Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20181114 AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING November 14, 2018 4:30 PM City Council Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISITS- PLEASE VISIT 419 E. HYMAN AVENUE ON TUESDAY OR WEDNESDAY TO VIEW A MOCK-UP OF THE PROPOSAL. II. 4:30 INTRODUCTION A. Roll call B. Draft minutes for October 10th, 24th & 30th C. Public Comments D. Commissioner member comments E. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) F. Project Monitoring 223 E. Hallam 312/314 E. Hyman G. Staff comments H. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued I. Submit public notice for agenda items J. Call-up reports K. HPC typical proceedings III. OLD BUSINESS A. 211 W. Main Street, Minor Development Review and Setback Variation, CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING TO NOVEMBER 28TH IV. 5:20 NEW BUSINESS A. 419 E. Hyman Avenue, Minor Development Review, PUBLIC HEARING V. 5:40 WORK SESSION A. Discuss draft historic preservation benefits amendments VI. 6:10 ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 17 TYPICAL PROCEEDING- 1 HOUR, 10 MINUTES FOR MAJOR AGENDA ITEM, NEW BUSINESS Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH) Staff presentation (5 minutes) Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes) Applicant presentation (20 minutes) Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes) Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) (5 minutes) Applicant Rebuttal Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed (5 minutes) HPC discussion (15 minutes) Motion (5 minutes) *Make sure the motion includes what criteria are met or not met. No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting of at least four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require the concurring vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes of the members of the commission then present and voting. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 10, 2018 1 Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Scott Kendrick, Bob Blaich, Roger Moyer, Richard Lai. Absent were Nora Berko, Willis Pember, Jeffrey Halferty and Sheri Sanzone. Staff present: Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Ben Anderson, Planner Kevin Dunnett, Parks Planning & Construction Supervisor Chairperson Greenwood opened the meeting at 4:34 p.m. Ms. Simon noted that Ms. Berko is out, and Ms. Sanzone has a conflict, but she is expecting Mr. Pember and Mr. Halferty. Mr. Blaich made a correction on the meeting minutes for September 26th and said he did not appreciate the western saloon approach. MOTION: Mr. Moyer moved to approve the minutes for September 12th and September 26th, Mr. Blaich seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer would like to see us more proactive about the urban forest, parking and housing. He feels that the board is getting slammed in these areas and need more clarification and better understanding on these issues. Regarding housing, this is something we cannot keep doing since we are always giving and not maintaining. We need a better understanding of what is happening. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT: None. PROJECT MONITORING: None. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon said she sent everyone an email yesterday with meeting dates for the rest of the year. She said to take note of the especially important work session with city council and HPC on November 13th. Ms. Greenwood asked if they can review the benefits before that meeting in preparation and Ms. Simon said she does want them to have a clear idea of what they are proposing to council beforehand. She suggested maybe having a lunch meeting beforehand. She also mentioned the great Mall Fest 42 and said there was a really great turn out and speakers in attendance. She appreciates the recognition from the APA and thanked Mr. Lai for his part in that. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. CALL UPS: None. OLD BUSINESS: None. NEW BUSINESS: Lift One Lodge Subdivision Ben Anderson, Kevin Dunnett & Amy Simon P1 II.B. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 10, 2018 2 Mr. Anderson noted that public comment from Hilton Goldreich has been entered into the record and summarized for the board as well as handed out copies. He said this application came to HPC back in July. After city council gave direction to the property owners in the area and after SE group determined that the lift could be moved, the property owners went back to the drawing board in response. The conversation this evening, is now in the review process and heading to city council and the voters of Aspen. The Gorsuch Haus has existing approvals, and this is a major amendment to the existing approvals. We are collectively calling this the Lift One Corridor. The Aspen Ski Co and the historical society have been very involved in this and the review schedule is ambitious. Presentations started last week with P&Z and APCHA so we are starting our review with HPC now and it is likely to continue to the 24thof October. We will go to Open Space on October 18th and this will be evaluated on October 22nd with council. When we introduced this months ago, several of you showed up to look at the lay of the land and we have another site visit planned on Monday to stake out the property and evaluate the height of the buildings. Stan Clausen and Scott Glass are here representing the applicants for Lift One. We are going to try to narrow the project for discussion tonight as we are trying to get a recommendation on specific aspects. Aspen street has been realigned and narrowed and the skier chalet has been relocated to Willoughby Park, which was initially proposed as dorm style affordable housing. There will a sub grade parking garage, but the entrance has changed, and the access is now proposed off of Dean Street. There will be a widened ski corridor, a relocated lift station and lift corridor, relocated skier chalet and steakhouse, a relocation of the historic lift, inclusion of ASC skier service and patrol and a redesign of Willoughby Park. There is a change to the lot configuration as well. Two lots are owned by the City of Aspen and two are owned by the Lift One Lodge. The city property has been redrawn and it is important that the Dolensic property gets horseshoed. Two of the Dolensic brothers were involved in the building of the original lift and the property has been sold to the city. The Dolensic gardens will get incorporated into the larger site design. The entire project couldn’t happen without this family. There has been an agreement for the family to allow some ski operation. In the existing approvals, HPC had purview of Lift One park because of the historic towers and Willoughby park and the area of the original lot 2 containing the steakhouse. HPC commented on these things in the existing approval. We are asking you to please consider what is going on now in lot 3. The purview has shifted with the lot configuration. Planning and zoning is looking at several issues such as, scale and massing, employee housing, reconfiguration of underground parking and making recommendations on approval docs. Mr. Dunnett is the planning design and construction manager for parks and open space and has been involved with this project since early April. He said there are impacts to open space parcels and the entire corridor. The Dolensic parcel is under his current purview and is a very large piece of property. Mr. Brown has pointed out that it’s more space than Wagner park, so it is an amazing opportunity to really highlight and create vitality of seamless continuity. Mr. Dunnett said that Josephine Dolensic is 97 and very involved in the process. He added that a lot has changed since we were here in July. He continued to walk through the plan on screen. Dean street would now be a one way. There are dramatic cross slopes and we are working with engineering to make this an urban frontage to the project. P2 II.B. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 10, 2018 3 Ms. Simon mentioned that a diagram is included in the packet and she went over it on screen with the board. They will be moving the skier’s lodge downhill to become a ski museum. It will be moving a bit further downhill than what was seen in the proposal. She said that HPC needs to understand there are some additional impacts to the steakhouse building and said the one-story dining room is being removed and there will be a patio in the front. A relocation is already approved, but she is not sure to what extent the impacts were vetted, but we want to make sure we get it right this time. There is a retaining wall, which changes the character of the structure. They want to look at what options are available to bring up the grade. The skier’s chalet lodge was built in 1960 and is a classic chalet. There is a difference in how the grade meets the building. When you come up to the lodge, it’s sitting on a concrete foundation and the ground level just dives straight into the hill. The new setting is as respectful as possible to the new appearance. We need to put a preservation lens on this project. The height of the base level is a concern. It appears that reaching back to the 2011 approval, the balconies were not drawn properly so we are concerned about that. Everything is tight regarding the grade relationships and we are unsure what adjustments are possible. The retaining wall is a concern on the steakhouse because we’d like to see more grass wherever possible. We’d like HPC to focus on the lift, what you think in general, discuss the preservation treatments for the lift regarding lead paint, repairs, etc. and hear your opinions on the relocations. There are conservation issues with the lodge buildings so staff is recommending continuation to October 24th. Mr. Moyer asked who has ridden Lift 1 A and then asked if anyone from the city expressed concern about the historic structure being moved and Mr. Anderson said it was a constraint by the SE Group, so alternatives have been proposed. Different configurations have been examined and they considered the existing location. As they looked at the project at large, it required a relocation. Mr. Moyer then asked why no no one from the city asked them not to move it and Ms. Simon said there have been many discussions about this and it proved to be a tough decision. She advised him that HPC will get left out of the conversation if we flat out say no as a board. Ms. Greenwood asked if there is any information available which describes the relationship of the new area and if they have the detail of how the building meets the grade. Ms. Simon said Mr. Dunnett will be the best to answer those questions. Mr. Dunnett said he and Mr. Glass had a discussion earlier in the day on this subject and the idea is to mitigate the height issue. Mr. Glass said they will present on those issues tonight. Mr. Lai asked how extensive it is and where the parking will be located and what the proposals are for underground parking. Mr. Anderson said he will let the applicants speak to this, but there are 163 spaces, which are all subgrade. There are several layers of parking, which will require significant excavation. The parking requirements have been reduced to encourage less automobile use in the core and the project is responding to meeting the minimum requirements. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Scott Glass of Guerin Glass Architects, Stan Clauson of Stan Clauson Associates and Michael Brown. Mr. Clauson said this is a highly cooperative project. This is a unique opportunity to celebrate Aspen’s history and future. Largely, the lift 1 lodge and changes were driven by SE group and various alternatives they came up with. When city council opted with this design, in addition to the requirements of the ski co, it necessitated a significant change of the design and footprint. There is a 60-foot-wide ski corridor. The historic elements are now brought together by the corridor and P3 II.B. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 10, 2018 4 accessibility will be enhanced. The garage will provide 50 public spaces as part of the original agreement and also due to the outdoor spaces being lost on the street. The garage entry has moved down to Dean street. We feel this is a much better arrangement and engineering agrees as it is no longer necessary for the cars to go up the steep slope of Aspen street. Mr. Brown spoke about the benefits to the community and said it has been a long process with different stakeholders. This is an incredible opportunity for the community to develop a second portal onto the mountain. We want to revitalize the neighborhood with restaurants and lodging to showcase and interact with ski history. There will be new equipment, a telemix lift, better access and passenger foot traffic, which allows for summer and winter usage. There will be reduced congestion around the gondola. The loading factor at lift 1, will be about 3%. The goal here is to get the load factor on to the mountain at 20%. Now it’s a very walkable solution and there will be amazing summer opportunities for the parks and gardens. It will be a return to the roots of the building with a vibrant bar and restaurant located adjacent to the telemix base. Mr. Glass showed a contemporary view on screen. He said the most exciting part of the project is opening up the side of the mountain and having the historical assets. He showed floor plans on screen and talked through it for the board. Ms. Greenwood said it would be helpful to visually see these relationships between all of the buildings and the lift. PUBLIC COMMENT: Marissa Laskey Ms. Laskey said she has been in Aspen since the late 1960’s and knows the area really well. She lives at South Point and is the most affected by the building with the parking garage. This is food for thought and for you to consider the impact to us. She said she applauds the major players for working so well together. She asked Mr. Glass to show the overlay of the old proposal and the new and she addressed the parking and the sidewalk proposed in front of South Point. She said this will remove the trees and remove the dumpster. It’s a conundrum. She would like to see the sidewalks on the other side of the street and said that moving this building to almost curbside and adding another 3 feet, makes this a very large and tall lift. Most residents feel as though they are on garden level. They’d like to see the lodge moved back to the originally proposed area. We’d like to see more of a plaza area in front of the building so people can queue up to the historic building as a gathering place. The other piece is the parking and traffic as the residences still need to park, but they are losing some of the original parking they would have with the lodge. There is constant looping from lift 1 around Dean Street, including trucks and service vehicles that need to get in and out. She’s also concerned that they’ve lost all of the employee housing and said something within the lodge would have been helpful. David Corgen / planning and development for Aspen Ski Co. Mr. Corgen said this has been a very collaborative process so far and we support the preservation of the historic lift. We also support the preservation of the steakhouse and skier chalet building. A potential occupant and necessary occupant. We have about 2500 square feet of program that will have to be incorporated into this portal. The patrol and ticketing function has migrated into the skier chalet building. For us, our space is located at the Dean Street entry. For us, at a Dean Street elevation, it’s critical to have west side exit and we anticipate a circulation pattern. Ms. Greenwood asked him if there will be ticketing available from the outside and Mr. Corgen said no, it will be indoors. With electronic P4 II.B. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 10, 2018 5 ticketing, it necessitates an inside ticketing experience. The westside accessibility really is essential to the functionality for us. It is very important and we would not support moving the building back to the south, but are sorry to the residents of South Point. Public comment closed. Mr. Brown said they appreciate South Points interest in the project and that Ms. Laskey has been at all of the hearings. They are supportive fundamentally of the lift moving down. With respect to the parking spaces, he is not sure why she references losing spaces as there will be more than what was previously. We can’t be held responsible for the entire neighborhood and the lower lift location in town, lends itself to less cars anyway. People won’t be driving to that location. Dave Corgen articulated the necessity to pull the building to Dean Street and I can appreciate their views are impacted, but this is something that is important to the milling and the ski yard. The street has nice width to it and we’ve tried to be very respectful of South Point. Mr. Clauson said one thing that has been done with engineering is to allow a substantial portion of the landscaping and South Point has a considerable amount of landscaping in the city right of way. The dumpster is also in the right of way and we are mindful that we want to retain all of the landscaping. The dumpster is an issue and we do recognize that. Ms. Greenwood asked him if they have a solution for the dumpster and Mr. Clauson said no. The city would like it removed, but he doesn’t currently have a solution. He can understand why they don’t want to move it closer to the building and said it’s not a historic preservation issue, but an engineering issue. I think we are clearly trying to be respectful of their issues and look forward to working with them. Ms. Simon said that as far as HPC’s purview goes, it ends at the property line. She said not to think of how the whole project comes together. The street and sidewalk are not your purview. You may have thoughts about the parking garage, but we want you to stick to the HPC aspects. This is a conceptual HPC review and is not a binding approval. We have reserved time on October 24th for another meeting, so we want to make sure everything is fully explained before you make a decision. This is a site plan review that you are conducting right now so we need to make sure you are satisfied at a conceptual level. There is no need to rush before you’ve gotten all of the info needed. Ms. Greenwood summed up what the board needs to focus on. She said she doesn’t feel like employee housing belongs there. She said to think of whether this could move forward in terms of site planning and she likes this site plan. She thinks it’s really beautiful, but has a lot of questions regarding details. She doesn’t have a level of comfort with the detail and feels they are getting lost in the size of this project. She is generally in favor of this project and she could move forward to a final as long as there was another process to approve the restoration. She’s really confused about the process of the rest of the project and says it’s a big black hole to her. She feels the stairs should remain where they are, and she has a problem with some of the stone detail and realignment of the stairs. She could move forward on the overall concept of the lift, just not the details and said this process is a little different than what they are used to. Mr. Moyer concurs with staff to move this to the 24th. He said it’s a fabulous project with no objections. Moving it to Oct 24th will give us a chance to address the rest of the issues. Mr. Blaich said that Mr. Moyer has covered most of it. As far as the design standards, he feels that staff needs more information. The project meets the standards in general but agrees that there are loose P5 II.B. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 10, 2018 6 ends and details needed. We need to come to next meeting with very clear details. I think it’s a great project and it’s come a long way. He kept the old iterations and looked back at them in comparison to the current proposed project and likes this version very much and likes how everyone is working together. Mr. Kendrick said the devil’s in the details. He wonders how things will look with the façade and the stairs. He concurs with the rest of the board and commented about discussion on how the lift is going to be preserved and moved so he would like to see more detail on that and it being handled appropriately. Mr. Lai said he was the prodigal son of Aspen here about 50 years ago and rode Lift 1A and at that time they were given a canvas blanket because it’s was so cold riding the lift up. He is happy there is this cooperative attempt to revitalize that part of Aspen mountain and he likes to see this site revitalized. He’s happy with most of the decisions made especially about keeping the bull wheel in the front. He applauds the idea of having the steakhouse there. At one time, the steakhouse served the best low- priced burgers in Aspen, so he hopes we might persuade city council to keep the prices low. He likes the idea of having a museum taking a prominent role to introduce people to Aspen and to entice them to visit the museum. He always thought about having a 10th mountain monument located in this area as well. He likes the idea of having the towers, so we can see them as we did in the old days in sequence. The one worry for him, is congestion and he’s not sure what the solution is. He believes that area needs to be studied and they need to put that extra 2% in to see what they can do. He doesn’t like the idea of moving the museum away from everything else, but we will have to do what is best to avoid congestion. It deserves a little more effort to see what can be done. He is in favor of continuance. Ms. Greenwood said she feels those stairs really need restudy. The detail, the applicants need to bring back in two weeks. Mr. Clauson said they appreciate the feedback and can do better than 2%. Mr. Brown noted that the gantry is viewed as an asset and will not be moved. Mr. Moyer asked if there is housing in any of the buildings and Ms. Simon mentioned the cash in lieu. Mr. Brown said this project generates a number of FTE’s. Ideally, they would like their own project somewhere in the city, but in the event they don’t have a project and not enough credits, they’d like the cash in lieu option. MOTION: Mr. Moyer motioned to continue to October 24th, Mr. Lai seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Kendrick motioned to adjourn, Ms. Greenwood seconded. ________________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk P6 II.B. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 10, 2018 7 P7 II.B. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 24, 2018 1 Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Jeffrey Halferty, Roger Moyer, Willis Pember, Bob Blaich, Richard Lai, Scott Kendrick. Absent were Sheri Sanzone and Nora Berko. Staff present: Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Ben Anderson, Planner Chairperson Greenwood opened the meeting at 4:35 p.m. MEETING MINUTES: None. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Mr. Pember said he has a short observation regarding the APA awards. He said maybe it was discussed, but he wasn’t present. He said the APA recognized the downtown mall as one of the Great American places. In the synopsis, they noted the sustainable park bathrooms in the heart of downtown as contributing to the greatness and this is one of the very things the proposed plan is choosing to eliminate so he wanted to mention this to the public and to the board. DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT: None. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon said she has taken care of two things already tonight and has one more item for Mr. Moyer at the end. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon reminded the board of the extra meeting in November since there is a work session with city council on November 13th. They will be doing some outreach regarding a potential agenda and the following night will be a regular meeting and then also Wednesday November 28th. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Yoon said there was one for 922 E. Cooper. This was for work being done on the non-historic section of the building replacing existing windows, so they have signed off on it. PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Bryan said this is fine since the item was continued. CALL UPS: Ms. Simon said they had two call ups presented to council on Monday night. The first was 135 E. Cooper, Kristy Ferrer’s project, and the second was for 304 E. Hopkins. Council upheld both decisions. NEW BUSINESS: Lift One Lodge Subdivision Ben Anderson Mr. Anderson gave a brief overview and turned it over to the applicants. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Stan Clauson of Stan Clauson & Assoc., Michael Brown and Scott Glass of Guerin Glass Architects P8 II.B. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 24, 2018 2 Mr. Clauson said they will begin with a brief overview of the proposed plan and review some of the comments from the previous hearing as well as viewing the site plan on screen. The site plan represents a major change to Lift 1A Lodge that accommodated the new lift extending to Dean St. as well as a 60- foot-wide ski corridor. That has necessitated a major change in the nature of the buildings and the site plan. The historic elements are highlighted at the gantry, the skier chalet building, the ski museum and the steakhouse, which will be restored as a restaurant. We are looking at a one-way system for Dean St. regarding circulation. The west to east travel will allow for a narrow street platform with the drop off and an area for the public to get skis and move about up to the lift. There will also be a contraflow bike lane. There will be new sidewalks on both sides of the street to the east and west of the development. This has been carefully designed to provide for retention of the landscaping and the sidewalk. There will be a considerable enhancement to the street. The street will be permeable pavement for storm water purposes. Michael Brown spoke about the benefits to the community regarding revitalization of the area, interaction in the museum, reduced congestion from the gondola plaza, etc. We think the revitalization of the lift and the lodges will allow for the return of a not-to-miss spot for the World Cup ski race circuit. There is an expanded park facility as a year-round place for people to enjoy. The three parks combined are about equal to the size of Wagner Park. He showed an inspirational picture on screen of what is possible. The historic resources are a great asset to the entire development to be an anchor and become the face of the entire base of Lift 1 between the two skier chalet buildings and the restored lift and the portal looking up the mountain through Lift 1 park. He showed another image of the widened corridor on screen. Mr. Clauson said this will be a vibrant second portal accessible to the public and is very exciting. It will provide activity in the summer and winter. He showed a summer image on screen and said the gondola plaza will have a direct relationship to this area and these parks. He said they will present on how the steakhouse will meet the lodge among other things HPC asked for in the previous meeting. They will also discuss the capability of moving the historic resource. Mr. Glass said they expanded some of the drawings to focus on some of the conditions of the buildings. He showed the elevations on screen and the relationship of the steakhouse building, the grade and articulation of the lodge building as it relates to the steakhouse and how the steakhouse relates to the park. They have been working closely with parks on how to integrate all of these things. We are concerned with the relationship between the two buildings. In the previous approval, the buildings were 25 feet closer together and of similar height. We have carved out a terrace at the entry and the southside of the steakhouse, allowing for cross access from the street to the lift. This gives some separation and planted buffers on the south and north sides. There will be terraces for commercial space for the secondary level. On the north side, we have a functional terrace, bringing up the grade on this side. He showed a rendering of the corner of South Aspen St. We want to diminish the impact of the retaining wall. Mr. Pember asked what the distance is between the lodge and the skier chalet and Mr. Glass said 55 feet, almost closer to 60. Mr. Glass showed the north elevation of the skier chalet and said there may be a requirement for an elevator run. He showed the elevation for the garage entrance to the east. There is an ADA pathway that wraps around with planted buffers. This is designed to represent the way the building sits at grade P9 II.B. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 24, 2018 3 today. We are proposing a masonry wall and showing it as board form concrete with a wood finish up above. We’ve extended the height of this floor by two feet to make it more functional and to allow for the proper grades at this level and the transition between street and the ski lift level. All access is intended to be off Dean Street. We don’t have an internal plan yet; it is still being developed. Skier services will enter the same vestibule and will be the exit for ticketing services. Mr. Glass showed examples of a project that they did on Hyman Street and the scale doesn’t compare, but said they have all been through this before. He is confident they can work out a good plan and are surveying all other things necessary. He said one thing that came up last time was regarding the proximity of the skier chalet building to Dean Street. It came up in relation to the South Point condos among other things. We’ve looked at a couple different options and have spent a lot of time with Ski Co and Parks and we are very constrained on the south side to get the lift to operate in this condition. We are not really able to push the building back any further. We are proposing for the face of the building to be 33.6 inches back from the curb line. We are proposing to maintain the relationship on the hillside and have talked about removing the stairs. We know this might cause some heartburn, but we believe it could be the right answer for a couple of reasons. We want it to be useful and feel that it improves front access. We weren’t able to make a convincing entry for Ski Co and skier services, so we really want to make the modification to reinforce how the building is proposed to operate and increase the utility of the plaza. It helps give some relief from across the street and the stairs are not required for egress or function. Dave Corbin introduced himself and said he is the vice president of planning and development for Ski Co. He said they have examined two or three alternatives for the placement of the lift and believes the spot being presented is the most suitable. This is easily visible for skiers on the mountain and relates well to the corridor. He showed an example on screen and talked through it for the board. He said last time the board asked why the ski corridor is 60 ft and if that is sufficient, so he has prepared a presentation to answer this question, giving comfort to the board. He showed the existing Lift 1A base area on screen and described the new situation to the board. He said it doesn’t look all that attractive, but it is functional. He feels that it is adequate and comfortably sized and showed an example of our competitors at Vail and how it compares to what they are proposing. Their ski yard is similar to what we would be doing here, but we are trying to achieve something more functional and gracious than what they have. We want to have a ski return trail in 65 plus or minus in width and better than a tunnel-like experience returning to base. He showed a picture of the return going down slope and said it is a very compact site when you add all of the elements because, edge to edge, they are filling it with function and will be turning CATS around in this same facility. Mr. Clauson noted that they are in agreement with the proposed resolution with one exception regarding the removal of stairs. Ms. Simon ran through the conditions for the resolution and said staff tried to outline what they think is appropriate and are recommending that HPC recommend approval to City Council. The conditions are as follows: 1. Detailed relocation plan along with financial security provided. 2. Further information about what is being relocated and preserved and what is being left behind. P10 II.B. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 24, 2018 4 3. Further information about exterior materials being used on the historic structures. 4. Any impacts will be completely understood at final regarding combustible materials and their proximity to the lift cables. 5. Preservation plans representing any treatments, materials and labeled photographs of Lift 1. 6. Want all discussion advanced for how the lift, gantry and first tower will be treated as well as the other two towers that may be located uphill. 7. Additional maintenance plans regarding annual inspections, etc. 8. More detail on utility meters and other mechanical equipment. 9. More explanation on the expansion of the pool house into the public restrooms. 10. Ideas for interpretative signage. 11. No alterations to fenestration, materials, or other exterior features will be made at this point and will be left for final. The idea of removing the stairs from the chalet appeared yesterday so we have not done any analysis on this yet. 12. Plant materials and landscaping unchanged at this point. 13. The original “Skiers Chalet” sign on the lodge is required to be preserved in place. 14. The original “Skiers Chalet” sign on the north balcony of the Steakhouse is required to be preserved in place. 15. The existing/original exterior paint colors for the chalet building must be retained as part of the project. 16. Regarding the two towers that can’t be kept in current place, faith that everyone will try their best to make sure they are put in the best place possible. 17. Request that the Ski Co. does what’s best to personalize the new terminal. Mr. Anderson noted that City Council started their consideration of this project this week during first reading. Second reading will be November 12th. Planning & Zoning and APCHA have both recommended the project and Open Space & Trails will be hearing it next week so HPC’s recommendation is an important component. Mr. Blaich asked about the capacity in the red zone. Mr. Corbin said he hasn’t calculated it, but we’ve designed for a ten-minute maze and this lift equipment will have excess lift out capacity and is designed for 1200 an hour. Mr. Halferty apologized for missing the previous meeting and asked if there is a plan for relocating the building and if it will be moving in one piece. Mr. Glass said there are great resources in the state and valley to assist in this process and they have not designed a plan yet as there is still studying to be done. Mr. Lai asked about the drop off area for Lift 1 lodge on Aspen Street and if there are there plans for a good turnaround to drop off people on the right side of the vehicle and Mr. Glass showed the turnaround area on screen for two different places. Mr. Moyer asked if Dean Street slopes slightly from south to north and Mr. Clauson said yes, but it will meet ADA and engineering codes. Mr. Moyer asked if they will heat Dean Street and Mr. Clauson said not at this time. Snowmelt for the sidewalks will be contemplated, but not for the P11 II.B. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 24, 2018 5 streets. Ms. Greenwood asked if it will be done on both sides and Mr. Clauson said he is unsure at this point. Mr. Blaich asked for some explanation of the balconies and if they will be functional and if people will need access to the stairs. Mr. Glass said they do expect these to be habitable and functional. Mr. Kendrick asked if the stairs stay and the bottom floor is raised, how they would address the difference in height on the bottom of the stairs. Mr. Glass said they had proposed landing them on a plinth. Mr. Moyer asked why they would consider taking a historic element off of the building when the idea is to preserve the historic resource. Mr. Clauson referenced a section of the guidelines about the continued utility of a historic building, sustainable reuse and functional access. If there are some minor and reasonable modifications that allow the building to be used better and have a long- term future, those can be acceptable. Michael Brown said this is stated in the City Code in the opening to the Historic Preservation section. Ms. Simon asked them to show the two renderings on screen and asked if they could keep a projecting balcony and the applicants agreed. Mr. Brown said the stairs are questionable as to whether they are original or not. Mr. Pember said that leads to his question as to whether the building was “born this way”. Ms. Simon said she did some research and she said the stairs do seem to be original. She can’t find anything to dispute the design being original. Mr. Blaich asked when the chalet was built, and Ms. Simon said 1954 and the lodge was built in 1960. Mr. Blaich said that none of it was here in 1948 when he first arrived. Mr. Pember apologized for missing the previous meeting and asked what the dramatic change in materials at the base of the building is about. Mr. Glass said that’s the proposal which is up for discussion. Mr. Pember asked if this project exists in 3D and Mr. Glass said yes. Mr. Pember asked if they have any shade and shadow studies to present and Mr. Glass said no. Mr. Pember asked how high, floor to floor, the skier services entrance is, and Mr. Glass said it will be around 11 feet floor to floor. Mr. Pember said he appreciated that there was a sense of enclosure for him on some of the renderings and said they were quite impressive. Ms. Greenwood said that on some of the elevations, a railing is shown on the skier chalet and she would like additional study on this and feels it should be added to the conditions and she thinks it will be a pretty predominant element. She thinks it should be as transparent as possible and not a wooden detail. PUBLIC COMMENT: Lisa Hancock of the Aspen Historical Society Ms. Hancock said they are slated to own the structure. Since Ms. Greenwood just spoke about the railing, she isn’t clear on what is being done to help it meet code. She said they are currently not up to code at all. Ms. Simon informed her that this hasn’t been flushed out yet. She said that if HPC is not comfortable removing the stairs, the Historical Society does not have a position on it, but she said you cannot move the building back, so you are stuck with the distance of P12 II.B. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 24, 2018 6 the front plaza as it is. You need to understand the give and take and weigh how big you want the plaza to be. Public comment closed. Ms. Greenwood reviewed the conditions for the board and said the main things are: elimination of stairs and the lift tower location, which are the only things that have really changed since the last meeting. Mr. Moyer said he would accept all of the resolution and supports all of it. He’s against taking away the stairs and he’d like to see more discussion about the entry to the building. Regarding the towers, it is fabulous what they are presenting. Some signage is a great idea since we can’t preserve the original alignment. Ms. Greenwood said we’ve gone through this before and think it’s an excellent project in terms of the site planning and the historic nature. It’s really a strong project. With that, she understands the adaptive reuse and thinks it’s great in this situation. It’s essential. This is a problem for the stairs and she thinks it would destroy the historic preservation if they have to keep the additional staircase on the right side of the building. She thinks this would just be a confusion of bollards and for skiers to access the building. She thinks it’s a really good solution and thinks they should study an additional balcony. The building looks much cleaner from the street. You can’t have two separate plinths holding these up. To add this back in after doing such an extensive restoration would affect the use of the building. She is in favor of the Ski Co. selecting the location of the lift tower. They are very considerate to the history of the site and she would like to see it move forward and pass tonight. She would like to see them leave tonight with the elimination of the stairs. Mr. Blaich asked if she is suggesting they vote on the stairs tonight and Ms. Greenwood said yes, it should be included in the conditions and Mr. Blaich said he would support that. Mr. Halferty thanked the applicants and said he appreciates the presentation. The site planning has been well thought out and well-studied. He would like more historic information and land planning study regarding the stair cases. Personally, he would like to see more study. The assessment and preservation of the historic resource is very important, and he is looking forward to seeing the details on this. He thinks the photographs in section 6, regarding the proposed treatment and color is a great idea to keep the same. Regarding grading and land planning, he feels everyone has done a good job of creating the space. He said the board form may look cool and contemporary but wondered if it is indigenous and historic. As far as the alterations, fenestrations and materials, he is in support of staff on this. He concurs with staff on most of the conditions. Mr. Lai said he agrees that this is a very good project. He gave his compliments to staff, Ski Co and the architects in recreating and reviving this approach to the ski mountain. This will change the face of Aspen and also the new accessibility to Aspen mountain. Regarding the ski approach, he said that whatever the Ski Co sees to their benefit and the safety of the skiers, is great with him as it is outside of HPC purview. Dealing with the 17 conditions, he is agreeable with staff that they all need to be satisfied. Specifically, on the staircase, he is agreeable with what Ms. Simon said. The tradeoff and if it’s original or not, is something that he is agreeable with. The tradeoff has to be considered in light of functionality. His third point is controversial from his perspective and he may be run out of Aspen on a rail for saying it, but he feels there are two possibilities to keep the original character P13 II.B. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 24, 2018 7 of the building as possible. He is referring to the fact that adding an elevator will break the pitched roof configuration of the building. It’s also hard for him to see where the main entrance to the museum is. He’d like to make a controversial option: first of all, not only the elevator, and non- descript entry – maybe what you can do is to consider to create a tower adjacent to the historic building that is markedly different from the historic element which could be its own elevator and that would also incorporate a new entry into the historic element. Ms. Greenwood said it’s not an option at this point and that it’s uncalled for to suggest another building to be added because it’s not currently on the table. Mr. Lai said it’s just an idea and another option to be considered. Mr. Pember said he applauds Mr. Lai’s suggestion as a good one and said there is not a time that’s too late since this is not going to end with HPC tonight. His point is to preserve the pure gables of the historic buildings and he feels that is a valid point. At this stage, they move things around in their sleep. Preserving the character of the gables is key and may be something that should be added as a condition in the resolution. The shortcomings of the largeness of this project is not having a 3D view of this and he’d like to see a shading and shadow studies for the areas of concern. He has seen projects half this size come through the city with council going over shade and shadow to exhaustion. He asked who is reviewing the architecture on this project and said that no other board is qualified to do this. Architecture is talked around, but not directly about. This is all very frightening in terms of the process. As far as resolution goes, it’s all pretty standard and boiler plate and it’s all fine with them. Mr. Kendrick said he appreciates the presentations and they are doing a great job directing the project in a positive direction and staff has done an excellent job of pointing out the issues. He is willing, at this point, to approve this project and he is in favor of the removal of stairs. He said he would like to see more study done on how the remaining balcony will function. Mr. Blaich said he gave his support at the last meeting. All of his points have been covered by the board. He is concerned by the staircase, not only from a historic aspect, but the safety of it. There will be a lot of ski boots going up and down the staircases, so he has serious questions about that, but this can be solved. Mr. Clauson said there might simply be a chain across saying to use the main entrance. Mr. Blaich agreed and said he has faith in the project and that everyone is capable of figuring out solutions to these problems. Ms. Greenwood summarized the main points for the board. She said there needs to be additional study as a condition for the broken gable. Regarding the entrance to the museum, they don’t have enough detail at this conceptual level. While we can’t suggest another building, we can create a condition to understand the entrances to the building and the public spaces in a more effective way as another resolution. We are suffering from not enough detail. We need to see more detail on how removing the staircases will work in terms of functionality and history. The plinth is an odd idea. Mr. Lai made a correction to what he previously said. He meant the west side instead of the east side of the skier’s chalet and he wants to emphasize that he was trying to identify an option, but it wasn’t a suggestion. Ms. Simon said she has three items that she feels will help move this along as potential amendments to move this along. Perhaps condition #8 could be amended to suggest that no mechanical P14 II.B. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 24, 2018 8 equipment should go on the roof, so we could add a sentence “to study alternatives to elevator overrun additions to either chalet”. On condition #11, we could amend it to say “to allow the elimination of the two northernmost stair runs, but leave the landing to be studied at final”. We can also add an addition of condition #18 to study the deck railing on the skier’s chalet. Everyone agreed on these amendments. Ms. Greenwood explained the stair resolution to Mr. Pember since he missed the last meeting. It’s not just about opening to the ski co, it was also for the people of the South Point condos. They wanted the whole building moved back and that is just not possible. Mr. Pember said it’s a “baroque stair” that you would walk through in the center. Mr. Clauson said they would support the three additions to the conditions. Ms. Simon said they could word the condition more broadly and she’s not exactly promoting demolishing those two stair runs, but she’s trying to find a middle ground. She said if the landing is kept, the expression is still there. Mr. Pember said if the landing is preserved just as a landing, that would look very odd. Ms. Simon agreed and said that is why she suggested further study, or we can push this entire conversation to final. Mr. Pember suggested a straw vote. Ms. Greenwood said the vote would be to give the applicant the direction to pursue the elimination of the two staircases that are on the right-hand side of the building. Mr. Pember said yes, the “baroque stairs”. STRAW VOTE: 4-3 in favor by raise of hand. Ms. Simon said this will now to be an amendment to condition #11 allowing the elimination of the two northernmost staircases, but to retain the landing and to be studied at final. MOTION: Mr. Kendrick moved to approve resolution #16 with the conditions as written by staff, Mr. Blaich seconded. ROLL CALL VOTE: Mr. Pember, yes; Mr. Kendrick, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. Lai, yes. 7-0, motion carried. Code amendment discussion by the board continued until 7:30 p.m. Ms. Simon suggested a lunch meeting to continue the conversation. MOTION: Mr. Blaich motioned to adjourn, Mr. Pember seconded. All in favor, motion carried. ________________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk P15 II.B. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12, 2018 1 Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Jeffrey Halferty, Roger Moyer, Bob Blaich, Richard Lai, Scott Kendrick Staff present: Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Ms. Greenwood opened the meeting at 12:00 p.m. Discussion between staff and commissioners on HPC Benefits in preparation of work session with City Council. MOTION: Mr. Blaich motioned to adjourn, Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion carried. 1:00 p.m. _______________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk P16 II.B. C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\B3715852-BB66- 43F7-9497-52B3EA6C44E5\15179.doc 11/8/2018 HPC PROJECT MONITORS- projects in bold are under construction Nora Berko 1102 Waters 602 E. Hyman 210 S. First 333 W. Bleeker 51 Meadows Road Bob Blaich Lot 2, 202 Monarch Subdivision 232 E. Bleeker 609 W. Smuggler 209 E. Bleeker 300 E. Hyman, Crystal Palace 128 E. Main, Sardy House Gretchen Greenwood 1280 Ute 124 W. Hallam 411 E. Hyman 300 E. Hyman, Crystal Palace 101 W. Main, Molly Gibson Lodge 201 E. Main 834 W. Hallam Willis Pember 305/307 S. Mill 534 E. Cooper 210 W. Main Jeff Halferty 980 Gibson 232 E. Main 541 Race Alley 208 E. Main 533 E. Main 303 E. Main 517 E. Hopkins 533 W. Hallam Roger Moyer 500 W. Main 223 E. Hallam Richard Lai 122 W. Main Scott Kendrick 533 E. Main 303 E. Main 517 E. Hopkins Sheri Sanzone 135 E. Cooper Need to assign: 134 W. Hopkins 422/434 E. Cooper 529-535 E. Cooper, Stein Building 420 E. Hyman 110 W. Main, Hotel Aspen 301 Lake P17 II.F. 223 E. HALLAM KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS 223 E. HALLAM ST. 1.SKYLIGHT LOCATION 2.SKYLIGHT DETAILS 3.RENDER SHEET No.Design Updates-Proposed 2018 Location diagram of where the skylight will be on the Main Floor (next to back porch) and Lower Floor (providing natural light to the Family Room) See details for clarification of skylight location. On the outside it will be constructed as a window well. And it does not interfere with the view of the Historic resource. November 1, 2018 TO: Amy Simon - City of Aspen HPC SUBJECT: Skylight Proposal Please reference the attached drawings. Note numbers on this chart correspond to drawing note references. This sheet shows you different view that confirm that it does not change the exterior appearance of the home. P18 II.F. 223 E. HALLAM, ASPEN CO SKYLIGHT-PROPOSED LOCATION 1:1234567891011121314151617181920212223WDWD1234567 8 9 10 11 12 1314151617181234567891011121314151617181234DWID - 24FI 24 '' x 24 ''UC-15I 15 '' x 23 ''IC-30R-LH 30 '' x 24 ''IC-24FI-RH 24 '' x 24 ''MD24TE 24 '' x 22 ''DO30CM-SS 30 '' x 23 ''WWD30O 30 '' x 24 ''CG365CS 36 '' x 21 ''2'-1/4" PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEDWSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"2 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SKYLIGHT LOCATION: NEXT TO BACK PORCH, TO RESEMBLE A WINDOW WELL SKYLIGHT LOCATION: CENTER OF FAMILY ROOM. WOULD PROVIDE NATURAL LIGHT P19II.F. 223 E. HALLAM, ASPEN CO SKYLIGHT DETAILS 5'-1/2"6" CONCRETE WALLS (3 SIDES) AT SKYLIGHT. CONCRETE WALLS WILL RESEMBLE A WINDOW WELL IN THE ROOF ASSEMBLY. WATER PROOF AS REQUIRED SEE MANUFACTURER'S INSTALLATION GUIDE FOR SKYLIGHT GWB ON CONCRETE UNDER WINDOW. 2 x 4 LEDGER AND FURRING AT CONCRETE WALL. SET SKYLIGHT UNIT ON LEDGER, FLASH AND WATERPROOF PER MANUFACTURER SPECS. SKYLIGHT TO SLOPE 1/4"/12" MIN. AWAY FROM BUILDING. HIDE STEEL BEAMS IN CEILING. ASSEMBLY PER STRUCTURAL . T.O. PLY HIST. MAIN LEVEL ELEV. 101'-1 3/4" D15 SKYLIGHT 10'-1"3'-6"8 3/4"4'-10 1/4"10'-8"4'-10 1/4"5'-4" KNIFE EDGE COVE W/LED LIGHT 3 4 T.O. PLY HIST. MAIN LEVEL ELEV. 101'-1 3/4" T.O. PLY HIST. UPPER LEVEL ELEV. 111'-10 3/4" SITE: 7908.14' EXISTING RIDGE ELEV. 127'-9" SITE: 7924.00' T.O. SLAB LOWER LEVEL ELEV. 85'-2 1/8" D E F T.O. PLY HIST. MAIN LEVEL ELEV. 101'-1 3/4" T.O. SLAB LOWER LEVEL ELEV. 85'-2 1/8" SECTION 1-1'SECTION 2-2' REC. ROOM 002 REC. ROOM 002 4 E F 6'-6 1/2" 2 1/2" 1'-6"4'-10" 5 1/2" 2'-6 1/4" 3'-6"6"5 1/2"5'-4"6"LIVING ROOM 102 WOOD PORCH 2 PROPOSED SKYLIGHT FLOOR PLAN-MAIN LEVEL 1 1' 3 D SCALE: 1" = 1'-0"3 SKYLIGHT DETAIL SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 SKYLIGHT SECTIONS SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 SKYLIGHT PLAN-MAIN LEVEL P20II.F. 223 E. HALLAM, ASPEN CO SKYLIGHT EXTERIOR RENDERS VIEW 2-FROM FRONT PORCH VIEW 1-FROM FRONT YARD VIEW 3-FROM INSIDE OF ADDITION AERIAL VIEW 1 2 3 P21II.F. 12 October 2018 1 MOTHER LODE OVERALL ELEVATION property line existing eave roof line beyondP22 II.F. 12 October 2018 2 MOTHER LODE ROOF PLAN property line existing eave new parapet new roof valley new drainage scupper existing eave to remain portion of existing eave to be removed extent of Crystal Palace redevelopment P23II.F. www.sgm-inc.com GLENWOOD SPRINGS 118 West Sixth St, Suite 200 | Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 | 970.945.1004     November 7, 2018 Mr. Tim O’Connell Hansen Construction 310 AABC Aspen, CO 81611 Delivered via email to: toconnell@hansenconst.com RE: Mother Lode Roof Drainage Affirmation, 314 East Hyman, Aspen, CO Dear Tim: As requested, this letter is provided to clarify and affirm the roof drainage impact due to the change of the frontage roofing of the Mother Lode building at 314 Hyman. This facility was reconstructed in 2006 with internal pipe collectors to a drywell. Previous calculations and subsequent drainage design accounted for the full 60’ x 100’ parcel being covered by impervious structure (see attached). However, for unknown reasons, a small portion of the frontage roofing of the building was never routed to this internal collection system, instead, draining onto the neighboring roof of the theater to the immediate west. The area in question is shown on the attached aerial in gray (a metal clad roof) encompassing approximately 250 square feet of impervious space. This will be routed to the adjacent, already heated patio that has two area drains, each with a 3” collector pipe. The design storm accounted for 2-inches per hour, or 0.33 inches in a 10-minute rain. This relates to an average of 0.033 inches per minute. A single, 3” pipe at 2% slope has a capacity of 0.12 cfs. The total area draining to these two inlets, including the “addition” of the gray roof, is approximately 620 square feet of impervious surface. With the design storm intensity previously used of 0.33 in/min, that equates to a flow rate in the pipe of 0.028 cfs, well below the capacity. This system currently detains and, via pumped overflow only, is connected to the City system (previous 2006 drawing attached). Therefore, the addition of the Mother Lode roof frontage, as it was calculated for initially, should not be a problem for the current internal piping, nor for the installed drywell to handle and still be in compliance with the previous drainage calculations submitted in 2006. An exhibit with a recent aerial is provided, photos of the drain inlet and pipe under the grate, and the previous calculation sheet from 2006. Please do not hesitate to call if there are any questions. Sincerely, Rick Barth, P.E. Senior Engineer, Civil Services Team rickb@sgm-inc.com 970-384-9088 CC: Matthew Webster, Chief Operating Officer P24 II.F. P25 II.F.                      !!  "" ##$$  %% &&' !! &&(( # " )) && **(Entire parcelaccounted for in2006 submittalArea that does notcurrently, but willbe connected tosystem alreadyaccounted forArea in green willdrain to existingpatio drain systemwhich has amplecapacityFacility has drywellwith sumps inbasement fordrainage fromentire site P26 II.F. P27 II.F. Aspen, Colorado (970) 925-6727 (970) 945-1004 FAX (970) 945-5948Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601118 W. 6th Street, Suite 200 Crested Butte, CO (970) 349-5355P28 II.F. TYPICAL PROCEEDING- 1 HOUR, 10 MINUTES FOR MAJOR AGENDA ITEM, NEW BUSINESS Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH) Staff presentation (5 minutes) Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes) Applicant presentation (20 minutes) Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes) Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) (5 minutes) Applicant rebuttal (5 minutes) Chairperson identifies the issues to be discussed (5 minutes) HPC discussion (15 minutes) Motion (5 minutes) *Make sure the motion includes what criteria are met or not met. No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting of at least four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require the concurring vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes of the members of the commission then present and voting. Procedure for amending motions: A “friendly amendment” to a Motion is a request by a commissioner to the commissioner who made the Motion and to the commissioner who seconded it, to amend their Motion. If either of these two do not accept the “friendly” amendment request, the requesting commissioner may make a formal motion to amend the Motion along the lines he/she previously requested. If there is no second to the motion to amend the Motion, there is no further discussion on the motion to amend, it dies for a lack of a second; discussion and voting on the Motion may then proceed. If there is a second to the motion to amend the Motion, it can be discussed and must be voted upon before any further discussion and voting on the Motion for which the amendment was requested. If the vote is in favor of amending the Motion, discussion and voting then proceeds on the Amended Motion. If the vote on the motion to amend fails, discussion and voting on the Motion as originally proposed may then proceed. P29 II.K. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer MEETING DATE: November 14, 2018 RE: 419 E. Hyman Avenue – Minor Development Review, PUBLIC HEARING APPLICANT /OWNER: 419 East Hyman Avenue, LLC REPRESENTATIVES: BendonAdams, LLC and Chase Bank LOCATION: Street Address: 419 E. Hyman Avenue Legal Description: Paragon Building Condos, Unit 2, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado Parcel Identification Number: PID#2737-182-16-042 CURRENT ZONING & USE CC, Commercial Core. The building is a mix of commercial and residential units. PROPOSED LAND USE: No change. SUMMARY: The applicant is completing a new tenant finish in a ground floor storefront at 419 E. Hyman Avenue. Approximately the front 15’ of the interior will be devoted to a lobby containing two ATM machines. The applicant would like to install a card reader on the exterior of the building, requiring customers to swipe an ATM card to gain access to the lobby after hours. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial, finding that the design guidelines are not met. Site Locator Map 419 E. Hyman Avenue P30 IV.A. 2 BACKGROUND: 419 E. Hyman is the Cowenhoven-Brown Block, built in 1889. It is one of the largest Victorian era commercial buildings in Aspen, representing the increasing profitability of the mining industry leading up to the Silver Crash. The building has one of the few cast iron storefronts in the City. The property is landmarked and located in the Commercial Core Historic District. REQUEST OF HPC: The Applicant is requesting the following approval: • Minor Development (Section 26.415.070.C) for an alteration to the exterior of the building. HPC is the final decision-making authority. Minor Development is not subject to Call-Up Notice to City Council. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant is in the midst of a full remodel of the interior of condominium Unit 2 for use as a bank. The exterior scope of work is: 1) installation of a new, smaller, code required ADA actuator button to open the entry doors and installation of a new awning and signage under a separate permit not requiring HPC review and 2) installation of an ATM card reader, attached to a window, which does require HPC review. Attached in Exhibit A are the criteria and staff findings regarding Minor Development review and compliance with the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Guidelines. A summary of the staff findings is provided below. Staff finds that two guidelines, 3.1 and 4.7, are not met. The street-facing windows and kickplates on this storefront were replaced around the 1970s, however the sidelight windows that flank the entry doors, and all of the transom windows appear to be original. The proposal is to attach the new security equipment to an original window. The sidelight windows are one piece, with divided lights in the top third of the window a single pane of glass below. The glass is held in place by decorative ogee stops. The applicant proposes to adhere the proposed security card reader to the bottom rail of the west sidelight. To provide power to the card reader, a hole for a wire is to be drilled through the backside of the window or another location to be determined. (Note: An earlier concept for powering the card reader included exposed conduit on the outside of the window, which is discouraged by the design guidelines.) P31 IV.A. 3 Staff finds that the card reader interferes with the integrity of the historic window. There is an ADA actuator button on the window now. This is a code mandated means to trigger both of the entry doors to open when needed, since neither door leaf is wide enough to meet ADA requirements on its own. The existing actuator is an older piece of equipment which is being replaced by a newer, smaller device through a separate building permit not subject to HPC review. There are specific code requirements for the height of the ADA compliant button and HPC could not deny the installation of this feature. The card reader, on the other hand, is not required for any code compliance and staff finds that adhering the card reader to the window frame does not preserve the original decorative features of the window. Furthermore, guideline 4.7 indicates that modern security equipment, such as entry key pads, must be concealed and not exposed to view. Staff cannot suggest another appropriate location based on guideline 3.1. Attaching the reader to the cast iron columns would also be inappropriate and would either result in permanent damage to the column to install the wiring, or exposed conduit. There are non-historic elements of this storefront, including the doors and the street-facing windows, which would resolve the issue of damage to historic materials, but not the issue of being exposed to view. Staff and the applicant discussed the possible installation of a bollard to hold the card reader, however this is also an uncharacteristic feature of the Victorian storefront and there does not appear to be any location to place the bollard on private property. While there may be security features not unlike this one that have been installed on other downtown landmarks, staff cannot recall any having been granted approval. Additionally, the updated design guidelines include specific standards related to these types of features that apply to any new requests such as this. Staff recommends HPC deny the application finding that guidelines 3.1 and 4.7 are not met. RECOMMENDATION: A resolution approving the proposal is attached, should HPC make that decision, however staff recommends HPC vote against the resolution and deny the application. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution #___, Series of 2018 Exhibit A– HPC Minor Development Review Criteria/Staff Findings Exhibit B – Land Use Application P32 IV.A. A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING MINOR DEVELOPMENT FOR 419 E. HYMAN AVENUE, PARAGON BUILDING CONDOS, UNIT 2, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2018 PARCEL ID: 2737-182-16-042 WHEREAS, the applicant, 419 East Hyman Avenue, LLC, represented by BendonAdams, LLC and Chase Bank, requested Minor Development approval for 419 E. Hyman Avenue, Paragon Building Condos, Unit 2, City and Townsite of Aspen. The property is a designated landmark; 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 Minor Development, 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 design guidelines per Section 26.415.070.C.3.b 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, Amy Simon, City of Aspen Historic Preservation Officer, in her staff report dated November 14, 2018, performed an analysis of the application and recommended denial; and WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on November 14, 2018, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the applicable review standards and guidelines and approved the application with conditions by a vote of __ to __. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC approves Minor Development for the property located at 419 E. Hyman Avenue, Paragon Building Condos, Unit 2, City and Townsite of Aspen, allowing a security card reader to be installed on the exterior of the unit as depicted in the land use application, with the following conditions: Section 1: 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 or Historic Preservation Commission, are hereby incorporated in such approvals and the same shall be P33 IV.A. complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. Section 2: 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. 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. Section 3: The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 419 E. Hyman Avenue. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until P34 IV.A. the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 14th day of November, 2018. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: _________________________________ ____________________________________ Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Gretchen Greenwood, Chair Attest: _________________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk P35 IV.A. Page 1 of 4 Exhibit A Minor Development Staff Findings P36 IV.A. Page 2 of 4 Minor Development Review 26.415.070.C Certificate of appropriateness for a minor development 3. The procedures for the review of minor development projects are as follows: a) The Community Development Director will review the application materials and if they are determined to be complete, schedule a public hearing before the HPC. The subject property shall be posted pursuant to Paragraph 26.304.060.E.3.b. b) 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 approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. (NOTE: THE RELEVANT DESIGN GUIDELINES ARE LISTED IN THEIR ENTIRETY BELOW.) c) The HPC shall approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a certificate of appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall issue a development order. d) The HPC decision shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316. Relevant Design Guidelines Windows chapter, Historic Preservation Design Guidelines 3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. • Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntins/mullions, sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operations, and groupings of windows. • Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them. • Preserve the original glass. If original Victorian era glass is broken, consider using restoration glass for the repair. Doors chapter, Historic Preservation Design Guidelines 4.7 Preserve historic hardware. • When new hardware is needed, it must be in scale with the door and appropriate to the style of the building. • On Aspen Victorian properties, conceal any modern elements such as entry key pads. P37 IV.A. Page 3 of 4 Staff Findings : Staff finds that two guidelines listed above, 3.1 and 4.7, are not met. The street-facing windows and kickplates on this storefront were replaced around the 1970s, however the sidelight windows that flank the entry doors, and all of the transom windows appear to be original. The proposal is to attach the new security equipment to an original window. The sidelight windows are one piece, with divided lights in the top third of the window a single pane of glass below. The glass is held in place by decorative ogee stops. The applicant proposes to adhere the proposed security card reader to the bottom rail of the west sidelight. To provide power to the card reader, a hole for a wire is to be drilled through the backside of the window or another location to be determined. (Note: An earlier concept for powering the card reader included exposed conduit on the outside of the window, which is discouraged by the design guidelines.) Staff finds that the card reader interferes with the integrity of the historic window. There is an ADA actuator button on the window now. This is a code mandated means to trigger both of the entry doors, to open when needed since neither door leaf is wide enough to meet ADA requirements on its own. General chapter, Commercial, Lodging and Historic Preservation Design Guidelines 1.17 ATMs and vending machines visible from the street are prohibited. P38 IV.A. Page 4 of 4 The existing actuator is an older piece of equipment which is being replaced by a newer, smaller device through a separate building permit not subject to HPC review. There are specific code requirements for the height of the ADA compliant button and HPC could not deny the installation of this feature. The card reader, on the other hand, is not required for any code compliance and staff finds that adhering the card reader to the window frame does not preserve the original decorative features of the window. Furthermore, guideline 4.7 indicates that modern security equipment, such as entry key pads, must be concealed and not exposed to view. Please note that initially, staff indicated to the applicant that standard 1.17 above, which is required to be met unless varied by HPC, presented an issue to this proposal. However, after further discussion amongst staff we agree that the card reader is separate from the ATM unit itself. Staff finds that standard is met. Staff recommends HPC deny the application finding that guidelines 3.1 and 4.7 are not met. P39 IV.A. P40IV.A. P41IV.A. P42IV.A. P43IV.A. P44IV.A. P45IV.A. P46IV.A. P47IV.A. P48IV.A. P49IV.A. P50IV.A. P51IV.A. P52IV.A. P53IV.A. P54IV.A. P55IV.A. P56IV.A. P57IV.A. P58IV.A. P59IV.A. P60IV.A. P61IV.A. P62 IV.A. P63 IV.A. P64 IV.A. P65 IV.A. P66 IV.A. Memorandum TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer MEETING DATE: November 14, 2018 RE: Worksession- Draft amendments to historic preservation benefits SUMMARY: Staff requests HPC review of the attached draft code amendments related to improving historic preservation outcomes. No hearings are scheduled yet for Council adoption of these amendments. Staff is seeking input from the board and has also circulated the proposal to a stakeholder group of professionals and property owners involved in recent preservation projects. Attachment: A. Draft code amendments P67 V.A. 26.415.070. Development involving designated historic property or property within a historic district. 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. A. Exempt development. 1. Selected activities are exempted from the development review procedures including interior remodeling, paint color selection, exterior repainting or replastering similar to the existing finish or routine maintenance such as caulking, replacement of fasteners, repair of window glazing or other such minimally intrusive work. 2. Interior remodeling is exempt except that demolition of more than 50% of an upper floor within a historic resource is prohibited. The intent of this provision is to disincentivize the underutilization of the historic resource in order to make a larger addition to it. 2. If there is any question if a work activity qualifies as exempt, the Community Development Director shall make the determination as to its eligibility. 26.415.110. Benefits. The City is committed to providing support to property owners to assist their efforts to maintain, preserve and enhance their historic properties. Recognizing that these properties are valuable community assets is the basic premise underlying the provision of special procedures and programs for designated historic properties and districts. Benefits to encourage good historic preservation practices by the owners of historic properties are an important aspect of Aspen's historic preservation program. Historic resources are a valuable community asset and their continued protection is the basic premise supporting the creation of an innovative package of preservation tools that are unlike any other in the country. Aspen's preservation benefits are in response to tight historic preservation controls that have been legislated by the City since 1972. The Community Development Department and Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) are dedicated to assisting property owners in renovating and maintaining their property. Aspen is unique. Its historic resources and spirit of community have not been duplicated anywhere else in the world. It is this basic character that has helped make the City both economically vital and cherished by many. P68 V.A. Only designated properties may be eligible for the following benefits. A. Historic landmark lot split. Properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures may receive an exemption from the subdivision and growth management quota system, pursuant to Sections 26.480 and 26.470, allowing owners of designated historic properties to create a second unit in addition to the historic building on their lot through the subdivision of the property. Refer to specific zone district information in Chapter 26.710 for further information. All parcels created through a Historic Landmark lot split shall retain designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. B. Increased density. Two detached single-family dwelling units or a duplex may be allowed on a smaller sized lot than is required for a non-designated property. Refer to specific zone district information in Chapter 26.710 for further information. Where a duplex is proposed, the common unpierced wall must occur below grade. Locating the common wall below grade shall only be permitted for designated properties. C. Variances. Variations. Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving designated properties to create development that is more consistent with the character of the historic property or district than what would be required by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards. 1. The HPC may grant variances variations of the Land Use Code for designated properties to allow: a) Development in the side, rear and front setbacks; b) Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between buildings; c) Up to five percent (5%) additional site coverage; d) Less public amenity than required for the on-site relocation of commercial historic properties. 2. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance: a) Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b) Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. D. Parking. Parking reductions are permitted for designated historic properties on sites unable to contain the number of on-site parking spaces required by the underlying zoning. Commercial designated historic properties may receive waivers of payment-in-lieu fees for parking reductions. P69 V.A. In addition to the review criteria listed in Chapter 26.515, the parking reduction and waiver of payment-in-lieu fees may be approved upon a finding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance or architectural character of a designated historic property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district. E. Conditional uses. A variety of conditional uses are allowed for designated historic properties. These uses are identified in Chapter 26.710. F. Floor area bonus. 1. In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. The potential bonus is determined by net lot area such that a 3,000-5,999 square foot lot is eligible for a maximum of a two hundred fifty (250) square foot floor area bonus, a 6,000-8,999 square foot lot is eligible for a maximum of a three hundred seventy five (375) square foot floor area bonus and a 9,000 square foot or larger lot is eligible for a maximum of a 500 square foot floor area bonus. Floor area bonuses are cumulative. More than one bonus may be approved up to the maximum amount allowed for the lot. If a property is subdivided, the maximum bonus will be based on the original lot size, though the bonus may be allocated amongst the newly created parcels to the extent permitted. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that the project meets all of the following criteria: a) The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; b) a)The historic building is the key element of the property, and the primary entry into the structure, and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building; and c) b)The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; The applicant is undertaking multiple significant restoration actions, including but not limited to, re-opening an enclosed porch, re-installing doors and windows in original openings that have been enclosed, removing paint or other non-original finishes, or removing elements which are covering original materials or features; and d) The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; e) The construction materials are of the highest quality; P70 V.A. f) An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; g) c).The project retains a historic outbuilding, if one is present, as a free standing structure above grade; and/or h) Notable historic site and landscape features are retained. d) The applicant is electing a preservation outcome that is a high priority for HPC, including but not limited to, creating at least two detached structures on the site, limiting the amount of above grade square footage added directly to a historic resource to no more than twice the above grade square footage of the historic resource, limiting the height of an addition to a historic resource to the height of the resource or lower, or demolishing and replacing a significantly incompatible non- historic addition to a historic resource with an addition that meets current guidelines. e) Only for projects providing on-site affordable housing, independent of the criteria listed above, the applicant may receive a bonus up to the amount permitted for the lot size when HPC finds that historic preservation priorities are achieved and the applicant is exceeding the minimum on-site affordable housing requirement by at least the amount of the bonus. 2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits of the proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices. Projects that demonstrate multiple elements described above will have a greater likelihood of being awarded additional floor area. 3. The decision to grant a floor area bonus for major development projects will occur as part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Subsection 26.415.070.D. The floor area bonus may also be approved as part of a Historic Landmark Lot Split Review. 4. Floor area bonuses are cumulative only available for single-family, duplex or 100% affordable housing development. A property shall receive no more than 500 square feet total. The award of a bonus is project specific. At such time that more than 40% of an addition to a historic resource that was constructed as part of a project which previously received a floor area bonus is demolished, the bonus may be retained only if the proposed redevelopment is found to meet the requirements of this Section. G. Exemption from growth management quota system requirements. Certain types of development on designated historic properties are exempt from the P71 V.A. growth management quota system and have reduced impact mitigation requirements. Refer to Chapter 26.470 for further information. H. Waiver of impact fees. Designated historic properties may be eligible for waiver of Impact Fees. Refer to Chapter 26.610 for further information. I. Rehabilitation loan fund. City Council may approve a zero interest loan in an amount up to twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) for any property that is in violation of Section 26.415.100 of the Land Use Code, Demolition by Neglect, or to fund other rehabilitation work which is considered necessary for the preservation or restoration of a designated structure. To be eligible for this benefit, a property owner shall show evidence of financial need. These one-time loans shall be repaid at the time of transfer-of-title or by the end of ten (10) years, whichever comes first. J. Conservation easement program. The City may accept a "Conservation Easement" from a property owner who wishes to forgo any of the allowed square footage on their property in exchange for a federal tax deduction. A deed restriction shall be filed on the site to show that future development is limited. The five hundred (500) square foot floor area bonus provided in Subsection 26.415.110 of the Land Use Code cannot be donated as a conservation easement. K. City-owned building rehabilitation fund. The City shall give priority in the asset management plan to budgeting the funds necessary to adequately maintain, rehabilitate or restore City-owned designated properties. L. Transferable Development Right (TDR). Pursuant to Chapter 26.535 of this Code, owners of properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures may sever and convey, as a separate development right, undeveloped floor area to be developed on a different property within the City. Refer to Section 26.710, Zone Districts for further information on landing sites for TDRs. M. Tax credit applications. Community Development staff shall assist property owners in participating in State and Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit programs by helping with the preparation of application materials, undertaking the necessary reviews to assist in obtaining certification. A twenty percent (20%) state rehabilitation income tax credit may be available for locally designated properties and may be combined with a twenty percent (20%) Federal Income Tax Credit which may be available for income producing properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places. N. Community-initiated development. The City shall consider opportunities to be involved in public-privately funded rehabilitation efforts, building expansion, or infill projects that demonstrate good historic preservation practices. P72 V.A. O. Building codes. The City’s adopted Building Code provides for flexibility in its application to historic structures. In addition, building permits for single-family and duplex projects on a landmarked property which are granted Major Development approval by HPC are eligible to receive expedited permit processing for the master permit through the first and second rounds of review. (Note: This is only proposed if the affordable housing waiver for single-family and duplex development is eliminated.) P. Contractor training. The Community Development Department shall provide periodic workshops for contractors on proper preservation techniques, using grants or other sources of funding. Q. Cultural heritage tourism. Through grants or other sources of funding, the City may facilitate collaborative partnerships among tourist industry sectors, historic property owners and cultural heritage attractions to create a marketing strategy and marketing products to attract visitors interested in the distinctive historic character of Aspen. R. Preservation honor awards. The Aspen Historic Preservation Commission shall present annual awards to recognize exemplary historic preservation efforts in the City. S. Historic markers. Through grants or other sources of funding, the City may provide a historic marker of a standard design for any owner of a designated historic property who desires a marker to install on their building. The City may also develop a marker or signage program to recognize designated historic districts. T. Work Sessions. 1. Projects requesting a Floor Area Bonus pursuant to Section 26.415.110(F), Floor Area Bonus, or projects of significant public interest may request a Work Session with HPC. 2. The purpose of the Work Session is to provide an applicant with initial feedback on the project. An application is required, and shall address the overall design intent, site plan, basic massing, and programming. 3. HPC may not take any formal action at the Work Session, and any feedback provided to the applicant is non-binding. All work sessions shall be noticed pursuant to the requirements for a public hearing in Section 26.304.060(E), Public Noticing, and public comment shall be taken. ================================================================ P73 V.A. 26.535.070 Review criteria for establishment of a historic transferable development right A historic TDR certificate may be established by the Mayor if the City Council, pursuant to adoption of an ordinance, finds all the following standards met. A. The sending site is a historic landmark or property identified on the AspenModern Map, on which the development of a single-family or duplex residence is a permitted use, pursuant to Chapter 26.710, Zone Districts. Properties on which such development is a conditional use shall not be eligible. A sending site which is a historic landmark but does not contain a historic resource is only eligible for the establishment of TDR certificates if all of the development rights, except for any remaining increment of less than 250 square feet, are severed. B. It is demonstrated that the sending site has permitted unbuilt development rights, for either a single-family or duplex home, equaling or exceeding two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of floor area multiplied by the number of historic TDR certificates requested. C. It is demonstrated that the establishment of TDR certificates will not create a nonconformity. In cases where a nonconformity already exists, the action shall not increase the specific nonconformity. D. The analysis of unbuilt development right shall only include the actual built development, any approved development order, the allowable development right prescribed by zoning for a single-family or duplex residence, and shall not include the potential of the sending site to gain floor area bonuses, exemptions or similar potential development incentives. Properties in the MU Zone District which do not currently contain a single-family home or duplex established prior to the adoption of Ordinance #7, Series of 2005, shall be permitted to base the calculation of TDRs on 100% of the allowable floor area on an equivalent-sized lot in the R-6 zone district. This is only for the purpose of creating TDRs and does not permit the on-site development of 100% of the allowable floor area on an equivalent-sized lot in the R-6 zone district. If the additional 20% of allowable floor area exceeds 500 square feet, the applicant may not request a floor area bonus from HPC at any time in the future. E. Any development order to develop floor area, beyond that remaining legally connected to the property after establishment of TDR Certificates, shall be considered null and void. F. The proposed deed restriction permanently restricts the maximum development of the property (the sending site) to an allowable floor area not exceeding the allowance for a single-family or duplex residence minus two P74 V.A. hundred and fifty (250) square feet of floor area multiplied by the number of historic TDR certificates established. For properties with multiple or unlimited floor areas for certain types of allowed uses, the maximum development of the property, independent of the established property use, shall be the floor area of a single-family or duplex residence (whichever is permitted) minus two hundred fifty (250) square feet of floor area multiplies by the number of historic TDR certificates established. The deed restriction shall not stipulate an absolute floor area, but shall stipulate a square footage reduction from the allowable floor area for a single-family or duplex residence, as may be amended from time to time. The sending site shall remain eligible for certain floor area incentives and/or exemptions as may be authorized by the City Land Use Code, as may be amended from time to time. The form of the deed restriction shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. G. A real estate closing has been scheduled at which, upon satisfaction of all relevant requirements, the City shall execute and deliver the applicable number of historic TDR certificates to the sending site property owner and that property owner shall execute and deliver a deed restriction lessening the available development right of the subject property together with the appropriate fee for recording the deed restriction with the County Clerk and Recorder's office. H. It shall be the responsibility of the sending site property owner to provide building plans and a zoning analysis of the sending site to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Certain review fees may be required for the confirmation of built floor area. I. The sale, assignment, conveyance or other transfer or change in ownership of transferable development rights certificates shall be recorded in the real estate records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder and must be reported by the grantor to the City of Aspen Community Development Department within five (5) days of such transfer. The report of such transfer shall disclose the certificate number, the grantor, the grantee and the total value of the consideration paid for the certificate. Failure to timely or accurately report such transfer shall not render the transferable development right certificate void. J. TDR certificates may be issued at the pace preferred by the property owner. K. City Council may find that the creation of TDRs is not the best preservation solution for the affected historic resource. HPC shall provide Council with a recommendation regarding an application to create TDRs. P75 V.A. ===================================================================================== 26.470.090 Administrative applications. The following types of development shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Community Development Director, pursuant to Section 26.470.060, Procedures for Review, and the criteria described below. Except as noted, all administrative growth management approvals shall not be deducted from the annual development allotments. All approvals apply cumulatively. A. Single-family and duplex development on historic landmark properties. The development of one or multiple single-family residences or a duplex on a parcel of land designated as an historic landmark and which contains an historic resource shall be approved by the Community Development Director. This review applies to the rehabilitation of existing structures, and reconstruction after demolition of existing structures,. an expansion of Floor Area, and to the development of new structures on historic landmark properties. No affordable housing mitigation shall be required provided that all necessary approvals are obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.415, Historic Preservation, and provided that the parcel contains an historic resource. For any increase in Floor Area resulting from single-family and duplex development on historic landmark properties, affordable housing mitigation shall be reduced by 50%. Development of single-family or duplex structures on an historic landmark property that does not contain an historic resource (for example, a house on a lot which was subdivided from an historic landmark property) shall be subject to the provisions of Section 26.470.090.B, Single-Family and Duplex Residential Development or Expansion. P76 V.A. • 3,000 square foot lot in R-6, MU, RMF: Allowable floor area = 2,400 • Floor area ratio: 0.8:1 (i.e. 0.8 square feet of floor area for every 1 foot of lot area.) • Floor area ratio with a 500 square foot HPC bonus: 0.97:1 • Floor area ratio with a 250 square foot HPC bonus: 0.88:1 (This is the maximum staff recommendation.) • Considerations: Lots in the MU and RMF zone districts which don’t currently have a residence on the site but want to create one are affected by an existing 20% floor area penalty meant to discourage new single family homes and duplexes in these neighborhoods, where commercial or multi-family uses are preferred, so a 3,000 square foot lot in this circumstance is permitted 1,920 square feet of floor area. Staff does not recommend maintaining the 500 square foot bonus as a means to undo this intentional disincentive created by Council. • 6,000 square foot lot in R-6, MU, RMF: Allowable floor area = 3,240 single family or 2 detached homes, 3,600 square feet for a duplex • Floor area ratio: 0.54:1 (i.e. 0.54 square feet of floor area for every 1 foot of lot area) for SF or two detached, 0.6:1 for duplex. • Floor area ratio with a 500 square foot HPC bonus: 0.62:1 for SF or two detached, 0.68:1 for duplex. • Floor area ratio with a 375 square foot HPC bonus: 0.60:1 for SF or two detached, 0.67:1 for duplex. (This is the maximum staff recommendation.) • Considerations: As noted above, lots in the MU and RMF zone districts which don’t currently have a residence on the site but want to create one are affected by an existing 20% floor area penalty meant to discourage new single family homes and duplexes in these neighborhoods, where commercial or multi-family uses are preferred. so a 6,000 square foot lot in this circumstance is permitted 2,593 for a SF or two detached and 2,880 for a duplex. Staff does not recommend maintaining the 500 square foot bonus as a means to undo this intentional disincentive created by Council. Staff does recommend an amendment that does not incentivize a duplex over two detached units, which is typically a better preservation solution. • 9,000 square foot lot in R-6, MU, RMF: Allowable floor area = 3,660 single family or 2 detached homes, 4,080 square feet for a duplex • Floor area ratio: 0.41:1 (i.e. 0.41 square feet of floor area for every 1 foot of lot area) for SF or two detached, 0.45:1 for duplex. • Floor area ratio with a 500 square foot HPC bonus: 0.46:1 for SF or two detached, 0.51:1 for duplex. (This is the maximum staff recommendation.) • Considerations: A 9,000 square foot lot in the MU or RMF zone districts, where a single family or duplex do not currently exist is permitted 2,928 for a SF or two detached and 2, 3,264 for a duplex. Staff does not recommend maintaining the 500 square foot bonus as a means to undo this intentional disincentive created by Council. Staff does recommend an amendment that does not incentivize a duplex over two detached units, which is typically a better preservation solution. P77 V.A. EXHIBIT a AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 419 E. Hyman ,Aspen, CO SCHEDULED-PUBLIC HEARING DATE: _14 November ,2018_ STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, Sara Adams (name,please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E)of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. _X_ Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen(15) days prior to the public hearing on the _30_day of_October , 2018, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen(15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested,to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty(30)days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, PDs that create more than one lot, and new Planned Developments are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title,or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature The foregoing"Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this (Z-day of Ol/MiV ;tom. , 20J_e),by 5 RA &UAL L-S WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL TARA L. NELSON NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY ID 1120014030017 My Commission Expires Septemt r 25,20n 1 Notary Public ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPYOFTHEPUBLICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BYC.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 PUBLIC NOTICE Date : November 14 , 2018 Time : 4 : 3o PM Place : city Hall , 130 S Galena St City Council Chambers Purpose : 419 East Hyman Avenue LLC , 2001 North Halsted Road #304 , Chicago , IL 60614 , requests HPC Minor Development approval to install an ATM card reader on the exterior of this storefront . For more information,_ contact the City of Aspen Community Development Department at 429-2758 or amy . simonacityofaspen . com . 4 I , ' � s PUBLIC NOTICE Date. f Time:4..t0 FAI r w Place:cay Ha, ctyco; Purpose: ln Avenue -_ nh Halsted Road#304,Ctncago,IL 6 el reguosts HPC Minor :eloprnent approval to tnstau an I M card reader on the exterior of this storefront For more Information, t nlact the Gty of Aspen Carttmunq nt tat • elopme DeParLr+en-_ :_'9,2758 or - amy.pma>@cityofaspen_cam do tf j Ey- 1 44