1

AGENDA

ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

June 10, 2020

4:30 PM,

JOINING THE HPC WEBEX MEETINGGo to: www.webex.com Click "Join" at the top right-hand corner Enter Meeting Number 126 739 6914 and Password provided 81611 Click "Join Meeting" OR

Join by phoneCall: 1-720-650-7664Meeting number (access code): 126 739 6914Meeting password: 81611

I. SITE VISIT

I.A. Please visit the project sites on your own.

II. ROLL CALL 4:30 PM

III. MINUTES

III.A. Minutes 5/27/2020minutes.hpc.20200527.pdf

IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS

V. COMMISSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS

VI. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

VII. PROJECT MONITORING

VII.A. Project Monitor ListPROJECT MONITORING.doc

VIII. STAFF COMMENTS 1

2

IX. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT ISSUED

X. CALL UP REPORTS

XI. SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS

XII. OLD BUSINESS

XIII. NEW BUSINESS

XIII.A. 4:40 500 W. Main Street- Conceptual Major Development, Residential DesignStandards, PUBLIC HEARING500 W Main_Memo.pdf500 W Main_Reso.pdfExhibit A_HPGuidelinesCriteria.pdfExhibit B_Residential Design Standards Criteria.pdfExhibit C_Application.pdfExhibit D_Public Comment.pdf

XIV. ADJOURN 7:00 PM

XV. NEXT RESOLUTION NUMBER#13

Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings

1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda)2) Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)3) Staff presentation4) Board questions and clarifications of staff5) Applicant presentation6) Board questions and clarifications of applicant7) Public comments8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments9) Close public comment portion of bearing10) Staff rebuttal/clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment11) Applicant rebuttal/clarification

End of fact finding.Deliberation by the commission commences.No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public

12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners.13) Discussion between commissioners*14) Motion*

2

3

*Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met or not met.

Revised April 2, 2014

3

REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 27 2020

Chairperson Greenwood opened the meeting at 4:35 p.m.

Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Kara Thompson, Nora Berko, Roger Moyer,

Gretchen Greenwood

Commissioners not in attendance: Bob Blaich, Scott Kendrick, Sherri Sanzone

Staff present:

Amy Simon, Interim Planning Director/Historic Preservation Officer

Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner

Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney

Wes Graham, Deputy City Clerk

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Moyer motioned to approve the minutes of April 22, Ms.

Thompson seconded. All in Favor, Motion carried.

PUBLIC COMMENT: None.

COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Berko stated that the windows on the Harren house are

very reflective.

Ms. Simon stated that she met with the applicant and discussed an application being submitted to

HPC to correct the glare. Ms. Simon further stated that it is a film on the window that makes it

reflect.

Mr. Halferty joined the meeting 4:37 PM

Mr. Moyer stated that one of the nominees for the HPC award is up for sale and should be

disqualified from the award.

Ms. Greenwood stated that it is ok for a property to change hands and that should not be a

disqualifier.

Ms. Simon stated that the awards will be set for a later meeting.

CONFLICTS: Ms. Thompson stated that she must recuse herself from the discussion of 611 W.

Main Street.

STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon stated that she is working on a window change at 210 W.

Main

CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: NONE

CALL UPS: Ms. Yoon stated that the 920 E. Hyman went to Council for first reading and

scheduled for Second Reading (06/09).

OLD BUSINESS: 303 S. Galena Street- Minor Development.

Ms. Simon reminded HPC that this is the Aspen Block Building that came before them to request

a new paint job. Ms. Simon stated that they have been working with the applicant and hopefully

a consultant on this project.

Ms. Greenwood stated that this project will be continued to September 9th.

STAFF COMMENTS: None

4

REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 27 2020

NEW BUSINESS: 227 E. Main Street – Final Major Development. Kim Raymond Architecture

+ Interiors.

Ms. Raymond stated at the last meeting HPC had an issue with the windows on the eastside

facing wall. Ms. Raymond stated that they kept the fascia smaller on the new addition keeping in

line with HPC’s suggestion. Ms. Raymond stated that they will be renovating and restoring

everything they can on the historic resource and will be working with their monitor. Ms.

Raymond showed an aerial site plan outlining the footprint of the project. Ms. Raymond stated

that the owner would like to add solar panels on the westside of the gable on the new addition

and flush with the building. Ms. Raymond showed a visual of the landscape plan. Ms. Raymond

stated that there is very little room to have landscaping. Ms. Raymond said there will be a gravel

border around the historic resource and plant garden beds in the front. Ms. Raymond stated that a

deal has been struck between Explore Booksellers and the project about the removal of trees. Ms.

Raymond pointed out if trees can not be removed for whatever reason they are willing to adjust

the basement plans, and no visual changes will happen. Ms. Raymond stated that the exterior

lights on the historic front porch will keep the jelly jar fixture and the new addition will have a

subtle more modern fixture. Ms. Raymond pointed out that all the lights are dark sky compliant.

Ms. Raymond stated that they will be working with a shoring engineer for a one-sided pour for

the basement. Ms. Raymond show visual aids of the trim on the historic resource and how they

plan to keep it in line. Ms. Raymond pointed out the new extra room in between historic

windows and facia to keep with the historic framework. Ms. Raymond stated that they reduced

the number of windows on the east sidewall. Ms. Raymond stated that with the reduction in

windows that they have added louvers in certain areas to help bring in light. Ms. Raymond stated

that the link between the new addition and historic resource will have louvers to connect the two.

Ms. Raymond referred to the HPC packet for details about the green roof. Ms. Raymond showed

the materials that will be used on the project starting with the front historic resource. Ms.

Raymond stated that they are hoping to find historic wood siding that can be renovated and

restored, and repair and replace any wood shingles on the roof. Ms. Raymond stated that on the

new addition the roof will be a standing seam metal and a glass railing for the deck to keep

appearances low. Ms. Raymond stated that the windows will be aluminum clad, and the soffit

will stand light wood. Ms. Raymond showed that the louvers would be painted black to match

the seams. Ms. Raymond stated that venting of the fireplaces was a concern for HPC and they

have addressed that. Ms. Raymond pointed out that in the historic resource the fireplace will be

vented out the side, and you will not be able to see this from street view. Ms. Raymond pointed

out that the fireplace in the basement will be vented to the back of the garage along with the

vented hood. Ms. Raymond stated that they are very excited about how this has turned out. Ms.

Raymond stated that the transformer will be placed on the Main Street Bakery property and that

a deal has been made with the owners.

STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon stated that this final proposal has been vetted well by this

board and that they are at final details. Ms. Simon stated that they are recommending final

approval. Ms. Simon reminded the board that this is a change from commercial to residential and

that this historic building will have slightly more use and that staff is ok with that. Ms. Simon

stated that staff is looking at plant selection in the landscape plan to make sure nothing is too tall

to interfere with the structure. Ms. Simon said they will be looking for a gravel border around the

building to keep plants and water away from the building. Ms. Simon stated that further

5

REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 27 2020

investigation on the historic siding will have to wait until the house is lifted and able to really get

in there on all sides, with preservation documentation. Ms. Simon stated that staff wants to see

historic windows and doors preserved. Ms. Simon pointed out that there are historic details on

the gable that will need to be replicated and that the porch will need to be restored to resemble

historic photos. Ms. Simon pointed out that the wood shingle that was presented for replacement

needs to be natural and non-treated with stain or blackened. Ms. Simon stated that the roof vents

that were presented will need to be vetted and making sure that they are apparently placed. Ms.

Simon stated that the installation that will be used needs to be review before building permits are

issued. Ms. Simon reminded the applicant that they still need to turn in their stormwater plan to

the Engineering Department.

Ms. Greenwood stated that this project presentation was very thorough by the applicant and staff.

PUBLIC COMMENTS: Ruth Carver neighbor to the project. Ms. Carver asked where the

garbage cans would be located.

Ms. Raymond stated that the garbage will be in the garage.

COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Greenwood stated that the updated windows are an

improvement to the project. Ms. Greenwood said that she is in total favor of the solar panels and

that the project looks really nice. Ms. Greenwood stated that she is in favor of all staff's

comments and would like to see this move forward.

Mr. Halferty stated he is pleased to see how the applicate applied HPC’s comments especially

the east-facing wall. Mr. Halferty said that he agrees with Ms. Greenwood and staff comments

and would like to see this move forward.

Mr. Moyer stated that he agrees with staff and should move forward.

Ms. Thompson stated that she agrees with comments and is in favor of solar panels.

Ms. Berko stated that she appreciates the redesign. Ms. Berko stated that she has a concern about

the window ratio and is fearful of too much light spilling out.

MOTION: Ms. Thompson motion to approve Resolution #12, Mr. Halferty seconded. Roll Call

Vote: Mr. Halferty; Yes, Ms. Thompson; Yes, Ms. Berko; Yes, Mr. Moyer; Yes, Ms.

Greenwood; Greenwood. All in favor motion carries.

Ms. Thompson left the meeting.

NEW BUSINESS: 611 West Main Street – Conceptual Major Development, Commercial

Design Review, Setback Variations, Relocation, Growth Management Quota System (GMQS),

Special Review, Transportation and Parking Management, and Certificates of Affordable

Housing. REPRESENTATIVE: Sara Adams from BendonAdams, and Garfield&Hecht.

Ms. Adams stated that 611 West Main Street is a locally designated landmark on a 9,000-sf lot in

the Mixed-Use zone district and the Main Street Historic District. Ms. Adams proposed that this

project will be 100% affordable housing. Ms. Adams stated that they will not be asking for

approval at this point, rather looking for design direction. Ms. Adams showed a five-point slide

outlining the proposed project. Ms. Adams stated that they will be seeking affordable housing

credits. Ms. Adams stated that two of the units will need a special review because they are below

grade. Ms. Adams stated they will be seeking a dimension variation for the distance between the

historic resource and the new addition. Ms. Adams stated that she has worked closely with the

Parks Dept. to identify the trees that need to be kept. Ms. Adams said there will be outdoor

6

REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 27 2020

amenity space for the residence. Ms. Adams stated that parking will have to remain in the back

along the alley and is proposing seven spaces for nine units. Ms. Adams further explained that

the garbage and recycling will need to be along the alley as well. Ms. Adams stated that there

will be exterior storage for each unit. Ms. Adams showed a rendering of the units that are below

grade. Ms. Adams outlined that there will be a staircase and elevator access attached to the new

addition with zero distance between the proposed addition and the historic structure. Ms. Adams

outlined the individual floor plans. Ms. Adams stated that all the units are within the 20%

reduction of unit size and all units have their own private deck. Ms. Adams stated that special

review is needed for the units below grade, to ensure they are livable. Ms. Adams stated that

APCHA and her planning team did not agree on the number of FTEs going to be awarded to the

three-bedroom units. Ms. Adams explained that APCHA felt that the three-bedroom units should

receive less. Ms. Adams showed two visual aids of the elevation of the new addition compared to

the historic building. Ms. Adams asked a few questions for HPC to consider; if HPC would

support the design relating to materials and fenetrations, a zero distance between the historic

building and the new addition, a rear yard setback variation of five feet where ten feet is

required, the reduction in unit size within the 20% allowance, and finally if HPC would support

cash in lieu for the loss of two parking spaces.

Ms. Greenwood asked if to the addition was relating to form as presented.

Ms. Adams stated that they wanted to have the new addition have its own style while the three

levels tie into the historic element.

Ms. Greenwood asked if they could provide renderings of the back of the building.

Ms. Adams stated that they are in HPC’s packet.

Mr. Hecht stated that if the plans for the new addition roof were gables that it would compromise

the unit space inside.

Ms. Greenwood asked what does it mean when they say reduce the space between resource.

Ms. Adams stated that it’s the space between the back of the historic building and the front of

the new addition.

Ms. Berko asked if APCHA has requirements about unit size why would they support a

reduction.

Ms. Adams stated that APCHA guidelines are fluid and APCHA recognizes that. Ms. Adams

explained that is why APCHA allows for the 20% reduction.

Ms. Berko asked how community amenities would look like in a post-COVID-19 world.

Ms. Adams stated that they are proposing private decks, private storage, and a small bbq area

with limited seating.

STAFF COMMENTS: Kevin Rayes Community Development. Mr. Rayes reviewed the history

of the historic building and a review of the applicant’s proposal. Mr. Rayes showed a rendering

of the elevations of the proposed project. Mr. Rayes stated that one of the basement units is 67%

subgrade and the other is 52% subgrade. Mr. Rayes followed up by stating that APCHA would

like to see all subgrade units at 50%. Mr. Rayes stated that APCHA is requesting a reduction of

17% FTE credits. Mr. Rayes listed the bonus amenities that could help maintain or grant more

FTEs. Mr. Rayes stated that staff is very supportive of amenities on site. Mr. Rayes stated that

staff is very supportive of this project. Mr. Rayes said that staff feels that the units that are

smaller are adequately compensated with amenities. Mr. Rayes stated that staff supports a

reduction of FTE credits for the units that are below grade. Mr. Rayes said that the parking

spaces are in a mixed-use zone which dictates that 60% of parking must be on-site and that cash

7

REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 27 2020

in lieu maybe provide for the remaining spaces. Mr. Rayes stated that the staff is very

comfortable with the seven spaces to provide and cash in lieu of the remaining two. Mr. Rayes

stated that there has been communication between staff and the applicant about TIA options.

Ms. Yoon stated that dimensional variations may be granted by HPC and are site-specific. Ms.

Yoon said that since this project is in a mixed-use zone, there is a requirement for the detached

structure to have at least a ten-foot separation between structures. Ms. Yoon pointed out that the

new addition being presented is in fact a detached structure. Ms. Yoon stated that this now

impacts the design review in two ways, first it triggers chapter 11 of design guidelines about

detached structure. Ms. Yoon showed the rendering of the new addition wrapping around the

historic building. Ms. Yoon points out that the third level of the new addition is, in fact, hanging

over the historic building. Ms. Yoon stated that staff would like a restudy on proximity between

the historic building and the new addition. Ms. Yoon stated that the design of the detached

structure needs to relate to the historic resource through two of the three elements: form, material

and fenestration. Ms. Yoon does not agree with the application that the form of the new addition

relates to the historic resource but finds that a relationship to materials is met. Ms. Yoon pointed

out that there is some flexibility in chapter 11 and urges the applicant to restudy fenestration to

meet the guidelines. Ms. Yoon stated that staff is recommending a continuance to restudy and

increase the distance between the new addition and the historic building, and the fenestration of

the new addition.

Ms. Greenwood asked if the units get credit for square footage from the storage units.

Ms. Adams stated that they don’t.

Ms. Greenwood asked if they were planning to increase between five to 10 feet.

Ms. Adams stated that it is correct that they are hoping for 5 feet, so they maintain the density.

Ms. Greenwood asked if it was approperate for HPC to be approving the size of building in

retaliations of FTE credits.

Mr. Rayes stated the HPC can reduce the number of credits a project receives. He reiterated that

HPC can also grant up to the allotted amount which is twenty-one.

PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mr. Rayes read two letters that were submitted by Mike Haisfield and

Jeff Sgroi attached to the minutes.

COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:

Ms. Greenwood stated that the existing historic resource has a strong form. Ms. Greenwood

further stated that the gambrel roof is a strong stand-alone roof and that could be used in a

modernized form. Ms. Greenwood said while the new addition is an interesting design it does not

belong next to this build. Ms. Greenwood stated that the applicant needs to go back to the

drawing board and rethink what would be compatible with this lot and neighborhood. Ms.

Greenwood stated that there are no materials or penetrations that link to the historic building.

Ms. Greenwood reiterated that the applicant needs to get inspiration from the historic build when

in the redesign. Ms. Greenwood stated that she is in favor of some separation between the

buildings. Ms. Greenwood said that she is in favor of a 20% reduction and that outside space is a

necessity, especially in a COVID-19 world. Ms. Greenwood stated that she is in support of cash

in lieu of the parking. Ms. Greenwood said she is in support of the staffs’ comments for going

back to the drawing board.

Mr. Moyer stated that this is an absurd scale and mass for this historic resource. Mr. Moyer

asked if a code change would be necessary. Mr. Moyer stated that he does not agree with the

8

REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 27 2020

zero distance between the new addition and historic resource, he further explained that he would

like to see space between the two structures. Mr. Moyer stated that HPC needs to stop giving up

parking spots for projects. Mr. Moyer said that the proposed parking solution does not make

sense and will create more problems. Mr. Moyer stated that overall this project is too big, too

many units, and not enough parking. Mr. Moyer stated that it is not HPC’s job to design the

project.

Ms. Berko stated that we are walking a delicate balance and that everyone supports housing. Ms.

Berko said that HPC’s role is to protect historic resources and one cannot place a monster project

like this behind a special building like this. Ms. Berko stated that she will not be supporting any

design. Ms. Berko stated if a project needs all these variations, the project is simply too big.

Mr. Halferty stated that there is a need for affordable housing up and down the valley. Mr.

Halferty said that he agrees with the board that this project is too big. Mr. Halferty stated that he

likes what the applicant has done with the historic resource. Mr. Halferty stated that a zero-lot-

line to the rear is not feasible and would congest the area more. Mr. Halferty said he is in support

of a reduction of the size of units to help with how to condense it is in the west end. Mr. Halferty

stated that he is in favor of cash in lieu of parking however everyone has cars and uses them. Mr.

Halferty stated that the applicant needs to go back to the drawing board.

Ms. Greenwood stated that the new addition is dominating the historic resource and that HPC has

a real problem with that. Ms. Greenwood said that the historic building needs to be the focal

point and if the applicant can reduce the new addition size that goal can be met.

Mr. Hecht stated that the proposed project was a huge mess, he further explained that he

understands the comments and will do better. Mr. Hecht stated that he would like to investigate

the setbacks.

Ms. Greenwood stated that when a project receives set back that it is intended for the benefit of

the historic resource, not the new addition.

MOTION: Mr. Moyer moved to continue the public hearing of 611 West Main Street to July

8th Ms. Berko Seconded. Voice call vote. All in favor.

MOTION: Mr. Moyer motioned to adjourn; Ms. Berko seconded. All in favor, motion carried

______________________________

Wes Graham, Deputy Clerk

9

C:\Users\EASYPD~1\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@740F94F1\@BCL@740F94F1.doc

6/5/2020

HPC PROJECT MONITORS- projects in bold are under construction

Nora Berko 1102 Waters210 S. First

Bob Blaich 209 E. Bleeker300 E. Hyman, Crystal Palace

Gretchen Greenwood 411 E. Hyman300 E. Hyman, Crystal Palace101 W. Main, Molly Gibson Lodge201 E. Main834 W. Hallam420 E. Hyman517 E. Hopkins529-535 E. Cooper Avenue

Jeff Halferty 232 E. Main541 Race Alley208 E. Main517 E. Hopkins533 W. Hallam110 W. Main, Hotel Aspen105 E. Hallam

Roger Moyer 223 E. Hallam300 W. Main105 E. Hallam

Scott Kendrick 517 E. Hopkins419 E. Hyman302 E. Hopkins304 E. Hopkins210 W. Main320 E. HymanAspen Institute- Boettcher/Bayer Museum

Sheri Sanzone 549 Race Alley110 W. Main125 W. MainAspen Institute- Boettcher/Bayer Museum

Kara Thompson 931 Gibson201 E. Main333 W. Bleeker

Need to assign: 414-422 E. Cooper422-434 E. Cooper305-307 S. Mill 227 E. Main

10

Page 1 of 3

130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com

Memorandum

TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Interim Planning Director/Historic Preservation Officer MEETING DATE: June 10, 2020 RE: 500 W. Main Street – Conceptual Major Development and Residential Design

Standards Review- PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICANT /OWNER: 500 West Main Street, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Rowland + Broughton LOCATION: Street Address: 500 W. Main Street (address of new home TBD) Legal Description: Lot R, Mesa Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado Parcel Identification Number: PID# 2735-124-43-008 CURRENT ZONING & USE MU (Mixed Use) Currently used as a garden PROPOSED ZONING & USE: Residential

SUMMARY: The applicant requests approval for Conceptual Major Development and Residential Design Standards Review for a new home on a lot created through a historic landmark lot split. The property is currently used as a garden, associated with Rowland+Broughton’s office. While approval was granted to remove all development rights from the site via Transferable Development Rights, the applicant is not required to do so and has elected to build a home on the site instead. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports the project, however restudy is needed in order to bring the project into alignment with parking and floor area requirements, as described in this memo. The applicant may submit a revision by noon on the day before the meeting, so that HPC may decide to approve or continue the application.

Site Locator Map – 500 W. Main Street, Lot R

11

Page 2 of 3

130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com

REQUEST OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals:

• Major Development (Section 26.415.070.D) for Conceptual design approval. • Residential Design Standards Variations (26.410.020.D Variation Review Standards) related to

Articulation of Building Mass and One-story Element. Please note that properties containing historic resources are exempt from Residential Design Standards review. This site does not qualify.

The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is the final review authority, however this project is subject to Call-up Notice to City Council. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff finds that the historic preservation design guidelines are all met by this project, and the proposed building is a good fit for the context. Staff supports a variation from the Articulation of Building Mass standard in the interest of restricting the project to a one-story mass near the adjacent miner’s cottage. Staff recommends the project be adjusted to meet the One-story Element design standard. In preparing this review, it has been determined that a revision to the design is needed related to a parking easement on the site. When the applicant received approval to subdivide the former 6,000 square foot lot in two, one of the required parking spaces for the office building was placed on the subject residential lot, as were the transformer and trash storage needed for commercial use. The transformer will of course remain where it is, but the trash will move behind the office building (details to be finalized with Environmental Health) and the parking easement needs to be adjusted to create room for the parking required for the house. It has been determined that the parking easement reduces the lot size of both sites for the purpose of calculating floor area. In order to keep the office development within the bounds of its approved floor area, only about a 2’ width of the parking easement can be shifted onto that lot. The applicant is in the process of restudying the rear portion of the home to accommodate the appropriate portion of parking easement. There will be an approximately 75 square foot reduction of allowed floor area for the home that results from this situation. Because this is likely to have some impact on site plan and form, staff recommends continuation of the project. Please see Exhibits A, B and C for more detail. REFERRAL COMMENTS: The application was referred out to other City departments who have requirements that will significantly affect the permit review. Relevant conditions of approval are included in the recommendation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Historic Preservation Commission grant Conceptual Major Development, Relocation and Residential Design Standards approval with the following conditions:

12

Page 3 of 3

130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com

1. The project must be adjusted to provide the parking easement that benefits the adjacent office

development in a manner that leaves the development on the office and residential lots in compliance with all dimensional and building code requirements.

2. The project must be adjusted to comply with the One-story Element requirement of the Residential Design Standards.

3. A variation from the Building Articulation requirement of the Residential Design Standards is granted.

4. Coordination with the Engineering Department is needed on the following topics: • If the sidewalk curb in gutter in front of the site are not new, the property will be required to

replace them per City of Aspen standards. • In order for the drywell on Lot S to be used to treat stormwater from Lot R, drainage

easements, maintenance agreements and access to the infrastructure will need to be addressed.

5. Coordination with the Building Department is needed on the following topics: • Due to the proximity of the house to the egress stair on the west side of the office structure,

the east wall of the new house must have a 1 hour fire rating on both sides of the wall. • Windows on this wall may need to be fire-rated, or a sprinkler system installed. • Additional fire-proof construction may be needed adjacent to the transformer in the

northwest corner of the site. 6. Coordination with the Parks Department is needed on the following topics:

• During construction, to protect the cottonwood street trees, the front yard, up to the 10’ setback, must be barricaded with a 6’ fence with an attached fabric liner. A mulch bedding may be required.

• The water line will need to be located as far east as possible to protect the street trees. • Parks will need to consult on sidewalk, curb and gutter replacement, if they are to occur.

7. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date.

ATTACHMENTS: Resolution #____, Series of 2020 Exhibit A – Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria /Staff Findings Exhibit B – Residential Design Standards Criteria /Staff Findings Exhibit C – Application Exhibit D – Public Comment

13

HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2020 Page 1 of 3

RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2020

A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND RESIDENTIAL DESIGN

STANDARDS APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 500 WEST MAIN STREET, LOT R, MESA SUBDIVISION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO

PARCEL ID: 2735-124-43-008

WHEREAS, the applicant, 500 West Main Street, LLC, represented by Rowland+Broughton, has requested HPC approval for Conceptual Major Development and Residential Design Standards review for the property located at 500 West Main Street, Lot R, Mesa Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that “no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;” and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, Residential Design Standards review is administrative, except for any Variations. Variations are reviewed by a board, in this case HPC, and must be found to be in conformance with Section 26.410.020.D of the Municipal Code, Variation Review Standards. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for compliance with applicable review standards and recommended continuation for restudy; and WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on June 10, 2020. HPC considered the application, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and granted approval with conditions by a vote of __ to __. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby approves Conceptual Major Development and Residential Design Standards review for the property located at 500 West Main Street, Lot R, Mesa Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado as follows. 14

HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2020 Page 2 of 3

Section 1: The approval is subject to these conditions:

1. The project must be adjusted to provide the parking easement that benefits the adjacent office development in a manner that leaves the development on the office and residential lots in compliance with all dimensional and building code requirements.

2. The project must be adjusted to comply with the One-story Element requirement of the Residential Design Standards.

3. A variation from the Building Articulation requirement of the Residential Design Standards is granted.

4. Coordination with the Engineering Department is needed on the following topics: • If the sidewalk curb in gutter in front of the site are not new, the property will be

required to replace them per City of Aspen standards. • In order for the drywell on Lot S to be used to treat stormwater from Lot R,

drainage easements, maintenance agreements and access to the infrastructure will need to be addressed.

5. Coordination with the Building Department is needed on the following topics: • Due to the proximity of the house to the egress stair on the west side of the office

structure, the east wall of the new house must have a 1 hour fire rating on both sides of the wall. Windows on this wall may need to be fire-rated, or a sprinkler system installed.

• Additional fire-proof construction may be needed adjacent to the transformer in the northwest corner of the site.

6. Coordination with the Parks Department is needed on the following topics: • During construction, to protect the cottonwood street trees, the front yard, up to

the 10’ setback, must be barricaded with a 6’ fence with an attached fabric liner. A mulch bedding may be required.

• The water line will need to be located as far east as possible to protect the street trees.

• Parks will need to consult on sidewalk, curb and gutter replacement, if they are to occur.

7. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date.

15

HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2020 Page 3 of 3

Section 2: Material Representations All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department, the Historic Preservation Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. Section 3: Existing Litigation This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at a special meeting on the 10th day of June 2020. Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Gretchen Greenwood, Chair ATTEST: _________________________________________________________________ Wes Graham, Deputy City Clerk

16

Page 1 of 4

Exhibit A Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria

Staff Findings 26.415.070.D Major Development. No building, structure or landscape shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or a property located within a Historic District until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review. An application for a building permit cannot be submitted without a development order.

3. Conceptual Development Plan Review

b) The procedures for the review of conceptual development plans for major development projects are as follows:

1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for conceptual or final development plan approval. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c.

2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.

3) The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny.

4) A resolution of the HPC action shall be forwarded to the City Council in accordance with Section 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council, and call-up. No applications for Final Development Plan shall be accepted by the City and no associated permits shall be issued until the City Council takes action as described in said section.

Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines: 1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood or district.

• Building footprint and location should reinforce the traditional patterns of the neighborhood.

17

Page 2 of 4

• Allow for some porosity on a site. In a residential project, setback to setback development is typically uncharacteristic of the historic context. Do not design a project which leaves no useful open space visible from the street.

1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces.

• Reflect the established progression of public to private spaces from the public sidewalk to a semi-public walkway, to a semi private entry feature, to private spaces.

1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on residential projects.

• Meandering walkways are not allowed, except where it is needed to avoid a tree or is typical of the period of significance.

• Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style and install them in the manner that they would have been used historically. For example on an Aspen Victorian landmark set flagstone pavers in sand, rather than in concrete. Light grey concrete, brick or red sandstone are appropriate private walkway materials for most landmarks.

• The width of a new entry sidewalk should generally be three feet or less for residential properties. A wider sidewalk may be appropriate for an AspenModern property.

1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site.

• Ensure that open space on site is meaningful and consolidated into a few large spaces rather than many small unusable areas.

• Open space should be designed to support and complement the historic building.

1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process.

• When included in the initial planning for a project, stormwater quality facilities can be better integrated into the proposal. All landscape plans presented for HPC review must include at least a preliminary representation of the stormwater design. A more detailed design must be reviewed and approved by Planning and Engineering prior to building permit submittal.

• Site designs and stormwater management should provide positive drainage away from the historic landmark, preserve the use of natural drainage and treatment systems of the site, reduce the generation of additional stormwater runoff, and increase infiltration into the ground. Stormwater facilities and conveyances located in front of a landmark should have minimal visual impact when viewed from the public right of way.

• Refer to City Engineering for additional guidance and requirements. 18

Page 3 of 4

11.1 Orient the new building to the street.

• Aspen Victorian buildings should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern.

• AspenModern alignments shall be handled case-by-case.

• Generally, do not set the new structure forward of the historic resource. Alignment of their front setbacks is preferred. An exception may be made on a corner lot or where a recessed siting for the new structure is a better preservation outcome.

11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch.

• The front porch shall be functional, and used as the means of access to the front door.

• A new porch must be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally.

11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale and proportion with the historic buildings on a parcel.

• Subdivide larger masses into smaller “modules” that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site.

• Reflect the heights and proportions that characterize the historic resource.

11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building.

• The primary plane of the front shall not appear taller than the historic structure.

11.6 Design a new structure to be recognized as a product of its time.

• Consider these three aspects of a new building; form, materials, and fenestration. A project must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from the historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design response.

• When choosing to relate to building form, use forms that are similar to the historic resource.

• When choosing to relate to materials, use materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site and use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale

• When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic resource.

19

Page 4 of 4

11.7 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.

• This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.

• Overall, details shall be modest in character.

Staff Finding: The applicable chapters of the design guidelines are as follows: Site Planning and Landscape Design, and New Buildings on Landmarked Properties. Staff finds that the guidelines are all met. The new home sits between two historic resources; on the east is the substantial false-front building that houses the applicant’s architecture firm and on the west is a miner’s cottage which is part of an affordable housing development. The architect has designed the new home to align with the face of the miner’s cottage. The landscaped front yard is appropriate to the residential context on this end of Main Street. Stormwater needs are proposed to be addressed through an existing drywell developed for the office building. The new house meets the setback requirements and includes the two required on-site parking spaces. The first floor plate aligns with the adjacent buildings, and the front porches create a strong relationship between the buildings. The second floor of the new home is recessed slightly to reduce the two story form’s presence next to the one story miner’s cottage. The house features a gable roof, like the surrounding buildings and the ridge height is lower than theirs. The preliminary material palette includes lap siding, typical of the neighborhood. Staff finds that the design guidelines are met and the proposed building is a good fit for the context. In preparing this review, it has been determined that an adjustment to the design is needed, related to a parking easement on the site. When the applicant received approval to subdivide the former 6,000 square foot lot in two, one of the required parking spaces for the office building was placed on the subject residential lot, as were the transformer and trash storage needed for commercial use. The transformer will of course remain where it is, but the trash will move behind the office building (details to be finalized with Environmental Health) and the parking easement needs to be adjusted to create room for the parking required for the home. It has been determined that the parking easement reduces the lot size of both sites, for the purpose of calculating floor area. In order to keep the office development within the bounds of its approved floor area, only about a 2’ width of the parking easement can be shifted onto that lot. The applicant is in the process of restudying the rear portion of the home to accommodate the parking easement and the resulting approximately 75 square foot reduction of allowed floor area for the house that comes with it. Because this is likely to have some impact on site plan and form, staff recommends continuation of the project. A restudy may also be submitted by noon the day before the meeting.

20

Page 1 of 5

Exhibit B Residential Design Standards Criteria

Staff Findings

26.410.020.D Variation Review Standards. An application requesting a variation from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variation, if granted would:

1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent statement for that standard, as well as the general intent statements in Section 26.410.010.A.1-3; or

2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints.

The proposed design would require variations from the Articulation of Building Mass, One-story Element and Garage standards listed below. B. Location and Massing.

1. Articulation of Building Mass (Non-flexible).

a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except:

(1) Lots outside of the Aspen Infill Area. b) Intent. This standard seeks to reduce the overall perceived mass and bulk of buildings on a

property as viewed from all sides. Designs should promote light and air access between adjacent properties. Designs should articulate building walls by utilizing multiple forms to break up large expansive wall planes. Buildings should include massing and articulation that convey forms that are similar in massing to historic Aspen residential buildings. This standard is critical in the Infill Area where small lots, small side and front setbacks, alleys and historic Aspen building forms are prevalent. Designs should change the plane of a building’s sidewall, step a primary building’s height down to one-story in the rear portion or limit the overall depth of the structure.

c) Standard. A principal building shall articulate building mass to reduce bulk and mass and create building forms that are similar in scale to those seen in historic Aspen residential buildings.

d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard:

1. Maximum Sidewall Depth. A principal building shall be no greater than fifty (50) feet in depth, as measured from the front-most wall of the front façade to the rear wall. An accessory building that is completely separated from the main building is permitted.

21

Page 2 of 5

Garages, sheds and accessory dwelling units are examples of appropriate uses for an accessory building. See Figure 5.

2. Off-set with One-Story Ground Level Connector. A principal building shall provide a

portion of its mass as a subordinate one-story, ground floor connecting element. The connecting element shall be at least ten (10) feet in length and shall be setback at least an additional five (5) feet from the sidewall on both sides of the building. The connecting element shall occur at a maximum of forty-five (45) feet in depth, as measured from the front-most wall of the front façade to the rear wall. Accessible outdoor space over the connecting element (e.g. a deck) is permitted but may not be covered or enclosed. Any railing for an accessible outdoor space over a connecting element must be the minimum reasonably necessary to provide adequate safety and building code compliance and the railing must be 50% or more transparent. See Figure 6.

22

Page 3 of 5

3. Increased Side Setbacks at Rear and Step Down. A principal building shall provide

increased side setbacks at the rear of the building. If the principal building is two stories, it shall step down to one story in the rear. The increased side setbacks and one story step down shall occur at a maximum of forty-five (45) feet, as measured from the front-most wall toward the rear wall. The increased side setbacks shall be at least five (5) feet greater than the side setbacks at the front of the building. See Figure 7.

4. One-story Element (Flexible). a. Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except:

1. Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below street grade.

b. Intent. This standard seeks to establish human scale building features as perceived from the street and express lower and upper floors on front façades to reduce perceived mass. Designs should utilize street-facing architectural elements, such as porches, that imitate those of historic Aspen residential buildings. Buildings should provide visual evidence or demarcation of the stories of a building to relate to pedestrians. This standard is important in all areas of the city. Front porches or portions of the front-most wall of the front façade should clearly express a one-story scale as perceived from the street. Changes in material or color can also be incorporated into these elements to help to strengthen the establishment of a one-story scale.

23

Page 4 of 5

c. Standard. A principal building shall incorporate a one-story element on the front façade. Duplexes in a side-by-side configuration are required to have a one-story element per dwelling unit.

d. Options.

1. Projecting One-Story Element. The front façade of the principal building shall have a one-story street-facing element that projects at least six (6) feet from the front façade and has a width equivalent to at least twenty percent (20%) of the building's (or unit’s) overall width. This one story element may be enclosed living space or a front porch that is open on three sides. This one story element shall be a minimum of 50 square feet in area. Accessible space (whether it is a deck, porch or enclosed area) shall not be allowed over the first story element; however, accessible space over the remaining first story elements on the front façade shall not be precluded. See Figure 10.

2. Loggia. The front façade of the principal building shall have an open loggia that is recessed at least six (6) feet but no more than ten (10) feet from the front façade, and has a width equivalent to at least twenty percent (20%) of the building’s (or unit’s) overall width. The loggia shall be open on at least two (2) sides and face the street. This one story element shall be a minimum of 50 square feet in area. See Figure 11.

C. Garages.

4. Garage Door Design (Flexible).

a) Applicability. This standard applies to all residential development in the city that is subject to the Residential Design Standards.

b) Intent. This standard seeks to promote a streetscape that maximizes visual interest by minimizing unarticulated expanses of garage doors. Garage doors that utilize increased articulation, changes in façade depth and profile of materials, windows and other features to break up the garage door should be prioritized. This standard is critical for any property where garage doors are visible from the street.

Figure 10

Figure 11

24

Page 5 of 5

c) Standard. A garage door that is visible from a street or alley shall utilize an articulation technique to break up its façade.

d) Options. Fulfilling one of the following options shall satisfy this standard:

(1) Two Separate Doors. A two-car garage door shall be constructed as two separate doors. See Figure 18.

(2) Appearance of Two Separate Doors. A two-car garage door shall be constructed with one door that is designed to appear as two separate doors by incorporating a vertical separating element that is at least one (1) foot in width.

Staff Finding: The house is a rectangular footprint that occupies the entire building envelope. The second floor of the building has reduced mass at the front and rear of the building. The design does not create a break in the sidewalls in the manner required to meet the standard, but it does meet the intent of the standard by maintaining a one story height at the ends of the building where the structure interfaces with the public. Staff finds that the upper floor setback as designed is a successful response to the adjacent miner’s cottage. If the upper floor was brought forward, the design would come close to meeting the option to have an unbroken mass that is no more than 50’ in length as measured from the frontmost wall (it would be 52’ in length), but again, staff finds that would be counterproductive to creating a sympathetic relationship to the one adjacent story historic building. In this case, any one-story step down is best located at the front of the structure. Staff supports a variation to this standard. Regarding the requirement for a one-story element, the project features a porch, which is appropriate, but some of the usable deck space on top of the porch makes it non-compliant with the language of this design standard. The applicant could pull their usable deck back approximately 1’, and/or reconfigure it so that it does not sit on any part of the required width (20% of the front façade), depth (6’) or minimum square footage (50 square feet) of the porch below it. Staff recommends the applicant adjust the design to comply with this standard. The proposed design does not meet the garage door standard, which requires that a two stall door be designed to at least appear to be a pair of single stall doors. Staff expects this standard may be met once the applicant redesigns the rear of the building to adjust the parking easement.

Figure 18

25

Page 1 of 3

MEMORANDUM

Project: Mesa Store, 500 W. Main Street – Residential Design Standards, Insubstantial Amendment, Trash Storage, Major Development

Subject: Project Description

Date: 28 May 2020

500 West Main Street, LLC is requesting review and approval of a new single-family home for the lot adjacent to the Mesa building, located at 500 W. Main Street, Aspen, Colorado. Land Use Summary:

• Floor Area: o Allowed FA for Single-Family Residence for 3,000 SF Lot: 1,920 SF o Proposed FA: 1,920 SF

• Residential Design Standard Variations Requested: o Articulation of Building Mass (non-flexible) o Non-Orthogonal Window Limit (flexible)

• Administrative Approvals: o Trash and recycling o Parking easement

Responses to Review Criteria:

• 12.10.030 Space Required for Trash and Recycling o The existing Commercial building, the Mesa Building, will have the trash and recycling

relocated from Lot R to the rear of the building, facing the alley. The space provided is 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 ten (10) feet at ground level is provided.

• 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures o The project will follow the Common Development Review Procedure requirements.

• 26.410 Residential Design Standards o The new residence will create a bridge between the Mesa Store building to its east and the

single-story historic residence to its west. Historically, a single-story, false-front storefront occupied the site. See the historic image below.

o Location and Massing (non-flexible): ▪ We believe that the proposed residence meets the intent of the RDS by reducing

the overall perceived mass and bulk of the building by creating a single-story element on Main Street.

▪ The design is meeting the intent of the RDS by:

• Breaking the massing on the second floor at both Main Street and the alley.

• The use of material articulation between the first and second floor break the 2-story massing up.

▪ We are requesting a variation from this standard by extending the side wall depth beyond the 45’-0” + linking element. We do not believe this RDS requirement

26

Page 2 of 3

works with the density of this block. The prominence of the Mesa Building, and the singularity of the side wall depth, led us to this design solution. The two buildings are unified in the site relationship, with the residence reduced in mass and scale.

o Non-orthogonal Window Limit (flexible): ▪ The façade requiring this variation is setback 21’-0” from the property line with a

wall of glass doors and windows. Since this is a gable form, there are more than one non-orthogonal windows.

• 26.415.070.d Historic Preservation – Major Development o This application is for a new single-family home located between two historic resources. o The design intent is to relate and reference the commercial and residential neighbors,

while being of this time. o The building materials proposed include:

▪ Painted Wood or Hardi-Board – Color TBD ▪ Exposed Steel Structure ▪ Wood Windows and Doors ▪ Metal Standing Seam Roof

o The building form is a simple gable with single story elements on Main Street and the Alley.

27

Page 3 of 3

▪ We believe this is the respectful solution for the single story residence to the west, while allowing an opportunity to reveal and deconstruct the concept of the false store-front, which as you can see from the image above is a gable with a vertical face to the street.

▪ By simplifying the building mass and reducing the scale from the street, we believe we have achieved a solution most appropriate for the context.

• 26.480.080.b Insubstantial Subdivision Amendment o The project will follow the Common Development Review Procedure requirements found in

Section 26.304.030

• 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements o Lot Area: 3,000 SF o Floor Area: 1,920 SF o Building Height: 22’-11” proposed

• 26.710.180 Mixed Use Zone District o The character of Main Street includes a mix of commercial, residential and lodging. The

block of our project is primarily residential with the high-profile Mesa Store commercial building anchoring one corner.

o Free-market residential is a permitted use. o 3,000 SF Lot Area minimum for Residences. o All applicable setbacks and dimensional requirements are met. No variations requested.

28

Page 1 of 1

28 May 2020

Amy Simon City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street, 3rd Floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Mesa Lot R – 500 W. Main Street – Residential Design Standards, Insubstantial Subdivision Amendment, Trash Storage, Major Development Dear Amy, As the property owner of 500 W. Main Street Lot R we submit this Land Use Application for review of Residential Design Standards, Insubstantial Subdivision Amendment, Trash Storage, Major Development, located within the Main Street Historic District. Rowland+Broughton Architecture’s employees are authorized to act on behalf of 500 West Main Street, LLC. Thank you. Sincerely,

John Rowland, AIA Rowland+Broughton Architecture / Urban Design / Interior Design 500 West Main Street, LLC 500 W. Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 970-544-9006

29

CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 April 2020

LAND USE APPLICATION

APPLICANT:

REPRESENTIVATIVE:

Description: Existing and Proposed Conditions

Review: Administrative or Board Review

Required Land Use Review(s):

Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) required fields:

Net Leasable square footage Lodge Pillows Free Market dwelling units

Affordable Housing dwelling units Essential Public Facility square footage

Have you included the following? FEES DUE: $

Pre-Application Conference Summary Signed Fee Agreement HOA Compliance form All items listed in checklist on PreApplication Conference Summary

Name:

Address:

Phone#: email:

Address: Phone #: email:

Name:

Project Name and Address:

Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)

30

CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 April 2020

Agreement to Pay Application Fees An agreement between the City of Aspen (“City”) and

Address of Property:

Please type or print in all caps

Property Owner Name: Representative Name (if different from Property Owner)

Billing Name and Address - Send Bills to:

Contact info for billing: e-mail: Phone:

I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No. 30, Series of 2017, review fees for Land Use applications and payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application.

For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are non-refundable.

$. flat fee for . $. flat fee for

$. flat fee for . $. flat fee for

For Deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full.

The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services.

I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for no-payment. I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not render and application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated.

$ deposit for hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour.

$ deposit for hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour.

City of Aspen:

Phillip Supino, AICP Community Development Director

City Use: Fees Due: $ Received $ Case #

Signature:

PRINT Name:

Title: 31

CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 April 2020

DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Complete only if required by the PreApplication checklist

Project and Location

Applicant:

Zone District: Gross Lot Area: Net Lot Area:

**Please refer to section 26.575.020 for information on how to calculate Net Lot Area

Please fill out all relevant dimensions Single Family and Duplex Residential

1) Floor Area (square feet)

2) Maximum Height

3) Front Setback

4) Rear Setback

5) Side Setbacks

6) Combined Side Setbacks

7) % Site Coverage

Existing Allowed Proposed

Multi-family Residential 1) Number of Units

2) Parcel Density (see 26.710.090.C.10)

3) FAR (Floor Area Ratio)

4) Floor Area (square feet)

4) Maximum Height

5) Front Setback

6) Rear Setback

Existing Allowed Proposed

8) Minimum distance between buildings

Proposed % of demolition 7) Side Setbacks

Proposed % of demolition

Commercial

Proposed Use(s) Existing Allowed Proposed

1) FAR (Floor Area Ratio)

2) Floor Area (square feet)

3) Maximum Height

4) Off-Street Parking Spaces

5) Second Tier (square feet)

6) Pedestrian Amenity (square feet)

Proposed % of demolition

Existing non-conformities or encroachments:

Variations requested:

Lodge

Additional Use(s)

1) FAR (Floor Area Ratio)

2) Floor Area (square feet)

3) Maximum Height

4) Free Market Residential(square feet)

4) Front setback

5) Rear setback

6) Side setbacks

7) Off-Street Parking Spaces

8) Pedestrian Amenity (square feet)

Proposed % of demolition

Existing Allowed Proposed

32

CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

April 2020 City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090

Homeowner Association Compliance Policy

All land use applications within the City of Aspen are required to include a Homeowner Association Compliance Form (this form) certifying the scope of work included in the land use application complies with all applicable covenants and homeowner association policies. The certification must be signed by the property owner or Attorney representing the property owner.

Property

Owner (“I”):

Name:

Email: Phone No.:

Address of Property:

(subject of application)

I certify as follows: (pick one)

□ This property is not subject to a homeowners association or other form of private covenant.

□ This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements

proposed in this land use application do not require approval by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary.

□ This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application have been approved by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary.

I understand this policy and I understand the City of Aspen does not interpret, enforce, or manage the applicability, meaning or effect of private covenants or homeowner association rules or bylaws. I understand that this document is a public document.

Owner signature: date:

Owner printed name:

or,

Attorney signature: date:

Attorney printed name:

33

X

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

U

E

U

E

U

E

U

E

U

E

U

E

U

E

U

E

U

E

E

E

N 1

5°4

4'1

1"

E

S 74°15'16" E 30.00'

S 1

5°4

4'1

5"

W 1

00

.00

'

(N

14

°5

0'4

9"

E

(S 75°09'11" E 30.00')

(S

14

°5

0'4

9"

W 1

00

.00

')

FOU

RTH

STR

EET

MAIN STREET

CO

10

0.0

1'

10

0.0

0')

FOUND No.5

REBAR, BENT

(S 75°09'11" E 30.00')

S 74°15'23" E 30.00'

SET No.5 REBAR

w/YELLOW PLASTIC

CAP LS38215

SET No.5 REBAR

w/1.25in. YELLOW

PLASTIC CAP LS23875

SET No.5 REBAR w/ORANGE

PLASTIC CAP LS38215

30.00' W.C.

N 74°15'52" W 60.00'

(N 75°09'11" W 60.00')

SET 1in. BRASS

TACK LS38215

SITE BENCHMARK

ELEV:7918.44

(S

14

°5

0'4

9"

W 1

00

.00

')

S 1

5°4

4'0

8"

W 1

00

.00

'

A

B

Parcel No.

2735-124-43-008

3,000 Sq. Ft.

3,000 Sq. Ft.

LOT R

LOT S

1 inch = ft.

(IN U.S. SURVEY FEET)

GRAPHIC SCALE

0010 5 10 20 40

10

VICINITY MAP

BY

NO

.D

AT

EB

Y

PROJECT NO.

RE

VIS

ION

HIG

H C

OU

NT

RY

EN

GIN

EE

RIN

G,

INC

.

PH

ON

E (

97

0) 9

45

-86

76

- F

AX

(9

70

) 9

45

-25

55

ww

w.h

ce

ng

.co

m

dr

aw

n b

y:

ch

ec

ke

d b

y:

da

te

:

fil

e:

15

17

BL

AK

E A

VE

NU

E,

ST

E 1

01

,

GL

EN

WO

OD

SP

RIN

GS

, C

O

81

60

1

SHEET NUMBER

SE

CT

ION

-

TO

WN

SH

IP -

RA

NG

E -

2201026

1 of 1

Ro

wl

an

d+

Br

ou

gh

to

n

50

0 W

es

t M

ain

St

re

et

Imp

ro

ve

me

nt

Su

rv

ey

Pl

at

Me

sa

Su

bd

ivis

ion

Cit

y o

f A

sp

en

, C

ol

or

ad

o

GE

B

BW

AB

05

.19

.20

20

12

10

S

84

W

NOTES

1. DATE OF FIELD SURVEY: SEPTEMBER 7, 2018, MARCH 1, 2019 AND MAY 5, 2020.

2. THE ASSUMED BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS A BEARING OF S74°15'23"E ALONG THE NORTHERLY

BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN "A" A SET REBAR AND YELLOW PLASTIC CAP LS 23875 AND "B" THE NORTHEAST

CORNER A FOUND REBAR AS SHOWN HEREON. ALL DISTANCES ARE GROUND DISTANCES BASED ON A

COMBINED SCALE FACTOR.

3. THIS SURVEY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A TITLE SEARCH BY THIS SURVEYOR OF THE BOUNDARY SHOWN AND

DESCRIBED HEREON TO DETERMINE:

A) OWNERSHIP OF THE TRACT OF LAND

B) COMPATIBILITY OF THIS DESCRIPTION WITH THOSE OF ADJOINERS

C) RIGHTS-OF-WAY, EASEMENTS AND ENCUMBRANCES OF RECORD AFFECTING THIS PARCEL.

4. DUE TO INSUFFICIENT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF SURVEY MONUMENTATION CONTROLLING THE BOUNDARY

LOCATIONS OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL OF LAND, A GRANT BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT WAS UTILIZED

CONFORMING TO THE EXISTING RECOVERED AND VALIDATED SURVEY MONUMENTS SHOWN HEREON AND

PRESERVING THE GEOMETRY OF THE ORIGINAL LOTTED PARCEL.

5. FOR ALL INFORMATION REGARDING EASEMENT, RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND/OR TITLE OF RECORD, HIGH COUNTRY

ENGINEERING, INC. RELIED UPON TITLE COMMITMENT NO. PCT24641W ISSUED BY WESTCOR LAND TITLE

INSURANCE COMPANY, EFFECTIVE DATE: DECEMBER 28, 2016 AT 8:00 AM. THIS BOUNDARY IS SUBJECT TO ALL

CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS CONTAINED THEREIN.

6. THE CLIENT DID NOT REQUEST ANY ADDITIONAL EASEMENTS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND/OR IMPROVEMENTS BE

RESEARCHED OR SHOWN ON THIS PLAT.

7. ALL DIMENSIONS AND COURSES ARE AS MEASURED IN THE FIELD UNLESS DENOTED IN PARENTHESES, WHICH

DENOTE THE BOUNDARIES OF RECORD ON THE ORIGINAL PLAT OF ASPEN TOWNSITE IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS

OF PITKIN COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO.

8. ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD 88). SITE

BENCHMARK OF 1-INCH BRASS TACK HAVING AN ELEVATION OF 7918.44.

9. CONTOUR INTERVAL EQUALS 1 FOOT.

10. ANY PERSON WHO KNOWINGLY REMOVES, ALTERS OR DEFACES ANY PUBLIC LAND SURVEY MONUMENT OR

LAND BOUNDARY MONUMENT OR ACCESSORY COMMITS A CLASS TWO (2) MISDEMEANOR PURSUANT TO

SECTION 18-4-508 OF THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES.

11. NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION BASED ON ANY DEFECT IN

THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT, MAY ANY

ACTION BASED ON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF

CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.

12. NOTICE: THIS PLAT AND THE INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY ADDITIONAL OR

EXTENDED PURPOSE BEYOND THAT FOR WHICH IT WAS INTENDED AND MAY NOT BE USED BY ANY PARTIES

OTHER THAN THOSE TO WHICH IT IS CERTIFIED. THIS DOCUMENT AND THE WORK IT REPRESENTS IS THE

PROPERTY OF HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC. NO PART OF THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE STORED,

REPRODUCED, DISTRIBUTED OR USED TO PREPARE DERIVATIVE PRODUCTS WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN

PERMISSION. AN ORIGINAL SEAL AND ORIGINAL SIGNATURE IS REQUIRED TO VALIDATE THIS DOCUMENT AND IS

EXCLUSIVE TO HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC. AND THE OWNER(S) OF RECORD AS OF THIS DATE, OF THE

BOUNDARY DELINEATED HEREON AND THE SUBJECT OF THE SURVEY. THIS PLAT IS RESTRICTED TO THE

INTENT OF TITLE 38, ARTICLE 50, §101, 5 (a) AND (b) C.R.S.

IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLATA PARCEL OF LAND COMPRISED OF LOTS R AND S, BLOCK 30, CITY OF ASPEN TOWNSITE

BEING A PART OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M.

CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO

SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION

I, BILL W.A. BAKER, A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF COLORADO (#23875) DO BY

THESE PRESENTS CERTIFY THAT THE DRAWING SHOWN HEREON, WITH NOTES ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A

PART HEREOF, REPRESENTS A MONUMENTED LAND SURVEY MADE UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT TO

THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION AND BELIEF, AN ACCURATE DEPICTION OF SAID SURVEY IS RENDERED

BY THIS PLAT. THIS SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF PRACTICE, IS

NOT A GUARANTY OR WARRANTY, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED. THIS SURVEY PLAT COMPLIES WITH TITLE

38-51-102, COLORADO REVISED STATUTES.

BILL W.A. BAKER, COLORADO PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR #23875

CERTIFIED FEDERAL SURVEYOR #1699

OSW

GG

E

E

UE UE UE

G G G

SS SS SS

W W W

CO

LEGEND

Site Location

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Residential Design Standards Administrative Review

Section 26.410.020.B. of the Land Use Code requires an Administrative Review for compliance with the Residential Design Standards (RDS) for all residential projects, unless otherwise exempted pursuant to Section 26.410.010.C.

All residential projects affecting the exterior of the building shall submit for RDS Administrative Review prior to building permit submittal. If exterior work is proposed, and the scope of work meets one of the exemptions listed above, staff shall provide a signed exemption form to be included in the building permit application.

Review Process:The Community Development Department staff shall review an application for applicability and compliance with Chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards. If the application complies with all applicable standards as written, a signed Checklist and stamped plan set shall be provided to the applicant to be included with building permit submission.

If the application does not comply with one or more applicable standards, an unsigned Checklist and redlined plan set shall be emailed to the applicant including comments from staff on which standard(s) the application does not comply with and a description of why the standard(s) is not compliant. The applicant shall be provided the opportunity to revise and resubmit the design in response to the comments. Staff will keep an application open for 30 days from the date an unsigned Checklist is emailed to the applicant. If after such time no revisions are submitted, the application will expire.

Application for RDS Administrative Review:An application for RDS Administrative Review that DOES NOT require Alternative Compliance (see Page 2) shall be submitted to the Community Development front desk on a USB drive or emailed to planneroftheday@gmail.com. Applicants will be notified of received application by email and if additional documents are required. Certain application requirements may be waived by staff depending on the scope of work.

An application for RDS Administrative Review shall include the following documents in digital format:• Site improvement survey certified by a registered land surveyor (no older than one year from submittal date)• Proposed Site plan (scaled 24”x36”)• Proposed Floor plans (scaled 24”x36”)• Proposed Elevations (scaled 24”x36”)• Existing Elevations if a remodel (scaled 24”x36”)• Complete scope of work noting all exterior areas affected by the proposed project• Complete RDS applicant checklist (attached) addressing how each standard is met with sheet references for each standard

Page 1 of 2

41

Alternative Compliance or Variation:Pursuant to 26.410.020.C, projects that do not meet the criteria for Administrative Review or Alternative Compliance (as determined by staff) may be reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Commission, or HPC if appropriate, at the applicant’s request. An applicant may choose to apply directly for a Variation from the Planning & Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.410.020.C. A pre-application summary will be required for an Alternative Compliance or Variation request.

Application for Alternative Compliance or Variation:An application for Alternative Compliance or a Variation will require a pre-application summary provided by Community Development staff, and shall be submitted as a Land Use Application. Required application submittal items shall be outlined in the pre-application summary.

Page 2 of 2

Residential Design Standards Administrative Review

42

Residential Design Standards Administrative Compliance Review Applicant Checklist - Single Family and Duplex

Standard Complies Alternative Compliance N/A Sheet #(s)/Notes

B.1.Articulation of Building Mass(Non-flexible)

B.2.Building Orientation(Flexible)

B.3.Build-to Requirement(Flexible)

B.4.One Story Element(Flexible)

C.1.Garage Access(Non-flexible)

C.2.Garage Placement(Non-flexible)

C.3.Garage Dimensions(Flexible)

Instructions: Please fill out the checklist below, marking whether the proposed design complies with the applicable standard as written or is requesting Alternative Compliance (only permitted for Flexible standards). Also include the sheet #(s) demonstrating the applicable standard. If a standard does not apply, please mark N/A and include in the Notes section why it does not apply. If Alternative Compliance is requested for a Flexible standard, include in the Notes section how the proposed design meets the intent of the standard(s). Additional sheets/graphics may be attached.

Disclaimer: This application is only valid for the attached design. If any element of the design subject to Residential Design Standards changes prior to or during building permit review, the applicant shall be required to apply for a new Administrative Compliance Review.

Address: Parcel ID: Zone District/PD:

Representative: Email: Phone:

Page 1 of 2

43

Standard Complies Alternative Compliance N/A Sheet #(s)/Notes

C.4.Garage Door Design(Flexible)

D.1.Entry Connection(Non-flexible)

D.2.Door Height(Flexible)

D.3.Entry Porch(Flexible)

E.1.Principle Window(Flexible)

E.2.Window Placement(Flexible)

E.3.Nonorthogonal Window Limit(Flexible)

E.4.Lightwell/Stairwell Location(Flexible)

E.5.Materials(Flexible)

Disclaimer: This application is only valid for the attached design. If any element of the design subject to Residential Design Standards changes prior to or during building permit review, the applicant shall be required to apply for a new Administrative Compliance Review.

Page 2 of 2

Residential Design Standards Administrative Compliance Review Applicant Checklist - Single Family and Duplex

44

VICINITY MAP

HIGHLANDS

DOWNTOWN

north

- 3 -

MESA LOT R

45

DNUP

DN

UP UP

UP DN

DN

PROPOSED BASEMENT LEVEL EXPOSED WALL CALCULATIONS

WALL LABEL EXPOSED WALL AREA (SFTOTAL WALL AREA (SF)

1 - EAST WALL

PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS

MAIN LEVEL GROSS FLOOR AREA (SF)

GARAGE GROSS FLOOR AREA (SF)

GARAGE FLOOR AREA EXEMPTION (SF)

MAIN LEVEL COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA (SF)

1,419

421

256

1,083

421 - 250 = 171

= (998+85)

TOTAL PROPOSED FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS

BASEMENT FLOOR AREA (SF)

UPPER LEVEL FLOOR AREA (SF)

MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA (SF)

30

775 + 32

998 + 85

TOTAL PROPOSED FLOOR AREA (SF) 1,920

DECK/PORCH AREA CALCULATIONS

TOTAL DECK/PORCH AREA (SF)

MAIN LEVEL ENTRY PATIO (SF)

320

288

< 288 SF ALLOWABLE

< 1,920 SF ALLOWABLE

PROPOSED AREA CONSTRAINTS

LOT AREA (SF)

MAX ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA (SF)

MAX ALLOWABLE DECK AREA (SF)

3,000

1,920

288 15% * 1,920

DECK/PORCH FLOOR AREA (SF) N/A

FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS

ROOF DECK BONUS (SF)

32

2 - NORTH WALL

3 - SOUTH WALL

4 - WEST WALL

787.50 0

198.63 0

198.63 0

787.50 44

OVERALL TOTAL WALL AREA (SF) 1,972.26

EXPOSED WALL AREA (SF) 44

% OF EXPOSED WALL (EXPOSED/TOTAL) 2.23%

BASEMENT TOTALS

PROPOSED BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS

BASEMENT GROSS FLOOR AREA (SF)

BASEMENT COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA (SF)

1,357

30 1,622 * 2.23%

(171 @ 50%) = 85

PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS

UPPER LEVEL GROSS FLOOR AREA (SF)

UPPER LEVEL COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA (SF)

775

775

85GARAGE COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA (SF) 421 - 335 = 85

ROOF DECK FAR (SF)

0

998 SF

FLOOR AREA GARAGE

421 GSF85.5 CSF

CO

VE

RE

D E

NT

RY

PO

RC

H

775 SF

FLOOR AREA

198 SF

DECK AREA

121 SF

DECK AREA

STAIR EXEMPT

RAISED PLANTER

RA

ISE

D P

LA

NT

ER

FLOOR AREA

1357 GSF30 CSF

EGRESS WINDOW WELL

WALL AREA - 44 SF

EGRESS WINDOW WELL

WALL AREA - 44 SF

TO

TA

L W

ALL A

RE

A: 198.6

3 S

F

TOTAL WALL AREA: 787.50 SF

TOTAL WALL AREA: 787.50 SF

TO

TA

L W

ALL A

RE

A: 198.6

3 S

F

1233 SF

NET LIVABLE AREA

931 SF

NET LIVABLE AREA GARAGE

EXEMPT

CO

VE

RE

D E

NT

RY

PO

RC

H

712 SF

NET LIVABLE AREA

RAISED PLANTER

RA

ISE

D P

LA

NT

ER

DECK DECK

Consultants:

Issuances and Revisions:

COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN

THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO.

SCALE:

SHEET TITLE:

PROJECT NO:

File

Path

:

Plo

t D

ate

:

FOR CITY OF ASPEN

rowland+broughtonarchitecture / urban design / interior design

500 w. main st.aspen, co 81611970.544.9006

1830 blake st.denver, co 80202

303.308.1373

C:\

Users

\sh

arr

is\D

ocu

me

nts

\22

01

4.0

0_M

ES

A J

AR

DIN

_C

EN

TR

AL

_ste

ve

.ha

rris

5Z

5U

7.r

vt

5/1

2/2

02

0 5

:59

:52

PM

As indicated

LU0.6

22014.00

MESA LOT R

500 W MAIN STREET - LOT RASPEN, CO 81611

FLOOR AREACALCULATIONS

SCALE:

PLAN NORTH

TRUE NORTH

LU0.6 1/8" = 1'-0"

2 LEVEL 1 PROPOSED FLOOR AREA

SCALE:

PLAN NORTH

TRUE NORTH

LU0.6 1/8" = 1'-0"

3 LEVEL 2 PROPOSED FLOOR AREA

SCALE:

PLAN NORTH

TRUE NORTH

LU0.6 1/8" = 1'-0"

1 BASEMENT LEVEL PROPOSED FLOOR AREA

SCALE:

PLAN NORTH

TRUE NORTH

LU0.6 1/8" = 1'-0"

4 BASEMENT LEVEL - NET LIVABLE

SCALE:

PLAN NORTH

TRUE NORTH

LU0.6 1/8" = 1'-0"

5 LEVEL 1 - NET LIVABLE

SCALE:

PLAN NORTH

TRUE NORTH

LU0.6 1/8" = 1'-0"

6 LEVEL 2 - NET LIVABLE

05.07.2020 LAND USE APPLICATION

46

T

DNUP

LU4.2

2

LU4.1

1

LU4.1

2

LU4.2

1

PROPERTY LINE

(E) FENCE

(E) TRANSFORMER WILL REQUIRE UTILITY EASEMENT

500 W MAIN STREET

SETBACK

5' - 0"

SETBACK10' - 0"

SE

TB

AC

K

5' -

0"

SE

TB

AC

K

5' -

0"

PR

OP

ER

TY

LIN

E

PROPERTY LINE

PR

OP

ER

TY

LIN

E

COVERED PORCH

EGRESS WINDOW WELL EGRESS WINDOW WELL

2 CAR GARAGE

17

' -

0"

81' - 8"

19

' -

6 1

/2"

LINE OF DECK ABOVE

CONCRETE WALK

(E) LILAC

WE

ST

MA

IN S

T

N 4TH STREET

8' -

6"

NEW LANDSCAPING

NEW LANDSCAPING

(E) TREE

(E) TREE(E) TREE(E) TREE

(E) TREE - ROOTS TO BE PROTECTED DURING CONSTRUCTION

(E)

SID

EW

ALK

ROOF ABOVE

ALLEY

PARKING EASEMENT FOR 500 W MAIN STREET

18' - 0"

ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE

ACCESSIBLE AISLE

3' - 0"

RE

LO

CA

TE

D

TR

AS

H A

RE

A

PR

OP

ER

TY

LIN

E

SE

TB

AC

K L

INE

10' - 11 3/4" 52' - 9" 17' - 11 3/4"

20

' -

0 1

/2"

RA

ISE

D P

LA

NT

ER

DECK RAISED PLANTER

DE

CK

10

" / 1

'-0

"1

0"

/ 1

'-0

"

STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFSOLAR PANEL QUANTITY AND LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED

Consultants:

Issuances and Revisions:

COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN

THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO.

SCALE:

SHEET TITLE:

PROJECT NO:

File

Path

:

Plo

t D

ate

:

FOR CITY OF ASPEN

rowland+broughtonarchitecture / urban design / interior design

500 w. main st.aspen, co 81611970.544.9006

1830 blake st.denver, co 80202

303.308.1373

C:\

Users

\sh

arr

is\D

ocu

me

nts

\22

01

4.0

0_M

ES

A J

AR

DIN

_C

EN

TR

AL

_ste

ve

.ha

rris

5Z

5U

7.r

vt

5/1

3/2

02

0 9

:21

:15

AM

1/8" = 1'-0"

LU1.1

22014.00

MESA LOT R

500 W MAIN STREET - LOT RASPEN, CO 81611

SITE PLAN

SCALE:

PLAN NORTH

TRUE NORTH

LU1.1 1/8" = 1'-0"

1 SITE PLAN

05.07.2020 LAND USE APPLICATION

SCALE:

PLAN NORTH

TRUE NORTH

LU1.1 1/8" = 1'-0"

2 ROOF PLAN

47

BASEMENT LEVEL89' - 6"

T.O. SLAB

LEVEL 1100' - 0"

T.O. PLY

LEVEL 2110' - 6"

T.O. PLY

RIDGE128' - 4 7/8"

T.O.

LEVEL 2 PLATE119' - 6 7/8"

T.O.

WOOD SIDING

STEEL CHANNEL DECKSUPPORT

METAL PANEL

WOOD SLIDING DOOR

METAL AND GLASSWINDOW

SOLID PANEL

METAL AND GLASSWINDOW

STEEL COLUMN

WOOD AND GLASSENTRY DOOR

9' -

0 7

/8"

8' -

0"

4' - 0" 4' - 0"

8' -

0"

8' - 10 1/2" 8' - 10 1/2"

7' -

4 3

/4"

0' -

10

"

OUTLINE OF PROPOSEDBASEMENT

10"

1'-0"

10"

1'-0"

PR

OP

ER

TY

LIN

E

SE

TB

AC

K L

INE

PR

OP

ER

TY

LIN

E

SE

TB

AC

K L

INE

PROPOSED EXISTING STRUCTURE SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY

22

' - 1

1"

BUILDING HEIGHT10/12 PITCH

EXISTING STRUCTURE SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY

8' -

10

"9

' -

0 7

/8"

10

' -

6"

10

' -

6"

19

' -

6 7

/8"

28

' -

4 7

/8"

BASEMENT LEVEL89' - 6"

T.O. SLAB

LEVEL 1100' - 0"

T.O. PLY

LEVEL 2110' - 6"

T.O. PLY

RIDGE128' - 4 7/8"

T.O.

LEVEL 2 PLATE119' - 6 7/8"

T.O.

WOOD SIDING

STANDING SEAM METAL PANEL

5' -

0"

2' - 6"

2' -

6"

10' - 0"

STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF

STEEL CHANNEL DECK SUPPORT

METAL AND GLASS WINDOW

WOOD TRIMWOOD TRIM

2' - 6"

5' -

0"

PR

OP

ER

TY

LIN

E

SE

TB

AC

K L

INE

PR

OP

ER

TY

LIN

E

SE

TB

AC

K L

INE

PROPOSED CHANGES

OUTLINE OF PROPOSEDBASEMENT

OUTLINE OF WINDOWWELL

10

' -

6"

10

' -

6"

9' -

0 7

/8"

8' -

10

"

19

' -

6 7

/8"

28

' -

4 7

/8"

Consultants:

Issuances and Revisions:

COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN

THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO.

SCALE:

SHEET TITLE:

PROJECT NO:

File

Path

:

Plo

t D

ate

:

FOR CITY OF ASPEN

rowland+broughtonarchitecture / urban design / interior design

500 w. main st.aspen, co 81611970.544.9006

1830 blake st.denver, co 80202

303.308.1373

C:\

Users

\sh

arr

is\D

ocu

me

nts

\22

01

4.0

0_M

ES

A J

AR

DIN

_C

EN

TR

AL

_ste

ve

.ha

rris

5Z

5U

7.r

vt

5/1

3/2

02

0 2

:32

:00

PM

1/4" = 1'-0"

LU4.1

22014.00

MESA LOT R

500 W MAIN STREET - LOT RASPEN, CO 81611

EXTERIORELEVATIONS

SCALE:LU4.1 1/4" = 1'-0"

1 SOUTH ELEVATION

SCALE:LU4.1 1/4" = 1'-0"

2 WEST ELEVATION

05.07.2020 LAND USE APPLICATION

48

BASEMENT LEVEL89' - 6"

T.O. SLAB

LEVEL 1100' - 0"

T.O. PLY

LEVEL 2110' - 6"

T.O. PLY

RIDGE128' - 4 7/8"

T.O.

LEVEL 2 PLATE119' - 6 7/8"

T.O.

2' - 6"

5' -

0"

10' - 0"

2' -

6"

2' - 6"

5' -

0"

WOOD SIDING

METAL AND GLASSWINDOW

WOOD TRIM

STANDING SEAM METALPANEL

STANDING SEAM METALROOF

STEEL COLUMN

STEEL CHANNEL DECKSUPPORT

OUTLINE OF PROPOSEDBASEMENT

PR

OP

ER

TY

LIN

E

SE

TB

AC

K L

INE

PR

OP

ER

TY

LIN

E

SE

TB

AC

K L

INE

WOOD TRIM

10

' -

6"

8' -

10

"9

' -

0 7

/8"

10

' -

6"

19

' -

6 7

/8"

28

' -

4 7

/8"

BASEMENT LEVEL89' - 6"

T.O. SLAB

LEVEL 1100' - 0"

T.O. PLY

LEVEL 2110' - 6"

T.O. PLY

RIDGE128' - 4 7/8"

T.O.

LEVEL 2 PLATE119' - 6 7/8"

T.O.

PR

OP

ER

TY

LIN

E

SE

TB

AC

K L

INE

PR

OP

ER

TY

LIN

E

SE

TB

AC

K L

INE

WOOD GARAGE DOOR

WOOD SIDING

WOOD TRIM

8' -

0"

17' - 0"

METAL AND GLASSWINDOW

METAL PANEL

OUTLINE OF PROPOSEDBASEMENT

10"

1'-0"

10"

1'-0"

PROPOSED

7' -

4 1

3/1

6"

0' -

9 1

5/1

6"

8' -

0"

8' - 10 1/2" 8' - 10 1/2"

BUILDING HEIGHT10/12 PITCH

22

' - 1

1"

EXISTING STRUCTURE SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY EXISTING STRUCTURE SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY

8' -

10

"9

' -

0 7

/8"

10

' -

6"

10

' -

6"

19

' -

6 7

/8"

28

' -

4 7

/8"

Consultants:

Issuances and Revisions:

COPYRIGHT 2020 ROWLAND + BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN

THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN. ROWLAND+BROUGHTON ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO.

SCALE:

SHEET TITLE:

PROJECT NO:

File

Path

:

Plo

t D

ate

:

FOR CITY OF ASPEN

rowland+broughtonarchitecture / urban design / interior design

500 w. main st.aspen, co 81611970.544.9006

1830 blake st.denver, co 80202

303.308.1373

C:\

Users

\sh

arr

is\D

ocu

me

nts

\22

01

4.0

0_M

ES

A J

AR

DIN

_C

EN

TR

AL

_ste

ve

.ha

rris

5Z

5U

7.r

vt

5/1

3/2

02

0 2

:21

:32

PM

1/4" = 1'-0"

LU4.2

22014.00

MESA LOT R

500 W MAIN STREET - LOT RASPEN, CO 81611

EXTERIORELEVATIONS

SCALE:LU4.2 1/4" = 1'-0"

2 EAST ELEVATION

SCALE:LU4.2 1/4" = 1'-0"

1 NORTH ELEVATION

05.07.2020 LAND USE APPLICATION

49

An Employee-Owned Company

1517 Blake Avenue, Suite 101

Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Telephone (970) 945-8676

Fax (970) 945-2555

Land Surveying Civil Engineering

May 4, 2020

TO: Rowland + Broughton

Architecture/Urban Design/Interior Design

500 West Main Street

Aspen, CO 81611

FROM: High Country Engineering, Inc.

1517 Blake Avenue

Glenwood Springs, Colorado

RE: Lot R Drainage in Mesa Subdivision

High Country Engineering, Inc. has reviewed the potential development of Lot R of the Mesa

Subdivision and utilizing the existing stormwater infrastructure of Lot S.

Lot R and S were evaluated together with the drainage report submitted for the remodel to the

historic Mesa Store, as part of the proposed construction included Lot R. The drainage

infrastructure designed and installed for the Mesa Store project should allow additional Lot R

drainage to be feasibly incorporated into Lot S. The existing drywell, which already receives a

small portion of Lot R drainage, should have capacity for both lots because the drywell was sized

to meet the City of Aspen’s minimum requirements. If Lot R and Lot S were almost completely

(95%+) impervious, the existing drywell capacity should be adequate to meet the City of Aspen

water quality standards, assuming the stormwater from Lot R can be conveyed to the drywell.

HCE has provided this document regarding the Lot R development to provide a preliminary

review into combining Lot R and Lot S drainage. We believe the existing drainage infrastructure

of Lot S can receive Lot R drainage while meeting the City of Aspen stormwater management

plan. Incorporating the two Lots into one system would alleviate the impact of installing

unnecessary stormwater infrastructure and still provide sufficient stormwater treatment.

Please let me know if you have questions or comments. Feel free to contact me if you require

any additional information.

Sincerely,

Roger Neal, P.E.

Principal

50

Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius

Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this website as a service to the public. Every effort has been made toensure that the information and data contained in this electronicsystem is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineralestate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin Countydoes not maintain a database of mineral estate owners.

Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerningthe completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at thissite or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy andreliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of theuser. The user understands he or she is solely responsible andliable for use, modification, or distribution of any information ordata obtained on this web site.

This document contains a Mailing List formatted to beprinted on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit topage" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate themargins such that they no longer line up on the labelssheet. Print actual size.

From Parcel: 273512443007 on 05/12/2020

Instructions:

Disclaimer:

http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com

51

ALPINE BANK

GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601

2200 GRAND AVE

SCOTT BUILDING CONDO ASSOC

ASPEN, CO 81611

400 W HOPKINS AVE

GARMISCH LODGING LLC

ASPEN, CO 81611

605 W MAIN ST #2

501 MAIN ASPEN LLC

GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49503

ALDRICH PL #200 OTTAWA AVE NW

ALPINE BANK ASPEN

GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601

2200 GRAND AVE

433 W BLEEKER LLC

CHICAGO, IL 60654

300 N LASALLE #5600

430 WEST HOPKINS CONDO ASSOC

ASPEN, CO 81611

COMMON AREA

432 W HOPKINS AVE

ASPEN SQUARE CONDO ASSOC

ASPEN, CO 81611

617 E COOPER

420 W MAIN LLC

ASPEN, CO 81611

424 PARK CIR #TH5

MCCOY CARLTON

ST HELENA , CA 94574

500 TAPLIN RD

FORNELL CLARITY ELISE

ASPEN, CO 81611

518 W MAIN #B-206

SCHULMAN WILLIAM PAUL

CHARLEVOIX, MI 49720

301 MERCER BLVD

JEWISH RESOURCE CENTER CHABAD OF ASPEN

ASPEN, CO 81612

435 W MAIN ST

BLEEKER STREET LLC

CORAL GABLES, FL 33156

5299 HAMMOCK DR

KARBANK 430 LLC

MISSION, KS 66205

2000 SHAWNEE MISSION PKWY #400

PERRY IAN MICHAEL

ASPEN, CO 81611

426 E HYMAN AVE

SAMUEL JOSHUA MOSES

DILLON, CO 80435

PO BOX 756

WAGNER HOLDINGS CORP LLC

ASPEN, CO 81611

605 E MAIN ST

JOHNSTON FAMILY TRUST

COSTA MESA, CA 92626

2018 PHALAROPE

BLEEKER STREET PROP LLC

LOS ANGELES, CA 90049

PO BOX 491246

LHG HOLDING LLC

LOS ANGELES, CA 90049

11777 SAN VICENTE BLVD 9TH FL

GARMISCH LODGING LLC

ASPEN, CO 81611

605 W MAIN ST #2

TOMS CONDO LLC

ERWINNA , PA 18920

6 SHULL FARM RD

420 W MAIN LLC

ASPEN, CO 81611

424 PARK CIR #TH5

ASPEN FAMILY HOLDINGS LLC

ASPEN, CO 81611

137 WESTVIEW DR

SLONE MICHAEL DAVID II

FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72703

4476 WATERSIDE CT

CHRISTIANA A105 LLC

MENLO PARK, CA 94026

PO BOX 4132

FORNELL CONDO ASSOC

ASPEN, CO 81611

518 W MAIN ST

HY-MOUNTAIN TRANSPORT INC

ASPEN, CO 81611

214 B AABC

GANT CONDO ASSC

ASPEN, CO 816112142

610 S WESTEND ST 52

CITY OF ASPEN

ASPEN, CO 81611

130 S GALENA ST

HILLMAN TATNALL L REV TRUST

ASPEN, CO 81611

504 W BLEEKER ST

420 W MAIN LLC

ASPEN, CO 81611

424 PARK CIR #TH5

SGSG ASPEN CONDO LLC

DENVER, CO 80237

8100 E UNION AVE #2303

DUNKELBERG AMBER & KEVIN

SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615

PO BOX 5804

501 WEST MAIN LLC

ASPEN, CO 816111818

532 E HOPKINS AVE

KATZMAN LORI ANN

CHARLEVOIX, MI 49720

301 MERCER BLVD

HORNE CHRISTOPHER & BRANDI

AUSTIN, TX 78746

5214 BUCKMAN MTN RD

FELER LAURIE & CLAUDIO

CARBONDALE, CO 81623

550 FOX RUN

MARSHALL TRACEY CAUSEY LIV TRUST

AUSTIN, TX 78746

3107 WESTLAKE DR

GANT CONDO ASSOC INC

ASPEN, CO 816112142

610 S WESTEND ST

ASPEN SQUARE CONDO ASSOC

ASPEN, CO 81611

617 E COOPER

CARINTHIA CORP

ASPEN, CO 81611

45 E LUPINE DR

SMITH ANDREW C & DONNA G

DALLAS, TX 75205

3622 SPRINGBROOK ST

ASPEN SQUARE CONDO ASSOC

ASPEN, CO 81611

617 E COOPER

LHG HOLDING LLC

LOS ANGELES, CA 90049

11777 SAN VICENTE BLVD 9TH FL

400 W HOPKINS CONDO LLC

DALLAS, TX 75209

5403 NEOLA DR

WERLIN LAURA B TRUST

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94115

2279 PINE ST

MACDONALD BETTE S TRUST

ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110

15 BLACKMER RD

HOPKINS & FOURTH LLC

CHICAGO, IL 60614

2001 N HALSTED ST #304

LEADINGHAM CAROLINE

ASPEN, CO 81611

518 W MAIN ST #A-102

REECE MARK

ASPEN, CO 81611

518 W MAIN ST #A-102

STUART DANIEL S & TAMARA B

ASPEN, CO 81612

PO BOX 3274

GARMISCH LODGING LLC

ASPEN, CO 81611

605 W MAIN ST #2

NATIONWIDE THEATRES CORP

LOS ANGELES , CA 90048

120 N ROBERTSON BLVD 3RD FL

GARMISCH LODGING LLC

ASPEN, CO 81611

605 W MAIN ST #2

HARRIS ANGELA

ASPEN, CO 816111618

518 W MAIN ST #C107

WENDT ROBERT E II

PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272

350 MT HOLYOKE AVE

ASPEN SQUARE CONDO ASSOC

ASPEN, CO 81611

617 E COOPER

DENBY SAMUEL ROBERT

WASHINGTON, DC 20016

4861 INDIAN LN NW 53

BLOCKER LAURA G

ASPEN, CO 81612

PO BOX 9213

HAVANDJIAN GASTON MATIAS

ASPEN, CO 81611

518 W MAIN ST #B205

FISCHER SISTIE

ASPEN, CO 81611

442 W BLEEKER

420 W MAIN LLC

ASPEN, CO 81611

424 PARK CIR #TH5

EYXEFC2 LLC

ARVADA, CO 80002

7310 W 52ND AVE #A129

GARMISCH LODGING LLC

ASPEN, CO 81611

605 W MAIN ST #2

401 WEST BLEEKER LLC

MIAMI, FL 33131

777 BRICKELL AVE 10TH FLR

PHILLIPS SHAUN E

ASPEN, CO 81611

518 W MAIN ST #8105

CLEANER EXPRESS

ASPEN, CO 81611

435 E MAIN ST

TUCKER LUCY LEA

ASPEN, CO 81611

PO BOX 1480

420 W MAIN LLC

ASPEN, CO 81611

424 PARK CIR #TH5

SEAL MARK

ASPEN, CO 81612

PO BOX 9213

LINDAUER REBECCA F

AUSTIN, TX 78703

1115 ELM ST

MAUPIN KENNETH

ASPEN, CO 81611

518 W MAIN ST #C-207

NORTHWAY CONDO OWNERS ASSOC

ASPEN, CO 81611

420 W MAIN ST

GARMISCH LODGING LLC

ASPEN, CO 81611

605 W MAIN ST #2

DAHL W ROBERT & LESLIE A

GREENWICH , CT 06831

83 PECKSLAND RD

HESSIAN ASPEN LLC

WINTER PARK, FL 327894881

1470 GENE ST #B

DJORDJEVIC VLADAN

ASPEN, CO 81612

PO BOX 9566

FRIAS PROPERTIES OF ASPEN

ASPEN, CO 81611

730 E DURANT

FRIAS PROPERTIES OF ASPEN

ASPEN, CO 81611

730 E DURANT

420 W MAIN LLC

ASPEN, CO 81611

424 PARK CIR #TH5

BONETTI MARYSUE

ASPEN, CO 81612

PO BOX 569

ASPEN SQUARE CONDO ASSOC

ASPEN, CO 81611

617 E COOPER

FERGUS ELIZABETH REV TRUST

ASPEN, CO 81612

PO BOX 1515

LHG HOLDING LLC

LOS ANGELES, CA 90049

11777 SAN VICENTE BLVD 9TH FL

ALPINE BANK

GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601

2200 GRAND AVE

CHRISTIANA UNIT D101 LLC

ASPEN , CO 81612

PO BOX 4937

RAINBOW CONNECTION PROPERTIES LLC

MORRISON, CO 80465

151 SUMMER ST #771

DAY JEROD

ASPEN, CO 81611

518 W MAIN ST #B203 54

ULLR HOMEOWNERS ASSOC

ASPEN, CO 81611

520 W MAIN ST

PROMISE LAND LLC

ENGLEWOOD, CO 801114628

6412 S QUEBEC ST

400 W HOPKINS CONDO LLC

DALLAS, TX 75209

5403 NEOLA DR

604 WEST LLC

ASPEN, CO 81611

604 W MAIN ST

BLEEKER STREET PROP LLC

LOS ANGELES, CA 90049

PO BOX 491246

ALPINE BANK ASPEN

GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601

2200 GRAND AVE

MCGUIRE JENNIFER ERIN

ASPEN, CO 81611

501 E DEAN ST

ASPEN SQUARE CONDO ASSOC

ASPEN, CO 81611

617 E COOPER

HILLMAN DORA B TRUST

ASPEN, CO 81611

504 W BLEEKER

SCHALL FAMILY TRUST

ENCINO, CA 91436

3841 HAYVENHURST DR

ULLR HOMEOWNERS ASSOC

ASPEN, CO 81611

520 W MAIN ST

CONNERFAMILY LLC

PALISADE, CO 81526

PO BOX 38

WELLES PETER S & SONDRA T

CARBONDALE, CO 81623

5343 CR 100

ALPINE BANK

GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601

2200 GRAND AVE

PROMISE LAND LLC

ENGLEWOOD, CO 801114628

6412 S QUEBEC ST

KARBANK 430 LLC

MISSION, KS 66205

2000 SHAWNEE MISSION PKWY #400

GOLDENBERG STEPHEN R

ASPEN, CO 81611

430 W HOPKINS #2

FAVORITE PRATHUAN

ASPEN, CO 81612

PO BOX 9566

STERTZER ELIANE C

NEW YORK, NY 10065

160 E 65TH ST #23E

HUERGO DELFINA

ASPEN, CO 81611

518 W MAIN ST #A101

55

PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY

PLANNER: Amy Simon, amy.simon@cityofaspen.com DATE: April 20, 2020 PROJECT LOCATION: 500 W. Main Street, Lot R, Mesa Subdivision REQUEST: Residential Design Standards, Insubstantial Subdivision Amendment, Trash Storage, Major Development DESCRIPTION: Lot R, Mesa Subdivision is a 3,000 square foot lot located in the Mixed Use zone district and the Main Street Historic District. The property was created through a historic landmark lot split and is currently developed with a garden, plus parking and trash storage related to the adjacent office building. At the time of the historic landmark lot split, the property owner received approval to sever Transferable Development Rights from the site, but has decided to develop a single-family home instead. The maximum floor area is 1,920 square feet. The development is not eligible for any dimensional variations from HPC, other than those that may be requested through a determination of hardship, which would be difficult to establish. To accommodate the house and two required on-site parking spaces within the dimensional requirements the applicant needs to pursue two Administrative approvals; approval from Environmental Health to move the trash storage area that sits on Lot R but serves the commercial use on Lot S, and approval by the Community Development Director to shift a parking easement that is currently on Lot R but serves Lot S so that it straddles the common lot line. The project must comply with the Residential Design Standards, or receive approval for any variations. It is anticipated that the applicant will request relief from Articulation of Building Mass and Non-orthogonal window limit. The Administrative Residential Design Standards Checklist is to be submitted as part of the application. This will allow the RDS review to either be approved if the home is compliant or will allow for any guideline exceptions that are necessary to be folded into the HPC review. HPC review will be a two step process. Conceptual Design review will consider mass, scale and site plan. Following Conceptual, staff will inform City Council of the HPC decision, allowing them the opportunity to uphold HPC’s decision or to “Call Up” aspects of the approval for further discussion. This is a standard practice for all significant projects. Following Call Up, HPC will conduct Final Design review to consider landscape, lighting and materials. HPC will use the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and the Land Use Code Sections that are applicable to this project to assist with their determinations. RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS: Section Number Section Title 12.10 Space Allotment for Trash and Recycling Storage 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.412 Residential Design Standards 56

26.415.070.d Historic Preservation – Major Development 26/480.080.b Insubstantial Subdivision Amendment 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements 26.710.180 Mixed Use Zone District For your convenience – links to the Land Use Application and Land Use Code are below: Land Use Application Land Use Code Historic District Design Guidelines Review by: Staff for completeness of application, for determinations on Residential

Design Standards, Trash Storage and Subdivision Amendment, and for recommendations to HPC on Residential Design Standards Variances and Major Development Review HPC for decisions on Residential Design Standards Variances and Major Development

Public Hearing: Yes Neighborhood Outreach: No

Referrals: Staff will seek referral comments from the Building Department, Zoning, Engineering and Parks regarding any relevant code requirements or considerations. There will be no Development Review Committee meeting or referral fees for these contacts.

Staff will refer the application to Environmental Health for review of the relocated trash area serving the commercial use on the adjacent lot.

Planning Fees: $1,950 for 6 billable hours of staff time. (Additional/ lesser hours will be billed/ refunded at a rate of $325 per hour.) This fee will be due at Conceptual and Final submittal.

Referral Agencies Fee: $650 flat fee, Environmental Health, billed one time, at Conceptual. Total Deposit: $2,600 at Conceptual; $1,950 at Final. APPLICATION CHECKLIST: Below is a list of submittal requirements. Please email the entire application as one pdf to amy.simon@cityofaspen.com. The fee will be requested after the application is determined to be complete. 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.

57

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.

List of adjacent property owners for both properties within 300’ for public hearing.

An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.

Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status,

certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado. A completed Residential Design Standards Administrative Review checklist.

A proposed site plan.

Scaled drawings of all proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their form, including their

height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the primary features of all elevations. Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the designated

historic property including photographs and other exhibits, as needed, to accurately depict location and extent of proposed work.

A written description of the proposal and written explanation of how the proposed development

complies with the review standards and design guidelines relevant to the application.

A Draft Plat meeting the plat requirements of Chapter 26.490—Approval Documents For Conceptual, the following items will need to be submitted in addition to the items listed above: Graphics identifying preliminary selection of primary exterior building materials.

A preliminary stormwater design.

For Final Review, the following items will need to be submitted in addition to the items listed above: Drawings of the street facing facades must be provided at ¼” scale. Final selection of all exterior materials, and samples or clearly illustrated photographs. Samples

are preferred for the presentation to HPC. A lighting plan and landscape plan, including any visible stormwater mitigation features.

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.

58

From: Chris HorneTo: Amy SimonCc: john@rowlandbroughton.com; sarah@rowlandbroughton.comSubject: 500 W. Main Development Letter of SupportDate: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 9:28:13 PM

Good evening Amy,

My wife I own a unit at the Christiana condominiums across Main St. from the proposed development. Our unit ison the corner and overlooks the subject property. We received the applicants proposal and are writing in support oftheir project. We believe its design intent compliments the Mesa building and surrounding buildings, and is also acomplimentary use for the area. We support the project moving forward and hope to see it come to fruition.

Best regards,

Chris Horne

59