
26.575 Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations
26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements
26.710.140 Commercial Core zone district
and Municipal Code Section
12.10 Space Allotment for Trash and Recycling Storage
Review by: Staff for completeness and recommendations. HPC for determinations.
Public Hearing: Yes.
Referral Agencies: Engineering, Parks, APCHA, Environmental Health
Planning Fees: $4,550 for 14 billable hours (additional/fewer hours will be billed/refunded at a rate of $325 per
hour)
Referral Fees: $325 for a one hour deposit with Engineering, $975 APCHA flat fee, $975 Parks flat fee, $975
Environmental Health flat fee
Total Deposit: $7,800
To apply, first submit one 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 (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance
report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property,
and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and
demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application.
P111
IV.A.
Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name,
address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.
HOA Compliance form (Attached)
List of adjacent property owners within 300’ for public hearing
Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status, certified by a
registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado.
A scaled site plan indicating all proposed structures and features including parking, utilities, trash and recycling,
and vegetation.
Scaled drawings of all proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their form, including their height, massing,
scale, proportions and roof plan; and the primary features of all elevations.
Existing and proposed floor area, net leasable and net livable calculations.
Preliminary selection of primary exterior building materials.
Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the designated historic property
or historic district including at least one (1) of the following: diagrams, maps, photographs, models or streetscape
elevations.
A written description of the proposal and an explanation of how the proposed development, and any requested
variances or bonuses, complies with the review standards and design guidelines relevant to the application.
Documentation showing the proposal meets all Transportation Mitigation Requirements as outlined in the City’s
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines and Mitigation Tool, available online at:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Recent-Code-
Amendments/. A copy of the tool showing trips generated and the chosen mitigation measures should be
included with the application.
Once the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted:
A complete copy of the application, including all items listed above, provided as a .pdf by email to
amy.simon@cityofaspen.com. Please separate the text and drawings into different files.
12 sets of all graphics, printed at 11”x17.”
Total deposit for review of the application.
Applicants are advised that building plans will be required to meet the International Building Code as adopted by the City
of Aspen, the Federal Fair Housing Act, and CRS 9.5.112. Please make sure that your application submittal addresses
these building-related and accessibility regulations. You may contact the Building Department at 920-5090 for additional
information.
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
P112
IV.A.
PROFORMA TITLE REPORT
SCHEDULE A
1.Effective Date: March 16, 2018 at 8:00 AM Case No. PCT25210W
2.Policy or Policies to be issued:
Proposed Insured:
PROFORMA
3.Title to the FEE SIMPLE estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment is at the
effective date hereof vested in:
HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION
4.The land referred to in this Commitment is situated in the County of PITKIN State of COLORADO and is
described as follows:
CONDOMINIUM UNITS 1, 2, 3, 4 AND 5,
THE SEGUIN BUILDING CONDOMINIUMS, according to the Condominium Map thereof recorded May 4,
1983 in Plat Book 14 at Page 84 and as defined and described in the Condominium Declaration for Seguin
Condominiums recorded May 4, 1983 in Book 444 at Page 474.
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC.
601 E. HOPKINS, ASPEN, CO. 81611
970-925-1766 Phone/970-925-6527 Fax
877-217-3158 Toll Free
AUTHORIZED AGENT
Countersigned:
Exhibit L
P113
IV.A.
SCHEDULE B - SECTION 1
REQUIREMENTS
THIS REPORT IS FURNISHED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY, IT IS NOT A CONTRACT TO ISSUE TITLE
INSURANCE AND SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS SUCH. IN THE EVENT A PROPOSED INSURED IS NAMED THE
COMPANY HEREBY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO MAKE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND/OR EXCEPTIONS AS
DEEMED NECESSARY. THE RECIPIENT OF THIS INFORMATIONAL REPORT HEREBY AGREES THAT THE
COMPANY HAS ISSUED THIS REPORT BY THEIR REQUEST AND ALTHOUGH WE BELIEVE ALL INFORMATION
CONTAINED HEREIN IS ACCURATE AND CORRECT, THE COMPANY SHALL NOT BE CHARGED WITH ANY
FINANCIAL LIABILITY SHOULD THAT PROVE TO BE INCORRECT AND THE COMPANY IS NOT OBLIGATED TO
ISSUE ANY POLICIES OF TITLE INSURANCE
P114
IV.A.
SCHEDULE B SECTION 2
EXCEPTIONS
The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to
the satisfaction of the Company:
1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records.
2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records.
3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, any facts which a correct
survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law
and not shown by the public records.
5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public
records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured
acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment.
6. Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessment, charge or lien imposed for water or sewer
service or for any other special taxing district.
7. Terms, conditions and reservations as contained in the Patent for the City of Aspen recorded in Book 139
at Page 216
8. Reservations and exceptions as set forth in the Deed from the City of Aspen recorded November 28, 1888
in Book 59 at Page 518 providing as follows: "That no title shall be hereby acquired to any mine of gold,
silver, cinnabar or copper or to any valid mining claim or possession held under existing laws".
9. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Historic Preservation recorded January 13,
1975 in Book 295 at Page 515.
10. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Statement of Exception from the Full
Subdivision Process recorded May 4, 1983 in Book 444 at Page 468.
11. Those terms, conditions, provisions, obligations, easements, restrictions, assessments and all matters as
set forth in Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions and Conditions for The Seguin Building (a
condominium) recorded May 4, 1983 in Book 444 at Page 472, deleting therefrom any restrictions
indicating any preference, limitation or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial
status, or national origin.
12. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations, easements, restrictions and assessments as set forth in the
Condominium Declaration for The Seguin Building (a condominium) recorded May 4, 1983 in Book 444 at
Page 474, deleting therefrom any restrictions indicating preference, limitation or discrimination based on
race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin.
13. Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosed on Plat of subject property recorded May 4, 1983 in
Plat Book 14 at Page 84.
14. Security interest under the Uniform Commercial Code affecting subject property, notice of which is given
by Financing Statement from Aspen Brewing Company LLC, debtor to Vectra Bank Colorado, National
Association, secured party, Recorded February 18, 2011 as Reception No. 577762 and recorded February
18, 2011 as Reception No. 577764 and extended by Continuation Statement recorded December 24, 2015
as Reception No. 625879 and recorded December 24, 2015 as Reception No. 625882.
15. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Encroachment License recorded February 7,
2012 as Reception No. 586551 and re-recorded March 28, 2017 as Reception No. 637140.
(Continued)
P115
IV.A.
SCHEDULE B SECTION 2
EXCEPTIONS - (Continued)
16. Lease dated September 1, 2011 entered into between VMV, LLC, d/b/a Over Easy as tenant and William L.
Seguin as landlord, as amended by First Amendment to Lease dated March 15, 2017 between VMV, LLC,
d/b/a Over Easy as tenant and 304 East Hopkins Holdings, LLC as Landlord with respect to the lease of
Condominium Unit 2, and shared right to use patio; and
Lease dated September 15, 2010 entered into between Aspen Brewing Company as tenant and William L.
Seguin as landlord, as amended by First Amendment to Lease dated March 10, 2016 between Aspen Brewing
Company as tenant and 304 East Hopkins Holdings, LLC as landlord, with respect to the lease of
Condominium Units 3, 4, and 5.
17. Any loss or damage caused by the 0.2' building and 0.3' facia encroachment onto the adjacent property along
the easterly property line and the encroachment of a portion of brick surface onto the adjacent property along
the westerly property line as shown on Survey of Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc. dated April, 2017 as Job No.
39232FA.
18. Any and all leases and/or tenancies.
19. Deed of Trust from : HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. (f/k/a Houston's Restaurants ,Inc.), A
DELAWARE CORPORATION
To the Public Trustee of the County of PITKIN
For the use of : BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
Original Amount : $120,000,000.00
Dated : August 16, 2017
Recorded : August 17, 2017
Reception No. : 640727
20. First Amendment to above Deed of Trust, Assignment of Rents, Security Agreement and Fixture Filing was
recorded August 21, 2017 as Reception No. 640783.
P116
IV.A.
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC.
601 E. HOPKINS, THIRD FLOOR
ASPEN, CO 81611
970-925-1766/970-925-6527 FAX
TOLL FREE 877-217-3158
WIRING INSTRUCTIONS FOR ALL TRANSACTIONS REGARDING THE CLOSING OF THIS FILE
ARE AS FOLLOWS:
ALPINE BANK-ASPEN
600 E. HOPKINS AVE.
ASPEN, CO. 81611
ABA ROUTING NO. 102103407
FOR CREDIT TO:
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC., ESCROW ACCOUNT
ACCOUNT NO. 8910 354 425
REFERENCE:PCT25210W/PROFORMA
P117
IV.A.
Exhibit M
P118
IV.A.
Exhibit N
P119
IV.A.
Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius
Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web
site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to
ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic
system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral
estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County
does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners.
Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning
the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this
site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and
reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the
user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and
liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or
data obtained on this web site.
This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be
printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to
page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the
margins such that they no longer line up on the labels
sheet. Print actual size.
From Parcel: 273707375001 on 03/06/2018
Instructions:
Disclaimer:
http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com
Exhibit O
P120
IV.A.
JPS NEVADA TRUST
HENDERSON, NV 89074
1701 N GREEN VALLEY PKWY #9C
CLARK FAMILY TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 362
KATIE REED BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
407 S HUNTER ST #3
GRAND SLAM HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH ST #101
GRAND SLAM HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH ST #101
MONARCH BUILDING LLC
WOODY CREEK, CO 81656
PO BOX 126
ORR ROBERT L
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
2700 G ROAD #12A
CANTINA BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 1247
HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP INC
ATLANTA, GA 30327
3539 NORTHSIDE PKWY
COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS MEDIA CO
CARSON CITY, NV 89701
580 MALLORY WY
HART GEORGE DAVID & SARAH
SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615
PO BOX 5491
ISIS BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
602 E COOPER #202
201 E MAIN HOLDINGS LLC
WICHITA, KS 67219
2416 E 37TH ST N
ROBERTS JANET A
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH ST #G101
HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP INC
ATLANTA, GA 30327
3539 NORTHSIDE PKWY
232 EAST MAIN STREET LLC
CHICAGO, IL 60614
2001 N HALSTED #304
TRUE JAMES R
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 2864
ORR ROBERT L
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
2700 G ROAD #12A
360 HEXAGON LLC
BROOKLINE, MA 02445
119 HYSLOP RD
CLARK FAMILY TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 362
ORR ROBERT L
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
2700 G ROAD #12A
JOHNSON PETER C & SANDRA K
ASPEN, CO 81611-1008
51 OVERLOOK DR
DAVIDSON DONALD W
ASPEN, CO 81611
864 CEMETERY LN
MONARCH BUILDING LLC
WOODY CREEK, CO 81656
PO BOX 126
HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP INC
ATLANTA, GA 30327
3539 NORTHSIDE PKWY
SEDOY MICHAEL
NEW YORK, NY 10022
35 SUTTON PL #19B
KATIE REED PLAZA CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
301 E HOPKINS AVE
MOTHER LODE CONDO ASSOC INC
OLATHE, KS 66061
25880 W 104 TER
MOJO ASPEN LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH #G102
PARK CENTRAL CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH ST STE 203
P121
IV.A.
ELLIOTT ELYSE A TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
610 NORTH ST
CLARK FAMILY TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 362
KATIE REED BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
407 S HUNTER ST #3
CITY OF ASPEN
ASPEN, CO 81611
130 S GALENA ST
CLARKS ASPEN LLC
BLANDING , UT 84511
818 SOUTH MAIN ST
MOTHER LODE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
314 E HYMAN AVE
DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH #104
1000 EAST HOPKINS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH #104
KATIE REED BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
407 S HUNTER ST #3
KATIE REED BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
407 S HUNTER ST #3
TRUE JAMES R
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 2864
GRAND SLAM HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH ST #101
SHVACHKO NATALIA
NEW YORK, NY 10022
35 SUTTON PL #19B
AJAX JMG INVESTMENTS LLC
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 902122974
9401 WILSHIRE BLVD 9TH FL
BRINING ROBERT D
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH #203
KELLY GARY
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 12356
314-200 HEXAGON LLC
OLATHE, KS 66061
25880 W 104 TERR
KATIE REED BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
407 S HUNTER ST #3
KATIE REED BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
407 S HUNTER ST #3
ASPEN BRANCH HOLDINGS LLC
DENVER, CO 80206
3033 E FIRST AVE
BERNSTEIN JEREMY M PROFIT SHARING PLAN
ASPEN, CO 81611
610 NORTH ST
NUNN RONALD FAMILY LP
BRENTWOOD, CA 94513
10500 BRENTWOOD BLVD
RACZAK JOSEPH S & JANET L
SNOWMASS, CO 81654
0234 LIGHT HILL RD
MINERS REAL ESTATE LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 1365
TRUE JAMES R
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 2864
BERNSTEIN JEREMY M PROFIT SHARING PLAN
ASPEN, CO 81611
610 NORTH ST
ORR ROBERT L
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
2700 G ROAD #12A
ORR ROBERT L
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
2700 G ROAD #12A
303 EAST MAIN LLLP
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 8016
KATIE REED BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
407 S HUNTER ST #3
P122
IV.A.
ORR ROBERT L
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
2700 G ROAD #12A
314 HEXAGON LLC
OLATHE, KS 66061
25880 W 104 TERR
KATIE REED BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
407 S HUNTER ST #3
BRINING ROBERT
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH ST #203
JPS NEVADA TRUST
HENDERSON, NV 89074
1701 N GREEN VALLEY PKWY #9C
KATIE REED BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
407 S HUNTER ST #3
TRUE JAMES R
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 2864
CLARKS ASPEN LLC
BLANDING , UT 84511
818 SOUTH MAIN ST
HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP INC
ATLANTA, GA 30327
3539 NORTHSIDE PKWY
JPS NEVADA TRUST
HENDERSON, NV 89074
1701 N GREEN VALLEY PKWY #9C
ORR ROBERT L
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
2700 G ROAD #12A
SHVACHKO NATALIA
NEW YORK, NY 10022
35 SUTTON PL #19B
CARLS REAL ESTATE LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 1365
ORR ROBERT L
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
2700 G ROAD #12A
KATIE REED BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
407 S HUNTER ST #3
JPS NEVADA TRUST
HENDERSON, NV 89074
1701 N GREEN VALLEY PKWY #9C
DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH #104
CITY OF ASPEN
ASPEN, CO 81611
130 S GALENA ST
KATIE REED BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
407 S HUNTER ST #3
JPS NEVADA TRUST
HENDERSON, NV 89074
1701 N GREEN VALLEY PKWY #9C
DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH #104
DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH #104
DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH #104
RACZAK JOSEPH S & JANET L
SNOWMASS, CO 81654
0234 LIGHT HILL RD
WELLS FARGO BANK
CARLSBAD, CA 92018
PO BOX 2609
ICONIC PROPERTIES JEROME LLC
HOUSTON, TX 77077
1375 ENCLAVE PKWY
KATIE REED BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
407 S HUNTER ST #3
CLARK FAMILY TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 362
KATIE REED BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
407 S HUNTER ST #3
SEDOY MICHAEL
NEW YORK, NY 10022
35 SUTTON PL #19B
P123
IV.A.
GOODING NANCY A
ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111
4800 S HOLLY ST
SEGUIN BUILDING CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
304 E HYMAN AVE
KELLY GARY
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 12356
KATIE REED BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
407 S HUNTER ST #3
CLARK FAMILY TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 362
KELLY GARY
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 12356
DCBD2 LLC
DALLAS, TX 75201
2100 ROSS AVE #3300
DAVIDSON DONALD W
ASPEN, CO 81611
864 CEMETERY LN
MINERS REAL ESTATE LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 1365
312 EAST HYMAN AVENUE LLC
CHICAGO, IL 60614
2001 N HALSTED # 304
1543 LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1543 WAZEE ST #400
MOTHER LODE CONDO ASSOC INC
OLATHE, KS 66061
25880 W 104 TER
FREDRICK LARRY D
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH ST #G101
HOFFMAN JOHN L & SHARON R TRUST
KANSAS CITY, MO 64108
411 E 63RD ST
ROBERTS JANET A
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH ST #G101
BRINING ROBERT
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH ST #203
HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP INC
ATLANTA, GA 30327
3539 NORTHSIDE PKWY
FREDRICK LARRY D
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH ST #G101
KATIE REED BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
407 S HUNTER ST #3
KATIE REED BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
407 S HUNTER ST #3
308 EAST HOPKINS CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
308 E HOPKINS AVE
DAVIDSON DONALD W
ASPEN, CO 81611
864 CEMETERY LN
DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH #104
CLARKS ASPEN LLC
BLANDING , UT 84511
818 SOUTH MAIN ST
314-PH HEXAGON LLC
OLATHE, KS 66061
25880 W 104 TERR
1000 EAST HOPKINS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH #104
KATIE REED BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
407 S HUNTER ST #3
PCU-5 LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 2563
GRAND SLAM HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH ST #101
MOJO ASPEN LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH #G102
P124
IV.A.
DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH #104
FREDRICK LARRY D
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH ST #G101
MILL STREET PLAZA ASSOC LLC
ASPEN , CO 81611
602 E COOPER #202
JAFFE JONATHAN & KAREN
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
88 EMERALD BAY
P125
IV.A.
2,257
376.2
Legend
1:
WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere
Feet0376.2188.08
Notes
304 E. Hopkins Vicinity Map
THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES.
Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee
concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability
of the content represented.
Map Created on 9:22 AM 03/06/18 at http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com
State Highway
Road Centerline 4K
Primary Road
Secondary Road
Service Road
Rivers and Creeks
Continuous
Intermittent
River, Lake or Pond
Town Boundary
Federal Land Boundary
BLM
State of Colorado
USFS
Exhibit P
P126IV.A.
STREET AND CONTEXT VIEW WITH PROPOSED BUILDINGHILLSTONE ASPEN
MARCH 23, 2018 FLEETWOOD FERNANDEZ
ARCHITECTS
Exhibit Q
P127IV.A.
EXISTING STREET AND CONTEXT VIEWHILLSTONE ASPEN
MARCH 23, 2018 FLEETWOOD FERNANDEZ
ARCHITECTSP128 IV.A.
EXISTING SITE STREET FRONT VIEWHILLSTONE ASPEN
MARCH 23, 2018 FLEETWOOD FERNANDEZ
ARCHITECTSP129 IV.A.
COVER SHEET &
PROJECT INFORMATION
A-0.00HILLSTONE - ASPEN304 EAST HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611ISSUE DATE AND DESCRIPTION
fleetwood fernandez reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these drawings. these drawings are not to be reproduced in any manner or assigned to any third party without first obtaining the written consent of fleetwood fernandez.F
S
T
G
U
V
W
J
I
H
A
K
L
MB
C
N
O
D
P
RE
ABBREVIATIONS GRAPHIC SYMBOLS VICINITY MAP
LOCATION MAP
GRAPHIC SYMBOLS DRAWING INDEX
PROJECT DIRECTORYPROJECT STATISTICS AND ZONING ANALYSIS
EAST
M
A
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
EAST
H
O
P
K
I
N
S
A
V
E
N
U
E SOUTH MILL STREETSOUTH MONARCH STREETSITE
NN
SITE
MAIN
S
T
E CO
O
P
E
R
A
V
ES ORIGINAL STE HO
P
K
I
N
S
A
V
E
S MONARCH STE DU
R
A
N
T
A
V
E
P130IV.A.
EAST HOPKINS AVESOUTH MONARCH STREET
304 E HOPKINS
AVENUE
302 E HOPKINS
AVENUE
EXISTING
BUILDING
3/16" = 1'-0"
A-0.10HILLSTONE - ASPEN304 EAST HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611ISSUE DATE AND DESCRIPTION
fleetwood fernandez reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these drawings. these drawings are not to be reproduced in any manner or assigned to any third party without first obtaining the written consent of fleetwood fernandez.LEGEND
SHEET NOTES
KEY NOTES
1(E) N Elevation2(E) S Elevation
4(E) Site Plan
EXISTING FAR
PERCENTAGE OF PUBLIC AMENITY
(E) AREA CALCULATIONSP131 IV.A.
EXISTING PLANS
N.T.S.
A-0.11HILLSTONE - ASPEN304 EAST HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611ISSUE DATE AND DESCRIPTION
fleetwood fernandez reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these drawings. these drawings are not to be reproduced in any manner or assigned to any third party without first obtaining the written consent of fleetwood fernandez.LEGEND
SHEET NOTES
KEY NOTES
1(E) UPPER FLOOR3(E) LOWER LEVEL4(E) SITE PLAN
NET LEASABLE / LIVABLE
(E) AREA CALCULATIONS
2(E) MIDDLE FLOORP132 IV.A.
METCT MS
M1K1P1APTLPPROPOSED PLANS
AREA DIAGRAMS
3/16" = 1'-0"
A-0.12HILLSTONE - ASPEN304 EAST HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611ISSUE DATE AND DESCRIPTION
fleetwood fernandez reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these drawings. these drawings are not to be reproduced in any manner or assigned to any third party without first obtaining the written consent of fleetwood fernandez.LEGEND
SHEET NOTES
KEY NOTES
1PROPOSED BASEMENT LEVEL2PROPOSED STREET LEVEL
AREA CALCULATIONS
GROSS FLOOR AREA
NET LEASABLE AREA
PEDESTRIAN AMENITY
SECOND TIER COMMERCIALP133 IV.A.
M1K1P1APTLPPROPOSED PLANS
AREA DIAGRAMS
3/16" = 1'-0"
A-0.13HILLSTONE - ASPEN304 EAST HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611ISSUE DATE AND DESCRIPTION
fleetwood fernandez reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these drawings. these drawings are not to be reproduced in any manner or assigned to any third party without first obtaining the written consent of fleetwood fernandez.LEGEND
SHEET NOTES
KEY NOTES
1SUBGRADE CALCULATIONS
2PROPOSED BASEMENT LEVEL3FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
P134IV.A.
SOUTH MONARCH STREET
EAST HOPKINS AVENUESITE PLAN
3/16" = 1'-0"
A-1.00HILLSTONE - ASPEN304 EAST HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611ISSUE DATE AND DESCRIPTION
fleetwood fernandez reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these drawings. these drawings are not to be reproduced in any manner or assigned to any third party without first obtaining the written consent of fleetwood fernandez.LEGEND
SHEET NOTES
KEY NOTES
P135IV.A.
METCTMSEB
EB
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
1/4" = 1'-0"
A-2.00HILLSTONE - ASPEN304 EAST HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611ISSUE DATE AND DESCRIPTION
fleetwood fernandez reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these drawings. these drawings are not to be reproduced in any manner or assigned to any third party without first obtaining the written consent of fleetwood fernandez.LEGEND
SHEET NOTES
KEY NOTES
EXTERIOR LIGHTING
SCHEDULE
EA
EB
EC
EDP136
IV.A.
MSB1M1K1P1APTLPBASEMENT FLOOR PLAN
1/4" = 1'-0"
A-2.01HILLSTONE - ASPEN304 EAST HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611ISSUE DATE AND DESCRIPTION
fleetwood fernandez reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these drawings. these drawings are not to be reproduced in any manner or assigned to any third party without first obtaining the written consent of fleetwood fernandez.LEGEND
SHEET NOTES
KEY NOTES
P137IV.A.
HILLSTONE - ASPEN304 EAST HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611ISSUE DATE AND DESCRIPTION
fleetwood fernandez reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these drawings. these drawings are not to be reproduced in any manner or assigned to any third party without first obtaining the written consent of fleetwood fernandez.1South Elevation
2North Elevation
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
1/4" = 1'-0"
A-10.00
KEY NOTES
SHEET NOTES
P138IV.A.
HILLSTONE - ASPEN304 EAST HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611ISSUE DATE AND DESCRIPTION
fleetwood fernandez reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these drawings. these drawings are not to be reproduced in any manner or assigned to any third party without first obtaining the written consent of fleetwood fernandez.1Section
BUILDING SECTIONS
1/4" = 1'-0"
A-11.00
KEY NOTES
SHEET NOTES
P139IV.A.
HILLSTONE - ASPEN304 EAST HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611ISSUE DATE AND DESCRIPTION
fleetwood fernandez reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these drawings. these drawings are not to be reproduced in any manner or assigned to any third party without first obtaining the written consent of fleetwood fernandez.1Section
2Section
BUILDING SECTIONS
1/4" = 1'-0"
A-11.01
KEY NOTES
SHEET NOTES
P140IV.A.
projectdescriptionscaledatesketch no1 of 25.21.20181/4"=1'-0"HILLSTONE ASPENGround Floor -Trash Room Revisions1275 E SIXTH STREET #202 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90021 213.553.9135Key Plan - not to scaleEnlarged Plan at Trash Room302 East Hopkins -Shown shadedNew Trash RoomExisting Trash Roomfor White HouseTavernEast Hopkins
Alley
New combined TrashRoom - shown ingreen - is 170 squarefeet total.Existing Roll-up doorat White House TavernTrash Room2 yard dumpster2 yard dumpsterExisting oil and greasecollection tankNew gas meter for304 East Hopkins.Also reclocate existinggas meter for 302 tothis location.New roll-up doorNew opening betweenexisting Trash Roomand new Trash RoomP141IV.A.
projectdescriptionscaledatesketch no2 of 25.21.20181/8"=1'-0"HILLSTONE ASPENTrash Room Revisions1275 E SIXTH STREET #202 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90021 213.553.9135P142IV.A.
METCT MS
M1K1P1APTLPPROPOSED PLANS
AREA DIAGRAMS
3/16" = 1'-0"
A-0.12HILLSTONE - ASPEN304 EAST HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611ISSUE DATE AND DESCRIPTION
fleetwood fernandez reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these drawings. these drawings are not to be reproduced in any manner or assigned to any third party without first obtaining the written consent of fleetwood fernandez.LEGEND
SHEET NOTES
KEY NOTES
1PROPOSED BASEMENT LEVEL2PROPOSED STREET LEVEL
AREA CALCULATIONS
GROSS FLOOR AREA
NET LEASABLE AREA
PEDESTRIAN AMENITY
SECOND TIER COMMERCIALP143 IV.A.
STREET VIEWSHILLSTONE ASPEN
MARCH 23, 2018 FLEETWOOD FERNANDEZ
ARCHITECTS
Exhibit S
P144IV.A.
STREET VIEWSHILLSTONE ASPEN
MARCH 16, 2018 FLEETWOOD FERNANDEZ
ARCHITECTS
FRONT FACADE VIEWS (WITH AND WITHOUT WINTER VESTIBULE)HILLSTONE ASPEN
MARCH 23, 2018 FLEETWOOD FERNANDEZ
ARCHITECTSP145 IV.A.
STREET VIEWSHILLSTONE ASPEN
MARCH 16, 2018 FLEETWOOD FERNANDEZ
ARCHITECTS
RESTAURANT ENTRY VIEWSHILLSTONE ASPEN
MARCH 23, 2018 FLEETWOOD FERNANDEZ
ARCHITECTSP146 IV.A.
Material Submission - HPC
Hillstone Restaurant
304 E Hopkins Ave, Aspen, CO
Precast Concrete
Concrete Collaborative
Pacifica, Ivory
Exhibit T
P147
IV.A.
Material Submission - HPC
Hillstone Restaurant
304 E Hopkins Ave, Aspen, CO
Wall Brick
Interstate Brick, Atlas 6”x4”x16”
Terra Cotta L-4
P148
IV.A.
Material Submission - HPC
Hillstone Restaurant
304 E Hopkins Ave, Aspen, CO
Roofing
Standing Seam
VMZINC, AnthraZinc
P149
IV.A.
Material Submission - HPC
Hillstone Restaurant
304 E Hopkins Ave, Aspen, CO
Doors
Flat Walnut with Glass inserts
P150
IV.A.
Material Submission - HPC
Hillstone Restaurant
304 E Hopkins Ave, Aspen, CO
Columns and Beams
Douglas Fir
P151
IV.A.
Material Submission - HPC
Hillstone Restaurant
304 E Hopkins Ave, Aspen, CO
Powdercoat Steel
Ralph Lauren
TH28 Surrey
P152
IV.A.
Material Submission - HPC
Hillstone Restaurant
304 E Hopkins Ave, Aspen, CO
Flooring
Flamed black granite tiles
Enhanced and Sealed
P153
IV.A.
Material Submission - HPC
Hillstone Restaurant
304 E Hopkins Ave, Aspen, CO
Handrails
Naval Brass with US10B Bronze
Finish
P154
IV.A.
Material Submission - HPC
Hillstone Restaurant
304 E Hopkins Ave, Aspen, CO
Roll Down Door at Trash
DBCI 2500 series
Burnished slate
P155
IV.A.
C:\General CADD 12\Gxd\39232FB.gxd -- 02/09/2018 -- 11:11 AM -- Scale 1 : 120.000000
Exhibit U
P156IV.A.
SE Job #17221 - Hillstone - 304 East Hopkins Avenue March 22, 2018
S OPR IS E NGI NEERING • LLC civil consultants
502 Main Street Suite A3 Carbondale Colorado 81623 (970)704-0311 Fax:(970)704-0313
Engineering Report
HPC Review Submittal
for
304 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Colorado
Hillstone Restaurant Group
Prepared for:
Hillstone Restaurant Group
304 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Prepared by:
Sopris Engineering, LLC
502 Main Street Suite A3
Carbondale, Colorado 81623
SE Project Number: 17221
March 22, 2018
Exhibit V
P157
IV.A.
SE Job #17221 - Hillstone - 304 East Hopkins Avenue March 22, 2018
1 | P a g e
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………..….2
A. Project Summ ary ................................................................................................................ 2
B. Site Utilities ........................................................................................................................ 2
C. Drainage Analysis ............................................................................................................... 4
D. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 5
P158
IV.A.
SE Job #17221 - Hillstone - 304 East Hopkins Avenue March 22, 2018
2 | P a g e
Introdu ction
The following report has been prepared by Sopris Engineering (SE) in support of a redevelopment
project located at 304 East Hopkins Avenue in Aspen, Colorado. The property is located within the
Commercial Core Zone District and is subject to the City’s Historic Preservation Council (HPC)
review. The subject property, which is Lot L of Block 80, is owned by the Hillstone Restaurant
Group (Hillstone). Hillstone plans to demolish the building on the existing lot and replace with a
new building. The information within this report presents SE’s preliminary summary of
engineering analysis and findings associated with the proposed utilities and stormwater
infrastructure for the re-development of the property.
A. Project Summary
Hillstone owns the White House Tavern Restaurant located at 302 East Hopkins Avenue on the
adjacent lot to the west of the subject property (Lot K, Block 80). The White House Tavern building
was remodeled approximately 5 years ago, before opening as a restaurant. Hillstone intends to
expand their restaurant services to both of the lots they own. They intend to demolish the existing
brick building on Lot L and construct a new one story restaurant with a full basement.
The proposed building on Lot L will have one above ground level that extends to the north, east
and west lot lines and recessed away from the south lot line for surface patio improvements in
front of the entrance. The proposed, below grade level will extend from lot line to lot line. The
new building will have some form of interconnectivity with the existing adjacent White House
Tavern building. The redevelopment is planned to include improvements into the north alley,
storm water quality improvements onsite, and associated utility improvements as well.
B. Site Utilities
Coordination with various utility providers has taken place to discuss the feasibility of serving the
proposed improvements. This section describes SE’s findings. Additional details and routing will
be finalized prior to submitting for a building permit application
Water Service: The COA Water Department is the provider of potable water for the subject
property. A 4-inch service to the building exists from the main in East Hopkins Avenue. The pipe
material and condition of the line will need to be verified to see if abandonment and replacement
is required. If the material of the existing line is cast iron, SE recommends replacing with ductile
iron. SE is confident that the 4-inch size has adequate capacity for the fire flow estimates that will
be generated from the proposed structure. New tap fees will be determined from the proposed
ECU’s and the value of the previous tap fees will be credited towards the total value of the new fee
amount. Should a new service be required, the existing line will be abandoned at the main and a
new line will be extended to the building in accordance with COA Water Department standards.
P159
IV.A.
SE Job #17221 - Hillstone - 304 East Hopkins Avenue March 22, 2018
3 | P a g e
Sanitary Sewer : Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) is the supplier of sanitary sewer
service to the subject property and surrounding area. An existing sewer main is located within the
Block 80 alley and a 4-inch clay pipe (VCP) service line extends to the existing building. The service
will need to be inspected to review its condition and depending on the review, it may need to be
abandoned. A new service connection, compliant with current ACSD regulations, would be
installed to the mechanical room. The service line will maintain minimum horizontal separation
from other utilities. Final size of the service line will be coordinated with ACSD staff and will be
based on projected flows from fixtures and building programming. A new grease trap system will
be installed to handle waste flows from the proposed commercial kitchen. Basement level
sanitary sewer will be lifted to the main gravity sanitary sewer service.
Shallow Utilities: Shallow utilities serving the existing property include electric, cable, gas, and
telephone. The information provided within this section includes coordination with the utility
providers as well as utility information provided from onsite surveys.
City of Aspen Electric currently serves the property from a transformer located on the property
directly east of the existing building. The transformer is located just east of the NE corner of the
building in the alley on the north side of the property. The nearest 3-phase power source is from a
transformer located on the Wells Fargo property at 319 South Mill Street (Lot P of Block 80). The
Wells Fargo property is east of the subject property. According to the COA Electric Department,
the existing 3-phase transformer is inadequately sized to serve the proposed development. A
new, COA compliant 7-ft x 7-ft vault and 3-phase transformer will be required, replacing the
existing 5-ft x 5-ft vault and transformer. New 3-phase power will be extended from the new vault
to the building within the Block 80 alley. An easement agreement and adequate easement are
being reviewed and will be finalized prior to building permit application submittal.
Comcast Cable service is available within the Block 80 Alley and can be extended to the proposed
building from an existing pedestal directly across the alley from the proposed building.
Black Hills Energy has an existing natural gas line within the Block 80 alley. According to Black Hills
representatives, the existing line has adequate capacity to support the proposed improvements. A
new service line will be extended from the Block 80 alley, should the project demands warrant.
Century Link Telephone currently serves the property from the Block 80 alley to an interior
terminal within the existing structure. The cabinet will need to be decommissioned prior to
demolition of the existing structure. New service will be extended from the nearest service
pedestal to the lower level mechanical room associated with the new structure.
P160
IV.A.
SE Job #17221 - Hillstone - 304 East Hopkins Avenue March 22, 2018
4 | P a g e
C. Drainage Analysis
Based on the proposed improvements and amount of site disturbance, this project will require a
“Major Design” review in compliance with the City of Aspen’s Urban Runoff Management Plan
(COA’s URMP) dated December, 2014. A drainage report will be provided with the building permit
application. The following section summarizes the water quality treatment requirements and the
project’s approach to providing treatment solutions and mitigation approaches that comply with
the URMP.
Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) & Detention
Detention – Because the project site is located in the urban core of the City of Aspen, onsite
detention will not be required above the WQCV provided the amount of impervious area does not
exceed what exists today. As stated in the URMP, “Given Aspen’s proximity to the Roaring Fork
River and the large undeveloped drainage area in the Roaring Fork River watershed above Aspen,
detention is not a practice that provides major flood control benefits for the City of Aspen.”
Although onsite detention will likely not be required for this project, the stormwater mitigation
design must safely pass the 100-yr storm event and not negatively impact downstream properties.
WQCV – The URMP implements the design event for WQCV as the 80th Percentile runoff event
which corresponds to roughly a 6-month to 1-year storm event. The City requires treatment of the
“first flush” of the storm event which is quantified through the WQCV calculation. Conservatively
assuming a 100% impervious site of 3,000 sq-ft, the required WQCV is 65CF. This is the required
volume of water that must be treated through the water quality storage and treatment
infrastructure (BMPs), stored, and released through a 12 hr period.
BMPs – The URMP provides guidelines/requirements for permanent stormwater Best
Management Practices (BMPs). SE has been in discussions with the project team early in the
design process as it relates to providing stormwater mitigation and it has been determined that
the use of a dry well for water quality treatment is the preferred solution given the limits of the
below grade structure and the overall interests of the client.
Drywells are a BMP that incorporate manhole structures with perforated barrel sections at the
deeper depths to allow infiltration into the soils. When sub-soils are capable of moderate to high
infiltration rates, dry wells are considered to be a viable BMP. They dramatically reduce the
increased runoff and volume of stormwater generated from surrounding impervious areas and
promote infiltration; thereby improving water quality of stormwater runoff. Dry wells are equally
as effective as alternative BMPs (ie. bioretention, grass buffers, grass swales) and can be
integrated into sites that do not allow for direct surface infiltration due to lack of available space.
The dry well will be sized to handle the runoff volumes produced from the development, it is an
approved BMP outlined within the URMP, and is a practical solution to providing stormwater
mitigation given the site constraints.
P161
IV.A.
SE Job #17221 - Hillstone - 304 East Hopkins Avenue March 22, 2018
5 | P a g e
The drywell would be located below the basement of the building. The City requires a minimum
depth of 10-ft and based on preliminary calculations, a 10-14 ft deep drywell would be necessary
to provide water quality treatment and detention. Although not required, detention would be
included with the design of the drywell which will include a pump system in order to pump water
above the 5-yr and 100-yr storm event out of the drywell in emergency situations. The pump
would discharge into the Block 80 alley consistent with existing drainage patterns. It should be
noted that the design of the dry well discharge pump system will likely result in a reduction of
peak discharge rates as compared to existing conditions which will further improve and enhance
drainage conditions on the subject property and surrounding area thereby meeting the goals of
the City’s URMP.
Planter Areas – It should be noted that the improvements include planter areas at the south side
of the lot adjacent to the sidewalk. They are located in front of the entrance to the building off of
East Hopkins Avenue. These planter areas will be above the basement structure so they will not
directly infiltrate to the soils. However, they will reduce the appearance of impervious areas and
will be aesthetically pleasing to pedestrians and traffic passing, thereby enhancing the site,
community, and environment.
D. Conclusion
The information within this report presents SE’s summary of engineering analysis and findings
associated with the proposed utilities and stormwater infrastructure for the re-development of
the property. Based on SE’s review, the proposed improvements will be properly served from all
utilities and will meet the standards, requirements, and specifications of the COA and utility
providers. Proper stormwater management and water quality treatment will be implemented for
impervious areas which will improve the current site drainage conditions. In addition, the
improvements will not adversely impact the subject property or downstream properties.
P162
IV.A.
HIBIT
U
BendonAE
June12, 2018
City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
c/o Amy Simon
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Updated pedestrian amenity for 304 E. Hopkins
Dear Historic Preservation Commission and Ms.Simon:
In response to the Staff memo, we respectfully submit updated drawings to reduce the depth of the
planter boxes to meet the following Design Guidelines and Standards:
1.3 Landscape elements [both hardscape and softscape] should complement the surrounding context,
support the street scene and enhance the architecture of the building.
Proposed landscape elements include planter boxes to enhance the street scene along Restaurant
Row and to create a defined area for outdoor dining. The interior side of the planter boxes offer
a ledge to sit while waiting for a table. This dwell time adds to the street scene and helps keep a
clear accessway along the Hopkins sidewalk.
1.4 Where there is open space on a site, reinforce the traditional transition from public space to semi-
public space to private space.
The proposed planters,covered front porch,and the perpendicular walkway from the sidewalk to
the restaurant entrance and to the basement commercial space delineate a transition from public
to semi-public to private space.
1.6 When a building facade is setback, define the property line. Review the context of the block when
selecting an appropriate technique.
The property line is defined by the planter boxes. The context of the block including adjacent
landmarks that are setback from the street and the location of the existing building informed the
proposed setback.
PA1.1 Maximize solar access to Pedestrian Amenity space on the subject property.
• At grade Pedestrian Amenity on the north side of the street is discouraged,except when
providing a front yard along Main Street.
300 SO SPRING ST 1 202 1 ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 1 BENDONADAMS.COM
The property is located on the north side of the street facing Aspen Mountain; however the space
is proposed for outdoor lounging beneath the front porch which can accommodate heating to
create a comfortable environment.
PA1.3 Street level Pedestrian Amenity spaces should be equal to a minimum of 1/3 of the total
Pedestrian Amenity requirement.
The proposed street level space is more than half of the requirement.
PedestrianPA1.4 Street level . - .
..
Street level Amenity is within 18 inches of the surrounding grade and is fully accessible.
PA1.5 Street level Pedestrian Amenity areas shall be open to the sky.'
• Direct access to the Pedestrian Amenity from the street is required.
• A street level Pedestrian Amenity space may be covered, subject to HPC or P&Z
approval. If the space is covered,the street-facing portion shall be entirely open.
A front porch element is proposed which covers approximately 319 sf of the Amenity space. The
front porch element is related to historic context and creates a pedestrian scaled element. The
entire front porch is open on all sides, consistent with historic awnings that projected above
commercial ground floor spaces.
• Small unusable spaces are inappropriate.
• Consider providing space for future outdoor merchandising or
restaurant seating opportunities when designing the space. — -
• Providing good solar access, capturing mountain views, and
providing seating is recommended.
• Do not duplicate existing nearby open space.
• Storage areas, delivery areas, parking areas, or trash areas are
not allowed uses within Pedestrian Amenity space.
Amenity space is proposed to be restaurant seating and lounging as recommendedr
above. Lounge chairs are proposed to mimic the feeling of sitting on a front porch i G `*
–inspired by the 191h century residential building located at 304 E. Hopkins(shown k
at right in 1886) that had a front porch across the front of the one story building
(the dotted line delineates the front porch). As required by PA1.6, the space is �� - `�•�--�
versatile forfuture uses such as outdoor merchandising, provides mountain views, ,let � t1.tip
is accessible, and provides partial solar access.
Page 2 of 4
PA1.7 Design amenity space that enhances the
pedestrian experience and faces the street.
• On corner lots, Pedestrian
Amenity space may be
considered on side streets or
adjacent to the alley rather
than facing primary streets.
Proposed Amenity space faces the
street, and creates a connection with
other outdoor seating found within the , f
block at 302, 308 and 316 East Hopkins
(shown at right). "Restaurant Row"
includes a mix of setbacks and outdoor V-
seating on both sides of this block of
Hopkins that adds vitality to the street
and enhances the pedestrian
experience. ..
\ '.
PA1.8 Street level Pedestrian Amenity space should reinforce the property line. Consider the context
of the block when selecting an appropriate technique.
Planter boxes are proposed to define the property line similar to 316 East Hopkins.
PA1.9 Street level Pedestrian Amenity may be appropriate on a case by case basis within the
Commercial Core Historic District.
• Consider the existing context of the block.
• Clearly define the property line as defined in PA1.8
• In this District, street level Pedestrian Amenity should be subordinate to the line of
building fronts.
The range of setbacks in this block support the proposed street level amenity which enhances the
adjacent historic landmark and is consistent with outdoor dining characteristics of the
neighborhood. The proposed street level Amenity space balances the prominent front yard
setbacks within the block while clearly defining the property line to relate to the street wall found
in the central area of the Commercial Core Historic District.
Page 3 of 4
Thank you for the opportunity to update the planter box sizes prior to the HPC hearing. We will provide
an update on the trash area conversation with Environmental Health at the HPC hearing. Additional
renderings are also included in this updated packet. We are happy to answer any questions or to
provide more information as needed for your review.
Sincerely,
&30--
Sara Adams, AICP
BendonAdams LLC
sara@bendonadams.com
970.925.2855
Exhibits:
X—Updated Pedestrian Amenity and renderings dated June 11, 2018
Page 4 of 4
I
I
I I
5'-7"'
� 4'-S"
m�
El
El
El
_ I I
- I
I
a H
m I
r
� o
Z
Z W
1/ D
MIV
- M
t0 �
n
MIS
W O
W O
Q o
5'-10" — 5'-54
z
C�L�jw O
CDN
s
j
r
'� FI
i
_ l
�7l E
`t
r
pp
, 1
� r
r,
A
l
1 1e
e l�
r
rf 4t � t
41