Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20101013 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 13, 2010 5:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING SISTER CITIES MEETING ROOM 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO SITE VISITS: I. Roll call II. Approval of minutes — Sept. 15 and Sept. 22, 2010 III. Public Comments IV. Commission member comments V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) VI. Project Monitoring: VII. Staff comments — (15 min.) VIII. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued (Next resolution will be #12) I. OLD BUSINESS A. 630 E. Hyman Ave. Amendment to Ordinance #48 negotiation — Public Hearing (20 min.) II. NEW BUSINESS A. 220 E. Main Street, Cortina Lodge Landmark Designation — Public Hearing (20 min.) III. WORK SESSIONS/ DISCUSSION A. We -cycle proposal (20 min.) B. Aspen modern ordinance and scoring proposal (1hr.) IV. 7:15 p.m. Adjourn Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH) Staff presentation Applicant presentation Board questions and clarifications Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed Applicant rebuttal (comments) Motion 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. PROJECT MONITORING Mike Hoffman 202 N. Monarch (Blue Vic) 334 W. Hallam (Hayden Connor fence) Red Butte Cemetery Sarah Broughton 110 E. Bleeker 604 West Main Street 222 E. Bleeker (new single family home) Brian McNellis Fox Crossing Victorian 332 West Main Street 1291 Riverside Drive 212 n. monarch Ann Mullins Boomerang 604 West Main Street 300 South Spring Street 222 E. Bleeker (new single family home) Deep Powder Jay Maytin 28 Smuggler Grove Road 627 W. Main Red Butte Cemetery 212 n. monarch Nora Berko 28 Smuggler Grove Road Jason Lasser 525 E. Cooper, Aspen Grove Crandall Building Jamie Brewster McLeod Crandall Building M: \city \planning\hpc project monitoring\PROJECT MONITORING.doc 9/23/2010 14 P 1 • MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 630 E. Hyman Avenue Amendment to Ordinance #48 negotiation DATE: October 13, 2010 SUMMARY: HPC is asked to provide a referral comment to City Council regarding a proposed amendment to the Ordinance #48 negotiation approved for the Crandall Building. The property owner finds that it is necessary to consider creating an additional tenant space on the second floor, in the area that was expected to be common space. HPC approved a rooftop addition on this building that has rendered the central courtyard interior space, which is no longer in the board's purview. However, there was lengthy discussion about the historic procession through the courtyard and up the stairs to the circular view window on the south facade of this building. The proposed remodel affects FAR and cannot be undertaken without Council's approval. HPC is asked to comment on whether the new tenant space is an appropriate amendment to the negotiation. Minutes of the HPC meetings are attached for reference. • P2 LP J ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSIONC MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2009 Chairperson, Michael Hoffman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Jason Lasser, Brian McNellis, Ann Mullins and Jamie McLeod. Nora Berko, Sarah Broughton and Jay Maytin, were excused. Staff present: Jim True, Special Counsel Amy Guthrie, Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Public comments: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director A demolition permit was issued on the ticket booth at the Lift 1 lodge site on Willoughby Park . There was not a 1940 building in the structure. Essentially there are two standing applications; a 2006 application that went through HPC that had a corner of the 1940's building and a 2008 that had the 1950's building , COWOP. Both received HPC approvals. The COWOP was not approved by City Council so the 2006 application was reopened and when it went to City Council it was recommended that it look as much like the COWOP application as it can. On the 2006 application HPC recommended to go forward with demolition but stop if you recognize a 1940's structure on the corner. It was recommended that the 40's structure be preserved. There is no evidence of the 40's structure. It looks like the structure was destroyed when they did the 1950's version. Two conditions of demolition are recommended: documentation of the dimensions and window placements of the existing building so that if a recreation of the building is desirable in the future we can have some basis for that. Also save as much lumber from the current building as possible. The studs are affected by mold and dry rot. The applicant that is represented by Bob Daniels is favorable to whatever recommendations are made by the city. Ann said she recalled an investigation to occur and then come back to the HPC so that the board could look at conclusions not that the building would be leveled. We would look at the findings and come to some kind of compromise. Chris said the focus was on the comer and it is obvious that the building is not there. The building was torn away and the 1950 building built in its place. There was a check in with staff and if nothing was there the demolition would occur. The City Asset department is conducting the work for the Historical Society on their behalf. 1 P3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2009 Amy said the concern is that council has recommended that the applicant go with the COWOP plan which is that the larger ticket office be preserved. Brian said he agreed with staff's recommendation. He was never convinced that a 1940's building existed. He is an advocate for reclaiming the materials. Michael said he agreed that the 1940's building was to be investigated but there is no 1940's building. If this is of no historic significance we should not save it but preserve the materials. Jason said the asset department should be cautious with the city inventory. I would prefer not to see any building torn down. Ann said her concern is the fact that the building was allowed to get in the state it is. It should have been repaired when it collapsed. Saving the materials would be great but we need to take care of our buildings in the future. 630 E. Hyman Ave. Landmark, Conceptual HPC and Commercial Design Review, Ord. #48 negotiation Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning LLC. The first and second floor are largely left intact and we are replacing a few openings with actual windows. A rectangular window has been added to the Spring Street side of the facade. The building is on Ord. #48. We are voluntarily designating the building with a third floor residential unit set back over 22 feet from the facade facing Hyman Ave. and 11 feet back on the Spring Street side. The design of the third floor does not compete with the structure but compliments it. There are also new windows on the alley side. On the ground level changes to the front were requirements of the building code. The siding will be recovered to a light color that was historically there. Under ord. #48 there is negotiation. In terms of incentives we have not asked for much. We are asking that growth management exemptions be discussed with city council. The building today is over the commercial floor area arid after the remodel it would still be over. The residential floor area exceeds the allowable and that footage is in the common spaces. We are 524 square feet over. 832 square feet is in common areas which is counted as 2 P4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2009 residential. In the zone district the maximum residential unit allowed is 2,000 net livable square feet and can be increased to 2,500 square feet with a TDR. We are asking for the 2,500 without a TDR. We are under the allowable FAR for the property. The existing structure has two encroachment licenses into the right -of -way; one for the CMU columns on the Spring Street side and the other for the stairs along the alley. What is the point for a revocable license when the building can't go away because it will be landmarked? John Rowland, Rowland Broughton architects: The property is in the Cl zone district. The basement was built in 1962 and in 1973the remaining upper floors were constructed. The courtyard is not functional and we have handicapped issues and energy requirements that are not being met. Existing windows are not functional. Thomas Benton was the original designer and he is becoming an icon in Aspen particularly because of the round windows. The intent of the building is that it will truly be a mixed use with a residence on the upper floor. Some of our project goals are to respect the character of the building, improve accessibility, energy improvements, retain the opening on the second level and introduce a Tom Benton art gallery in the common spaces. The client Greg Hill would like to sell back the condominium units to the existing tenants at an affordable price as well as adhering to the community master plan. Preservation concepts that are important are the round windows and the second level opening; the expressiveness of the concrete columns; the red wood siding and spider effect on the siding detailing as well as the general architecture form. Sustainable goals: We are not demolishing the building but will enclose the courtyard. Currently 64% of the surface area is exposed to cold weather and we will up the insulation values and retain the redwood siding. We will upgrade the stairs and elevator to required standards. We are proposing to bring the stair on the south side to meet code and egress. The stair will be relocated. There will be an additional egress to the street per fire codes. Tom Benton's work will be displayed on the common spaces on all levels and we will enhance the pedestrian amenities and engage the side wall as a place to sit and gather and be communal. The pent house is 5.6 off the west setback, 26.7 feet off the property line and11.3off the Hunter Street side. The highest element is an elevator overrun that will be 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2009 flat in a round form. We will sandblast the facade to bring it back to its original intent. The architecture on the upper floor is a combination of metal panels. There is a new window proposed on the Hunter Street side. Amy Guthrie, Preservation Officer: Amy stated that in the assessment scoring the building scored 99 out of 100 due to window changes in the back. Other than that the building is just as it was designed. Torn Benton is known beyond Aspen with his work and we feel he contributed to modern architecture during 1945 to 1975. The building clearly meets the designation criteria and staff supports that. This is a voluntary designation and because this building is on Ord. #48 HPC has no authority to designate without the owner's consent. The primary issue with the project is the addition on the roof and the entryway to the building. We generally do not like the entrances changed but in order to keep the stair and address fire code issues it would require enclosing it in a mariner that had a piece jutting out in front of the building which staff feels is worse that moving the stair over. You still enter through the center of the building. At final we should revisit the store front level to reduce demolition. In general staff supports the stair relocation. In terms of the upper floor addition we find that it is sympathetic to the building. It has been pulled in from the roof's edges. The overall height is about 10.6 plate height which is reasonable. The glass railing seems to align with the walls of the Benton structure and staff feels that possibly it could be improved by pulling it back. The next discussion is windows. The applicant intends to replace all of the windows in the building and in this case we feel there is no artistic merit to the windows. They do not have craftsmanship that we would be interested in saving. We have no issue with the replacement but they need to be replaced in -kind as the originals and they need to be all wood. The application suggests a clad window and the existing windows are wood. These are issues that can be addressed at final. One window will be added. on Spring Street which is not a negative impact on the building. Commercial design review applies here. In general we did not find any guidelines that were in conflict. Most of the commercial design guidelines talk about new buildings. Growth management will be issued by the Community Development Director to allow the new free market unit with no employee mitigation. They are already over the commercial allocation and 4 P 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2009 they are going to improve that but still out of compliance. They are already an existing non - conformity. The applicant wants to expand the size of the upper unit. The allowable is 2,000 and they want to go to 2,500 and the only way they can do that is by landing a TDR. They would like to do that without landing a TDR and that is something that council would have to allow. The issue of encroachments is an attorney and engineering matter. The applicant is also requesting waiver of school land dedication fees and that is money that we gather for the school districts benefit and we don't think that it can be waived. The character of the courtyard is being maintained because the space will be more enjoyable and usable. It is an important aspect of this project the way the weather and this building interact. That will change with the new addition but your experience from the street will not. In summary we are very pleased in seeing this voluntary designation offered and feel this is a good project and we recommend HPC grant conceptual approval. Clarifications: Brian inquired about the commercial square footage. Mitch said the commercial FAR is going down but because the courtyard right now is being exposed from above grade on the lower level it counts as floor area. When you put a roof over it, it doesn't count as floor area. The amount of commercial space is not going down but the commercial FAR is. John Rowland clarified the commercial square footage is going down by 340 square feet. Ann asked about the parking situation. Mitch said right now there is no parking but two garages will be off the far corner of the alley. Ann asked if the applicant is intending to keep the spider web design throughout the facade. Mitch said the proposal is to replace the spider webs with store front windows. John Rowland said they would like to hear what the board has to say about the spider webs. Jason asked if a skylight was investigated that would light the whole way through to the courtyard; just a small shaft of light. John said they had discussed it early on and found some problems with it. 5 P7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2009 Jamie said the existing building is pretty much an open courtyard and very inviting for people to walk in and you are proposing doors which limits that interaction. Was this discussed at the work sessions. John said it was discussed from an environmental standpoint. We are at a time where energy is expensive and precious and we wanted to enclose the courtyard for that reason. There will also be foliage that will be able to grown inside due to the lighting system. It will be a great place to go and to check out Tom's art work. This will be another gathering space that will be lighted and engaging. Amy said the doors are recessed which gives you the sense of openness. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing: John Olson, public said he has had the opportunity to work with Greg in the past and the owners are very sensitive and focused on the historic preservation and to do it right. This project would be done no different than what they have done in the past. Bill Mitchell, pediatrician : My office is in the building and it is a great place to watch events on the mountain. One of the biggest improvements are the elevators. Most parents currently use the back stairs and with the elderly my partner and I either go to Basalt or to the hospital. The Hills are making this affordable. My partner and I are the only ones from here to Glenwood that will see Medicade patients. Over the past 24 years I have spent well over a million dollars in rent in this building and I have nothing to show. We have been trying for years to buy. With the open roof the snow comes right down and the area gets very slippery. It will be nice to have Tom's work accessible in the building to show or sell. June Kirk, said she served on Historic Preservation Task Force Many of us are concerned that historic preservation doesn't become an avenue for just over incentives and adding additional FAR without preserving the integrity of historic structures. This building came about in the 60's when the codes were some restrictive and you could only build one or two story buildings. Along this three block area there are just one and two story buildings. I am concerned with the third floor on this building and it changes the integrity and the whole character of what we are trying to preserve. The old Boomerang lodge was preserved without changes. I can't see why you can't have your residential unit in the building instead of 6 P8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2009 having a hat on top. The conceptual review changes the character of the neighborhood and the building that we are trying to preserve. If you are getting rid of the patio you should somehow maintain the two story structure which is typical of Tom Benton design and feel and still have the residential unit within the building as it stands today. Toni Kronberg, public I look at this application as the beginning of a domino effect like what happened across the street from Wagner Park. This is one block east of the historic district. When the Dancing Bear got built everything around it got bigger. The Wienerstube went before city council and it was a tie vote so it was a failed motion. The reason it failed because it did not keep within the existing size and scale of the neighborhood which is in the Aspen Area Community Plan. In the historic district guidelines chapter 10 building additions it basically says any additions are to be outside of the building and have a connector to it. It also talks about roof top additions which are to go out perpendicular to the building and not up. In the assessment the roof form was given a score of 10. How can you get a score of 10 when you are adding a third story. In the guidelines it says any new additions are supposed to be subservient to the historic structure. Adam Walton's house is historic and right behind this structure. If this is allowed to be built everything around it will go higher. The community character and neighborhood character will be diminished and destroyed. I commend the owner voluntarily coming in and asking for designation. Once the third floor is on, the historic aspect is diminished. This project needs more thought. Brain said there maybe historical significance associated with this building and in order to preserve it there are certain things requested in order to maintain it which entail increase in height of the building. Given that information is it a wiser choice not to approve this with the understanding that this may go away entirely and they would have to come through a regular process in which you would hope only a two story building would be proposed. Toni said she has given that a lot of thought. The building has changed with the elevator and filling in the front. This is like the Mother Lode. It might be better that this not receive landmark designation and the building go through another process. 7 P9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2009 Brian said his point is at the end we could end up with nothing being preserved on this building. Are minor modifications OK to preserve what we see as historical in this building or is it better to take a risk and start over. Bill Wiener, 701 Gibson Street; For the past couple of years I have been involved in preserving Aspen's character. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Everyone is talking about numbers rather than should we be doing things. Is it good for the community should be discussed and this has gotten me angry. If they buy a piece of property for twice what they should be then that opens the door to do more to get a fair return and it doesn't make any sense at all. This is a piece of sculpture and you don't add a knob on top of it. It is an introverted building and you can do a lot of energy upgrades without putting a house on top of it. You can put an insulated glass roof over the courtyard and have double doors coming in. You need to try and get some of the sunlight back in. I remember an employee unit in here and it disappeared and does employee housing have to go back into the building. The elevator is needed. HPC is following under the code and it shouldn't come down to that, it should be this is important to our community and what can we do to keep it without giving the developer something that undoes the whole reason for keeping it. This is not minor; you are building a house on top of the building. Greg Hill, owner of the building. I appreciate all the comments that everyone has made. Our philosophy when we take a building that is tired we like to bring it back to life and that doesn't necessarily mean keeping the building exactly the way it is in our opinion. Certain buildings lose their functionality and their life. What we have tried to do through all the comments from the commission and public is to make minor changes to the original structure to make it a better building for the people that are going to inhabit the building and we wanted to add more vitality through landscaping or public amenities. We have tried to minimize the unit on top. This height that we are adding is fairly minimal. We are only four feet higher than the building next door. The point of having the residential unit philosophically is to help the pediatrician, the barber, and Sandy's being able to afford their space. Yes, we will make money off the residential unit. It becomes a choice, do we add the unit on top and minimize the impact or not do that and charge higher rates. The choice as a citizen of this community is to restoring what is currently there and creating an opportunity for locals to stay put. We are really trying to make this a better building and something that we all will be proud of when it is done. 8 P10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2009 Chairperson Michael Hoffman closed the public input portion of the agenda item. Clarifications and questions: Jason asked what the maximum height could be if this building was torn down. Mitch said 36 feet and up to40 feet with commercial design review. This building is at 33 feet. John Olson said they did a structural analysis for this building and it is a very strong structure and can receive the third floor with what is existing right now. Michael said regarding any demolition he would like to see what is being proposed. Jamie asked if the interior courtyard really is exterior space. Amy said if you allow for the enclosure of the courtyard it does eliminate HPC purview on the interior. It is an impact, making what was exterior interior. The applicant is not proposing to chop up that area for offices. I see this as an adaptation of the space. Michael inquired about the housing unit. Mitch said the space occupied by a salon we feel was a residential unit at one time but staff researched it and none of the approvals of record show it was allowed in the first place so we are not allowed to use it as a credit. If we were allowed to use it as a credit we don't even need an HPC exemption for the free market unit which is moving within the building. Designation: Jason said we are talking about two names in Aspen that are big, Jack Crandall and Torn Benton. I am glad to see someone is trying to preserve it and we have a great opportunity here. Anytime you have designation there is compromise involved. Ann said she is in favor of designation and the building complies with b,c, of the criteria and the integrity scoring was 99. Brian said he understands the importance of this building and how it adds to the culture of Aspen which are all great attributes. It is too much of a risk not to accept designation. 9 ___ P11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2009 Jamie said overall she is in favor of designation. Michael agreed with his fellow commissioners. It meets designation criteria b and c. The designation is being brought to us voluntarily. Major Development Conceptual: Michael said the issue is the roof top addition. Jamie said she is a little concerned about how historic it will feel with you will be seeing a very modern top added. The preservation of the interior courtyard is great and the preservation of the exterior skin. Another concern is the modern glass railing up against the historic facade. Ann said this is one of the tradeoffs we have been talking about. The architects have done a nice job of updating the building and it seems vibrant now and there will be more activity on the roof top garden and keeping the old tenants is very appreciated. It would be great to leave it without the top; on the other hand it is nicely designed and integrated well into the building itself. We are much better off with a known solution rather than losing the building and not knowing what is going to be there: It also has a great relationship to the Hannah Dustin Building which is quite a bit higher and it works out nicely. The landscaping is a little robust and a few trees should be removed so you can see the building. Jason reflected that Design Guidelines 10.12 - When constructing a rooftop addition, keep the mass and scale subordinate to that of a historic building. The ceiling height is 9 feet and pretty modest and that guideline is met. It also meets 10.13 — Set a rooftop addition back from the front of the building. Staff has a good point about the glass railing and it needs to be set back from the plane of the historic facade. Guideline 10.14 — The roof form and slope of the new addition should be in character with the historic building. Maybe we can see more of a shadow line on the eastern facade so that it disappears more and you don't see the glazing. Jason said he has questions with guideline 3.3 — Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a facade. The spider walls on the Hyman side are very important and worth saving. The rectangular window on the Spring Street side is a large "add" to the facade. It could be justified if it lit the courtyard but it is lighting a private space. The biggest issue is the courtyard and if it had an element through I could get behind the pent house. 10 P12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2009 Mitch Haas said they will restudy the window for final. Greg Hill said they could possibly move the closet etc. and add light down the courtyard. Brian said the architects have done a good job to add a third story and making it as least impactful as possible. As a suggestion maybe the front facade should go back a little further on the third story. Another concem is the courtyard space and everything that can be done to create that space more habitable for the community I am fully in favor of. Maybe adding natural light would be a big component for making that a better space. With the addition on top it will help preserve the integrity of this building and hopefully make the interior space more inviting. Ann said if there is any way to get a light shaft in the courtyard I would support studying that. Michael pointed out that the HPC struggles with "who is the gate keeper" of preservation if it is not the HPC. It is a reality if we don't approve the third story then the whole scheme that the Hill's need the investment pursuant to will blow up and we will be stuck with an entire new building. I am very sensitive to the individuals who have paid over a million dollars in this building and do not have an ownership stake in it. This plan will give them that. Those particular factors are not in the guidelines but I can find plenty in the guidelines that justify the creation of this third level and Jason pointed them out. I feel this is a good compromise for the community. I don't feel this will start a domino effect for the rest of the block. Reconfiguration of the entry stair case and spider web: Ann said this is a compromise and it is important to maintain the spider web panels along the front the same way you are along the side of the building. John Rowland said the spider webs can be retained. MOTION: Michael moved to continue the Historic Preservation Guidelines and Update on the new recycling containers to the next meeting; second by Jason. All in favor, motion carried. Commercial design review: 11 P13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMNIISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2009 Michael said the major issue with the design review is the increased height of the building and Jason went over the guidelines that apply. Plate height: Jason said we can't request anything less than 9 feet. Brian said he thinks it could come down a little more. John Rowland said he cannot lower the plate height. It is livability and there are mechanical equipments that will lower it to 8 feet in some places. Mitch Haas pointed out that they are already three feet under the height limit. The board agreed that 9 feet plate heights are acceptable. Ordinance #48 negotiations: Michael said the issue he would weight in on is the 2,500 square foot residence on the upper floor. This can be justified because theoretically they are preserving the building and basically creating their own TDR and applying it to the roof. The board feels this is a good compromise in order to preserve the building. Ann pointed out that this is a compromise and the benefits that will come out of this development merit what they are asking for such as keeping the tenants and upgrading the building and streetscape. Jason asked if the 500 square feet is not approved by city council does the project come back to the HPC. Greg said some of the interior common area for Benton's display would go away. Jamie said she is new on the board and should we be taking monitory issues into consideration? Michael said you listen to the presentation and it will have some effect on your decision but you need to follow the guidelines first and the monitory issues have to be secondary. They could propose to sell it so that the tenants can afford it but they can always change that at any point. Ann pointed out that the residential unit is there to subsidize the rents so that the same tenants can stay there. 12 P14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2009 Michael said promises that they make to their tenants is outside our decision making. Greg Hill, owner said it because an issue with my reputation. I am trying very hard to keep the prices set but as we all know people's financial situations change. I have told everyone what the price was going to be. Mitch Haas said normally you would not consider anything financial but this is not normal, it is an ordinance #48 discussion which basically means throw out the codes and negotiate on incentives. This is an incentive that we have requested and it is perfectly within reason. You can achieve a 2,500 square foot unit in this zone district by landing a TDR. We are already 2,500 square feet plus under the allowable floor area and we would like to have the 2,500 square foot unit and that goes with getting an historic preservation project and a landmark structure. Michael made the motion to approve 630 E. Hyman Ave. with the standard conditions and the following conditions of approval: 1. Preserve the spider walls. 2. Preserve the ability to open the second story window on the south facade. 3. Restudy the rectangular window on the second floor east facade. 4. Consider a skylight that lights the courtyard through the residential unit. 5. Recommend the approval of the 2,500 residential unit on the third floor pursuant to ordinance #48. 6. Investigate the eave on the upper east addition. 7. Restudy pushing the glass railing back. Jason second the motion. All in favor, motion carried 5 -0. MOTION: Michael moved to adjourn; second by Jason. All in favor, motion carried. Meetin adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 13 P15 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION R" iJ MINUTES OF MARCH 24, 2010 Chairperson, Michael Hoffman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Jay Maytin, Brian McNellis, Jason Lasser and Jamie McLeod. Excused were Ann Mullins, Nora Berko and Sarah Broughton. Staff present: Jim True, Special Counsel Amy Guthrie, Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathleen Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Jamie disclosed that she and John Rowland used to work together at Gibson Architects in 2001. Jamie said there is no conflict. Triangle Park playground — Minor Review — Public Hearing Sara said the minor review is to replace the existing playground equipment that meets the safety standards. The footprint of the playground will be enlarged slightly and there is a proposal to remove some of the landscaping. Triangle Park was platted pre -1892. It was originally used as a public square and in 1991 a playground was added for toddlers from ages 2 -5. There are not specific guidelines that address play equipment in an historic park. The Parks Dept. is proposing a pretty low profile for replacement and is sensitive to the park and it is appropriate. On the landscaping the proposal is to remove some mugo pines and a few dog wood trees along 2 " Street to open up the space. There is still a distinction between the active part of the park and the passive part of the park. All the lilacs will remain and a choke cherry tree is remaining. Overall this is a sensitive solution and safe solution for toddlers playing in the park. Staff is recommending approval with no conditions. Exhibit I — Public Notice Scott Chism, parks planner for the City of Aspen. Scott presented three elevations. At the work session shade space was discussed and the use of vegetation. There was also discussion about maintaining the open character of the park. For shade, three trees are being proposed to the park which includes cottonwoods. It is also the intent to combine all the play components into one place. We are liable to keep the equipment safe. The net result in the new equipment is a slight increase in 1 P16 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 24, 2010 size. We will use wood as much as possible and keep the equipment as low as possible. Children 2 -5 use this park. The post are 54 inches off the ground and the caps on top of the posts are metal and would be powdered coated a dark green color. There are a few plastic components, a tunnel crawl through, panels on the slide and the replacement of a tot swing set which is approximately 8 feet high. The direction was to design something in the current available space. Sara clarified that the height from the finished grade is 56 inches. Jason asked about the talk tubes. Scott said basically one child is at one end and an adult at the other end. We are reviewing the drum panel but it will change. Jay inquired about the surface. Scott said it would be the same as the existing; wood chips. The boarder would be a wooden timber which is existing. Jamie asked what the difference in square footage would be? Scott said around 300 square feet. The existing square footage is 1,088 square feet and the new measurement is 1,366. We have the increase because we are retaining an existing piece of play equipment that will be integrated into the current layout. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. Annie Rector, property manager of 525 Second Street, the Schilling/Lamb House which is on the National Historic Register entered a letter into the record Exhibit I I in opposition to the proposed redevelopment of the playground. The letter was approved by the owners. The Lamb house is the only residence across the park on Second Street. Triangle Park captures old time Aspen. The City wants to enlarge the square footage of the playground by 1/3. The proposed structure does not blend into the neighborhood at all. It would be an eye sore in the homeowners opinion and could be moved to where more children are living in a neighborhood year round. The owner would also like the board to reconsider removing the four dogwoods and if that isn't possible replace them with lilacs. Exhibit III — Letter from R. J. Cicero requesting that the board consider the impact on people living around Triangle Park. 2 P17 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 24, 2010 Belinda Frishman, neighbor said people are concerned about the City spending money on a tot park that is three blocks from an existing park. Some of us are concerned about safety on Second Street going around town and some are concerned about aesthetics. In 1991 the current park was put up and it was painted orange and the Parks Dept. came in and put up mugo pines. If this goes in, down goes our mugo pines. We have watched that area grow and it was natural and then it came back another time and it was a little park and another time they had taken out the lovely picnic tables and now there are new tables cemented in. Each time I talk to the Parks Dept. the comment is we just want to spruce it up a little. It is a tiny park and it is getting a lot of attention and we would prefer to leave it alone. Jack Frishman said he resents the spending of $30,000 to $37,000 when the City is laying off people when they could have spent $1,000 and satisfied everybody. It seems this is a big waste of money. Morris Nessen, neighbor asked if anyone know how much use the park gets and why is it necessary when the yellow brick school is in the neighborhood. Why would you destroy Triangle Park. It is a refreshing park. I don't think it is a nice thing to do to the City. Triangle Park will not be wonderful anymore if you are going to put more traffic there at the tip where the traffic blends from Lake Ave. and Second St. to go to the Meadows. This is a waste of your mission and is against your mission. Let us preserve Triangle Park. Triangle Park has what Aspen is. Triangle Park has a glow and is what Aspen should be. How many little toddlers are living in that vicinity? Everyone in Aspen should be selfish about preserving a little bit of green so let's do it. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman closed the public hearing. Scott said the presence or not presence of the playground is not really a topic up for debate for this evening. If these members of the public feel strongly they should go to City Council and advocate that position as to the removal of the play station entirely from Triangle Park. The contract is less than $21,000 and we had a budget of $26,000. Michael asked if it is possible to replace the dogwoods with some lilac bushes and still accomplish the goal of creating an opening. 3 P18 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 24, 2010 Scott said if the direction from HPC is to keep the view obscured into the park that is fine then I would suggest that we do nothing but I wouldn't . suggest that we replace a smaller shrub with a larger shrub given the way the guidelines are written to encourage visibility into the space. Michael asked if the picnic tables could be more of an appropriate scale and taken out of the cement. Scott said the standard log style picnic tables are there and they are set on a flagstone paving and the intent that they are not movable is because they are heavy and sometime things have a tendency to disappear. Michael also asked if a determination could be made on the increased usage with the new equipment. Scott said we are replacing a one to one ration and we are not promoting a bigger playground. We don't have a document on the usage but people do use that space. Michael informed the public that the HPC doesn't consider other policy issues as to whether it is appropriate for play equipment here and we don't consider having purview over budgetary issues. We have two questions in front of us today: 1. Change in the play equipment and whether it is consistent with our preservation guidelines. 2. Are the changes in the landscaping appropriate. Anything else would have to be brought up to City Council. Jay asked if the Yellow Brick had a public play area? Scott said there is a tot lot but it is associated with the child care services. Jay said increased traffic was mentioned but I go there three times a week and there doesn't seem to be increased traffic. Jason inquired about the user group for Triangle Park. Scott said the City has a variety of playgrounds around town. Most are geared for older children 5 to 12 years old. We don't have any other than this particular space for tot lots. There is a new park, Harmony Park at Burlingame for 2 to 5 year olds. We are trying to maintain the character of what is there. Mary Ryerson raised private money for what is there currently in the park in 1991 and there is a memorial plaque in memory of 4 P19 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 24, 2010 her son John Casey Ryerson. The fact that the park is quiet and removed is a strong benefit for the park. Jason asked if there was an outreach to the neighborhood. Scott said there was a public meeting late Sept. with three wide scale options to start the dialogue and do something that is minimal as possible. We intend to have a second public meeting April 7 in a public forum. The design was developed with a RFP and we passed along comments from the public and the HPC. Out of four proposals the A 1 criteria was that the playground needed to be made out of wood as much as possible. Morris Nessen, neighbor said he looked at the Yellow Brick and it is not a thing of beauty. Triangle Park is a thing of beauty. Jay said at the work session he asked about a custom park and it was three times the cost. It would be cool if the neighborhood could raise money for a custom park. Scott said the design is specific to this spot and you would not find the design in a playground equipment book. Jamie suggested the Parks Dept. minimize the amount of plastic and have the posts the same color as the wood. Scott said they have tried to do that and they could make the posts for the swing set the same color as the wood. Jamie clarified that the speak through pipes are an added feature. Scott said they would contribute to the overall play value of the space. They are like two cans between strings. Michael suggested a discussion occur as to whether the City should be allowed to increase the play area and replace the existing play equipment with the proposed new equipment. Jay said the increased play area is the youth zone requirements that go with each piece of play equipment. Scott said basically six feet of clearance around each piece of equipment has to occur. Jay said today's standards are not safe. Jason said 272 square feet is about a 'A increase. The visual impacts are more of a concern than the square footage. 5 P20 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 24, 2010 Michael said by bringing the climber piece into the consolidated space and to accommodate something that is required by the codes we really don't have much of a choice. 300 square feet is not that big of an area. Brian said in general this is one of the few parks I am able to bring my 2 year old daughter too. I understand everything that the neighbors are saying about the value of this park. There is a home grown feeling as to what exists there now. The Parks Dept. has done their best in consolidating the equipment and in keeping a low profile of the park and I can stand behind their recommendations. Michael said he is in .favor of pocket parks in general. To bring a 2 %z year old into this neighborhood brings vibrancy and it is a benefit rather than a detriment. It is a great way to integrate the city. Jamie said she would recommend that any additional equipment should be removed and make this an extremely low profile structure and remove more of the add on plastic features because they are not historic. The drum sets and talk through should be reserved for larger parks. Brian also agreed that we need to minimize the plastic and keep the park in the character of the neighborhood. Brian also mentioned that the current play area is not void of plastic. Scott said the talk tubes are made out of metal and the prime mission here is to have the maximum play value to our user group. Taking things away compromises the play quality. Jamie said she is looking at the park purely from an aesthetical historical point of view. My thought is to keep it as neutral as possible and why ad the drums which could cause more noise. Landscape issues: Jay said the trees create shade for the park and the children using the park. Jamie said the 4 dogwoods are being removed so that we have more access to the park. The mugo pines are being removed because they are damaged and are hazard trees. Is there a particular size you are recommending for the cottonwoods and ash trees. 6 P21 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 24, 2010 Scott said the species selected are fast growing but HPC could suggest a size. Jason said the effort to make shade makes sense. With the removal of the mugo pines it will visually open up the park. With the addition of the ash and cottonwood trees it will break down the mass of the swing set. The ash trees will help make the play yard feel smaller. Jason said he can support the changes. Scott said the mugo's are going away to open up the park and they will not be replaced. Brian said the replacement of the ash makes good sense. If the dogwoods are removed they should be replaced with cotton woods. Brian said he is struggling with opening up the park. When the mugo pines are removed it would be recommended that the Parks Dept. work with the neighborhood to replace them with something that has a little less profile but provides screening. MOTION: Jamie moved to approve Resolution #4 for Triangle Park playground with the landscaping as proposed. Staff and monitor to work with the Park Dept. to look at the size of the proposed ash and cottonwoods to make sure that they are mature and not young. Approval of the removal of the mugo pines and dogwoods. Regarding the play equipment we approve the moving of the timber climber to increase the square footage of the overall play space to the minimum that it needs to increase to. The green colored caps (everything in green) should be a different shade so that it is not so contrasting. Staff and monitor and Parks Department to look at the drums to see if they are being added or not. Scott said it is likely that they will be replaced with something else. Jamie recommended that staff and monitor review what the drums will be replaced with. Motion second by Jay. Discussion: Brian clarified that the motion does not indicate any replacements of the mugo pines. P22 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 24, 2010 Jason suggested that the Parks Dept. work with the neighborhood regarding screening. Michael disagreed. The play equipment is much more muted than the equipment that was installed in 1991. The visual impacts are not as great. Jay said he feels the park should not be screened. Brian said we talk about trees etc. being added to soften the facade of houses and why is this any different. They are removing the mugo pines and there could be something else put in their place that is a lower profile that would provide a certain amount of screening. Jason said the visual connection is important. Jamie said because the area of the playground is increasing those mugo pine locations would be moved no matter what. Michael said the question is whether there is a need to create a visual buffer from the rest of the park to the play area. Jason said it doesn't sound like that is the Parks Dept. intent to screen the park. If screening occurred it would be on the perimeter of the park not in the middle of the park. Opening the park up visually is something that is important. You want to be able to walk through the West End and see places where you want to go. Michael said there is not enough support to amend the motion. Motion will be as stated by Jamie. Jason pointed out that we are dealing with children and the equipment has to be safe. Aesthetically I am not in favor of this equipment but that is what is on the market and there is limited equipment available. Motion carried 4 -1. Roll call vote: Michael, yes; Jamie, yes; Jay, yes; Jason, yes; Brian, no. Belinda Frishman asked how we got to this state. The neighbors were called to a meeting and we were given a choice of three. There was no choice to let the park alone. It was a fait - accompli. There wasn't that much outreach. 8 P23 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 24, 2010 Michael explained that the neighbors can do an appeal. Amy explained that the appeal needs to be based on information that the HPC had acted improperly not that they disagreed with the project concept. 630 E. Hyman, Crandall Building — Final Review, Public Hearing Exhibit I — Revised Elevations John Rowland, Architect Amy relayed that when conceptual was awarded that locked in the massing aspects of the project including the placement and height of the third floor. The spider webs will be retained and the second floor window on the east facade has been removed from the conceptual approval. On the penthouse the applicant showed a minimal eave overhang on the Spring Street side of the building. At conceptual they were asked to revisit that again for final. The location of the glass railing on the Third floor was six inches away from the back side of the parapet and it has been pulled in a little further. HPC needs to consider the more the upper floor deck space approaches the edge of the building the more potential there is for things to pop up on the roof. That is not necessarily a bad thing but it might interfere with the two story quality of the original building and its character. There was also a condition to look at bringing natural light into the building and that is not possible for a number of reasons including building code issues. The circular window on the front facade is open right now and the applicant proposed that it be closed and staff is asking that it be an operable window. Staff suggested that it be restudied and the applicant has proposed a revision that maintains the sense of the horizontal lines cutting through the window on the front facade. Regarding landscaping there are only two small areas but the applicant would also like to deal with the right -of -way. The applicant can work with the Parks Department regarding the crabapple trees in the right -of -way which is out of HPC purview. We also need clarification of the exterior lighting. On the south facade there is a wide opening where you walk into the courtyard and onto the main staircase. The staircase is being moved and staff is suggesting that there be careful thought about how much that space gets closed in. On the far West side is the main access that will take you to the third floor and staff is suggesting that the door not be a recessed door and that it align with the adjacent storefronts. On the rear facade of the building 9 P24 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 24, 2010 the proposal of windows should be as close as possible to Benton's original design. Materials: They are planning to add wood siding on the rear facade of the second floor. Staff recommends approval of the project with conditions. Mitch Haas, Haas Planning Mitch went through the conditions of conceptual. The spider panels have been retained on the ground floor and we have eliminated the window on the second floor of the east facade. On the eave depth we originally had it the same as the drawing in the packet. The concern was the east facade that it would be more visible from the street level; however, if you bring it back out it would create a larger shadow line over the third floor addition to further obscure it. There would be a trade off, if you bring it closer to the street and therefore being more visible from below or creating the shadow line effect to reduce the overall perceived mass of the third floor. The applicant is proposing to create the shadow line. John Rowland, architect We are proposing to align the store front of the egress fire access as well as opening up the recessed entry of the current opening. This would widen the opening back to the original width as staff recommended. Mitch said it was recommended to restudy the railing on the third floor. It was slid back on both sides. John said the railing was moved back 12 inches and then another additional six inches. Mitch said bringing natural light from the third floor into the courtyard is largely impractical. It also created building code issues. We looked at fiber optic lighting but it was extremely expensive. There is no practical solution. We will use interior lighting to make it look like natural lighting. John said we will have unique interior lighting in the floor of the third level. It will be a cool detail as you walk into the space. Mitch said it was recommended to install an operable or removable window in the round opening on the south facade. We looked at a removable window but the opening is quite large and it would be too heavy and 10 P25 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 24, 2010 cumbersome and impractical to try to remove the thing. We went with an operable window to match the windows on the east facade. The bottom portion on all the round windows is operable. Staff wanted to make sure the feeling of the horizontal Benton art work was carried through. Amy explained that Benton had circles with horizontal bisects and possibly it should be reflected in the new window. Mitch said we will also have some of the Benton art work on the walls. Mitch explained that the landscape area is very small and we will be subject to what the Parks Dept. has to say and perhaps it should be handled with staff and monitor. Mitch said on the exterior lighting there is very little proposed, pretty much what exists on the two flanks and nothing on the east facade. We are hoping that it can be staff and monitor only. John said they will restudy the ground floor entries store fronts. We will remove the mullions from the windows on the rear facade. Materials: John explained that the fascia and soffit material will be a galvanized aluminum. To compliment that we are proposing metal clad windows and doors like a dark zinc on the third floor level. Currently the lower level is red cedar siding and it has wear and tear and there is patch work all around. The stain that is on will be difficult to match. The other problem is that we would like to bring the building back to the original color. We would like to remove the second floor horizontal siding but not the lower level. Anymore sanding and blasting will deteriorate the boards. If we leave it as is, we will have to do a full bodied stain. Mitch said we would be replacing different boards and ending up with different colors. John said the siding would look a lot cleaner and lighter if it was replaced. We would not be replacing the spider webbing only the second floor. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. 11 P26 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 24, 2010 Michael went over the conditions: 1. Redesign the storefront configuration of the south facade to retain the two spider web panels. Jason said his concern is the panel next to the egress. John said we could sneak a break of glass in if need be. Brian agreed that the far side (west) should be more opened up as Jason suggested. It would allow interaction with the streetscape. Jamie said her concern are the panels next to the spider webs. Visually it makes it feel "blocky ". • John said they can approximately a 24 inch glass panel. Jay and Jamie agreed that the spider webs should remain. Jamie said we will keep the spider web panels and the two panels on either side of the opening are going to be glass and we will have glass next to the west double door and there is going to be another material, not CMU added to be reviewed by staff and monitor. 2. Restudy or remove the proposed new window on the east facade, upper floor. That window has been removed. 3. Restudy the eave depth on the east facade of the rooftop addition, to possibly provide a greater shadow line. Mitch said the south side has a four foot depth. John said we can do a two foot eave on the east side and use a darker material. 4. Restudy the location of the railing for the third floor deck. Jamie said the railing is frameless and it was pulled back 12 inches and back another six inches. 5. Consider creating a way to bring natural light through the third floor unit and into the courtyard. Michael said according to the applicant there is no solution. Jason said the spaces in side will be a lot different without the natural light. 6. Install an operable or removable window in the round opening of the south facade. Jason said interesting the round windows on the east side did not have any kind of divider. John said they tried to mimic the existing windows. Michael said he would like to see horizontal elements which would be three. 7. Landscape plan to be approved by staff and monitor. Jason said he likes the zero landscaping. Brian said given the small amount of landscaping that the applicant has, purview over the plan can be approved by staff and monitor. 12 P27 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 24,2010 8. Exterior lighting. Michael said the applicant will use exterior lighting the same as the existing. 9. Fenestration: Jason said the larger windows as proposed tonight are appropriate. The tall vertical windows with no horizontal division on. the north windows. 10.Materials: Jason clarified that the roof overrun material is galvanized aluminum. Jamie said her concern is taking off the horizontal wood. If you do that it will not look historic. It is a building that we are trying to preserve not replace. Jay also said it is inappropriate to replace the material. Jason said guideline 2.1says retain existing materials. John said we will just have to go with a solid body stain. Jason said sand blasting is the most harsh way you can do it and I would not recommend it. The "sunburned" building is distinguishing. John Olson said this building is different and some of the wood is 40 years old and some not. Michael said there should be a technique that could be used. John Olson, contractor said the only option we have is hand sanding it and get it as smooth as possible. You would still have to have a solid body stain in order to get it to look like it originally did. John said the lower floor is a different wood. Michael said the wood needs to be retained and it looks like a solid body stain will be used. Jamie said the renderings look like a brand new building and that it doesn't have historic integrity and I would caution staff and the monitor to be careful of those materials so that it doesn't get too sleek with what we are trying to preserve and that we do keep its integrity. John R. said they can have the solid body stain pick up more of what is existing. MOTION: Jason moved to approve Reso. #5 for 630 E. Hyman with the following conditions: Entry facade on the south side to retain the spider web patterns, all other materials to be glass or equivalent. 13 P28 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 24, 2010 Upper east cave to be pushed back two feet. On the north facade no horizontal division in the windows. Original siding on the second story to remain. Circular window on the south to be retained (3 original horizontal mullions) Landscaping to be approved by staff and monitor. Railing on the third floor be pushed back as proposed. Wood siding to wrap around the north facade on the second floor as proposed. Exterior lighting to be approved by staff and monitor. • Motion second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried 5 -0. Jason and Jamie are the monitors. Motion: Michael moved to adjourn; second by Jamie, All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. �,t Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 14 Air la P 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: - Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 220 and 230 E. Main Street, The Cortina Lodge Historic Landmark Designation Public Hearing DATE: October 13, 2010 SUMMARY: The Cortina Lodge is in the same ownership as the Hotel Jerome, who uses the property for employee housing. When the Hotel Jerome was reviewed for an expansion and PUD amendment in 2007, the hotel owners proposed an upgrade to The Cortina property by gutting the inside of the building an reconfiguring the living units into a dormitory format. HPC reviewed the exterior changes because the property is in the Main Street Historic District, however HPC could not require specific preservation measures because The Cortina was not designated historic. As part of the 2007 Council approval, a condition was established that before the owners of the Hotel Jerome could act on the plans for the hotel site, they had to submit an application for voluntary designation of The Cortina. This is the reason for the review before HPC. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff appreciates the applicant's willingness to voluntarily designate this building. We find the criteria are met for Historic Designation are met. APPLICANT: Jerome Ventures, LLC, represented by Poss Architecture and Planning. PARCEL ID: 2737 - 073 -20 -707. ADDRESS: 220 and 230 E. Main Street, Lots P and Q, Block 73, City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: LP, Lodge Preservation. HISTORIC DESIGNATION 26.415.030.B. Criteria. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. The significance of 20 century properties like The Cortina Lodge is evaluated according to the following criteria: 1 P30 A property or district is deemed significant as a representation of Aspen's 20th Century history, was constructed in whole or in part more than thirty (30) years prior to the year in which the application for designation is being made, possesses sufficient integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association and is related to one (1) or more of the following: a. An event, pattern or trend that has made a significant contribution to local, state, regional or national history, b. People whose specific contribution to local, state, regional or national history is deemed important and the specific contribution is identified and documented, or c. A physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction or represents the technical or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman or design philosophy that is deemed important. Staff Finding: The City of Aspen building permit files contain limited information about the original construction date for the buildings on the subject property. They are believed to have been constructed in the 1950s, initially as two one story cabins built of machine cut logs. Staff sent a photograph of the log profile to the Pan Abode company, who stated that neither the American or Canadian factories supplied these logs. In the mid 1960s, Lou Wille, then owner of the property which was called Aspen Court, received a building permit for an expansion, designed by local modernist Rob Roy. Much of Rob Roy's work in Aspen reflected chalet style influences, which he appears to have brought to this lodge building as well. Work completed at that time included an addition at the front of the eastern building, and a second floor on the eastern building. No other alterations, aside from basic maintenance, are known to have occurred since that time. The Hotel Jerome acquired the property in the 1980s, which by then had been renamed The Cortina, and began using it to house their employees. HPC is asked to make a recommendation to City Council as to whether or not the property meets the designation criteria. Staff finds that Criteria A and C are met. Though the site has been converted to year round housing, it represents one of the few remaining examples of the small lodges that characterized Aspen's early ski years. It was designed as a motor court, like the Swiss Chalets (L'Auberge) on Main Street, and Waterman Cabins on the S Curves, which have been demolished. The building is constructed of machine cut logs and the City has recently completed an updated historic context paper which demonstrates how common and significant this type of construction was in the 1950s, when both building supplies and contractors were in short supply here. The log construction is also important to the imagery of Aspen as a rustic mountain retreat. The 1960s remodel of the building reflects Chalet influences that were important to town as well. The renaming of the building after the Cortina ski area in Italy, which hosted the 1956 Winter Olympics, may illustrate Aspen's postwar eagerness to compete with the more established European ski resorts and appeal to tourists. 2 P31 The second component of designation is scoring the physical integrity of the building. Staff's score sheet is attached as Exhibit A. The property is challenging to score because it reflects two architectural influences, and the building is currently under construction for a remodel that alters some features. Over the years this property has really suffered from deferred maintenance, however it is very intact in terms of the appearance of the building during its original period of construction. Some replacement of materials is critical to bring the building up to current standards. In general staff finds the changes that are underway replicate, or are very close to historic conditions. The most significant alteration, where points have been deducted, is the reconfiguration and replacement of windows and doors. The HPC may: • approve the application, • approve the application with conditions, • disapprove the application, or • continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC support Council approval of Historic Landmark Designation as proposed. Exhibits: Resolution #_, Series of 2010 A. Integrity Scoring Sheet B. Application • 3 P32 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 220 AND 230 E. MAIN STREET, THE CORTINA LODGE, LOTS P AND Q, BLOCK 73, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION # SERIES OF 2010 PARCEL ID: 2737 - 073 -20 -707 WHEREAS, the applicant, Jerome Ventures, LLC, represented by Poss Architecture and Planning, has applied for Historic Landmark Designation for the property located at 220 and 230 E. Main Street, Lots P and Q, Block 73, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.050 of the Aspen Municipal Code establishes the process for Designation and states that an application for listing on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures shall be approved if City Council, after a recommendation from HPC, determines sufficient evidence exists that the property meets the criteria; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report to HPC dated October 13, 2010, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards had been met, and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on October 13, 2010, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, the staff memo and public comments, and found the application consistent with the review standards and recommended approval to City Council by a vote of to NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby recommends Council approval of Historic Landmark Designation for the property located at 220 and 230 E. Main Street, Lots P and Q, Block 73, City and Townsite of Aspen. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 13th day of October, 2010. Sarah Broughton, Chair Approved as to Form: Jim True, Special Counsel ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk P33 INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT- RUSTIC Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance. • • LOCATION Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. 5 - The structure is in its original location. 3 - The structure has been moved within the original site but still maintains the original alignment and proximity to the street. 0 -The structure has been moved to a location that is dissimilar to its original site. STAFF SCORE:5 TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 5) = 5 • DESIGN Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. BUILDING FORM 10 -The original plan form, based on authenticating documentation, is still intact. 6 - The plan form has been altered, but the addition would meet the design guidelines. 0 - Alterations and/or additions to the building are such that the original form of the structure is obscured. STAFF SCORE: 10 ROOF FORM 10 -The original roof form is unaltered. 6 - Additions have been made that alter roof form that would meet the current design guidelines. 0 - Alterations to the roof have been made that obscure its original form. STAFF SCORE: 10 (The roof is being rebuilt to address structural conditions.) SCALE 5 - The original scale and proportions of the building are intact. 3 - The building has been expanded but the scale of the original portion is intact and the addition would meet the design guidelines. 0 - The scale of the building has been negatively affected by additions or alterations. 9 P34 STAFF SCORE: 5 DOORS AND WINDOWS 10 The original door and window pattern are intact. 8- Some of the doors and windows are new but the original openings are intact. 4- More than 50% of the doors or windows have been added and/or the original opening sizes have been altered. 0- Most of the original door and window openings have been altered. STAFF SCORE: 0 CHARACTER - DEFINING FEATURES /SPARE QUALITY OF THE DESIGN 10- The form and features that define the Rustic style are intact. There is an overall sense of simplicity. Window and door openings and decorative features are spare. 5- There are minor alterations to the form and features that define the Rustic style. 0- There have been major alterations to the form and features that define the Rustic style. STAFF SCORE: 8 (The property is a combination of rustic style features and chalet style features.) TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 45) = 33 • SETTING Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. 5- The physical surroundings are similar to that found when the structure was originally constructed. 3 -There are minor modifications to the physical surroundings. 0- The physical surroundings detract from the historic character of the building. STAFF SCORE: 5 (There is a new structure next to the Cortina, but it was constructed in the more dense, tourist accommodation/commercial district that still surrounds the property today.) TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 5) = 5 • MATERIALS Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. P35 EXTERIOR SURFACES 15- The original exterior wall materials (log, wood siding, and stone) and the decorative trim materials are intact 10- There have been minor changes to the original combination of exterior wall materials and the decorative trim materials, but the changes have been made in a manner that conforms with the design guidelines. 5- There have been major changes to the original combination of exterior wall materials and the decorative trim materials. 0- All exterior materials have been removed or replaced. STAFF SCORE: 10 (Some materials are being replaced to match where repair is needed.) DOORS AND WINDOWS 10 -All or most of the original doors and windows units are intact. 5- Some of the original door and window units have been replaced but the new units would meet the design guidelines. 0- Most of the original door and window units have been replaced with units that would not meet design guidelines. STAFF SCORE: 3 (Most of the window and door units are being replaced, but would meet the design guidelines.) TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 25) =13 • WORKMANSHIP Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. DETAILING AND ORNAMENTATION/HAND -BUILT CHARACTER OR IMITATION OF HAND -BUILT CHARACTER 15- The original detailing is intact. The building is built from locally available materials and exhibits evidence of handwork, or is attempting to do so if mass produced. 10- There have been some alterations of loss of the original detailing or handwork character. 5- Detailing is discemible such that it contributes to an understanding of its stylistic category. 0- New detailing has been added that confuses the character of the original structure. 0- The detailing is gone. STAFF SCORE: 15 P36 FINISHES & COLOR SCHEME 5- The natural finishes and color scheme that define the Rustic style are intact 3- There have been minor alterations to the natural finishes and color scheme that define the Rustic style. 2- There have been substantial alterations to the natural finishes and color scheme that define the Rustic style. STAFF SCORE: 5 TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 20) = 20 MAXIMUM NUMBER OF POINTS= 100 MINIMUM THRESHOLD FOR DESIGNATION= 75 POINTS Note: Each area of the integrity analysis includes a description of the circumstances that might be found and a point assignment. However the reviewer may choose another number within the point range to more accurately reflect the specific property. STAFF SCORE: 76 points 4 P3 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: We -cycle DATE: October 13, 2010 SUMMARY: Locals Mirte Mallory and Phillip Jeffries have met with City Council to discuss the installation of self service bike rental kiosks at some downtown locations. Their for - profit green business concept requires Council approval if it is placed on public property. Two of the possible locations being evaluated are in the historic district. HPC is asked to consider whether there is any impact on the historic district that should be addressed. a P. B J W: Lill AZ LLJ CI u, ¢ 0 LU CI- Z 7744111 CU Y Y Y w Q v) Z w Lu w I— w < t ) 0 C/- Q U Q.- Z = z C4 CO \ Q Q Z W \ Q w Ce U \ 0 w Y 1 ° 0 Q ¢ w ce . "' S 0- QL Cr) = w <' r CL-. LLI .� Cr) O Q { �- = F_ Q 0 0 0 U U ce 0 0 ,,....) Aln) cn CP$° c Pu3 c °—' 0 t iftV gil D , 15 �e o �4 a� �- 3 �eulBup o 0 m �a c c -n co i i._Z ®- y 2 O j H Ulad s t . - Q — -G ro ` i�� 4 v r � . c6 as j_ '. . C 4:. JA1w1H 3 ,:, le .j - gg °EV o fl3 --- _ ) C..0 & Ct� © lualeD c /DO E3 t L .. d 4 a Sj f 0 co 4 - .. ____, _ 4. „ • .P' lt4C:j".R° Q Q ' m c t- C Q C u ■ Q t •4 f� ' C Yj i V d m yo ' • :;i7 9 O O C a) a) a) `>-- C/1 c °� = tr C..) is L m i co �– a) uJ P39 Q CD 4,/ C c .J t a 1 :Dim% --..:.—* ' \''t 7 1 - c _ 4� ,CL) CQ.:..)) i i A Z Q) s U U Jo .'. • �� 96 - - (..f_ O rs 8 o i 2 e C a _ _ - - R�M_i N 2 (::) � s Z 0 ' L 'c g = Fi,1 5 t,:1 3' ti E E' i � , _ �,� �� _ 0 eg • "� .t s m — 2 s c r .. ;, S 1 — N a 1 — �, N _ ° 0. 4y r ----14, ' ? _ u 3 s = ► N c - F- — 101 > i . ; . ? ) = 4 r aD$a o n v c° 5. n8`a * - * ` i W € � s0 2 U = U. [y 2 0 0 AL P 4 0 CL: .. cn w .. S t:.i.. , 6 9. • . , _ , .., 44 CI. . $ ...„-:,,, ,.. .I f,„. __..., .... • ' co) , . • ,,, I til . 1 1b . / ,i it, 46 ek, Oi ,../ ,. , Ctv • ' , '••••••;...., 1./.. 2■11 4 — (..,-- gift, 0 , - • • :, .. _ . : .. (11) • f : . "'-' I /.** : Ot/) a. - . ..--. ,...„ • 1 - -.LI: 4 @. • . "-. i i. . . ...-.. , - ... , . Q..] ...... ; _ . 0 ... _ . . . . . 1 i . . . - 14. ' '''' 1--- 1 . . ----•• > , - .„ 3.1.L.1 1Z tY . , . , illr ik) . „. . . . ._ ,.. ' . •-• . ', - . 4 *., 0 '... • . ' iihib_.,,, i f '4i% ` ' ••••• ; • • . . I-. ... . . ) •) 1 i ..: .,.....------ it . _ • ^-11111111.W , '.---„ : r • - . . ., . • , .. _,. ''s.......... • Ar „..._... . F \ . , 411111111451%._ LL1 , - U... 7... r :. - 1.1.■ • 1- . '' ' ' ...- ,41J • ' -' • , ....., " + 0 l' ' .7 # 1 . 4 ..• • ,:, -t ..-• . , •0 tO • 'V' 4 •--- . , - . . . •__. • Y) II - • , -'`'. • - '! •..i •I ' s e".- - ..- - , a : , • eit '.N',' . — i bk 0 - . - - ' . - ' - - . - ;" --- - - - --- '''''----' C•1 a- - , -'°44i.._ , - • , u.J -4t.:'''' - - .ftatigle,L.,...-. -: 1.-- • • , • . -- • -' '- . -...:. ,. - tit , ..• -.4_, ,....-44--, ‘.- , - - - • - - - • • v i • I -.4 • --- _ -,^ ' , :.e ;• - z_ :,-' ... f . • ' • - - - r '. . -":2--- - . -..--•''' -' '.. - - • - - - ••••-' ••''' ....,:' .• • - .. -' . -,-, ••---....:: . - . ' : - - • -••■X, - • • 7 ' ••• • '''' - 41 ',. t r •'• . 1 .4' ‘.. * ' . '. ' . ' ‘• - - - • ••-•-n;.•; i -- .- - •-•••• • . .P.- -."- :'-.'-' - : -- ' ' ' -4-_,, = .,.--..,..-,:,.\.::.._.-,:- ,... . _ . . ...._. .... ifil , - - -N, - - - VI — i 7 - ..Y: .: : .c.,---.....-:'' -- ' . :L---' . ' • 3 :' - -- t - , - .40 ,air• t:- .. :. .• ,...... .. „..! I . - - • -. i . .:,:..,.:- ti- 1 - -- _ ....__.. . "A$C - • --. — • ., . . • 2 �,, P41 / �1� .. ` `� 1. ` iltirp-) ® I iii J 4 t mrial k i 4 >+ V e.� Q F . . LLI 1,&-jp tag- ... - 0 a t e i Alcv, _Ir z • •y'' Q 1. ' fi e ' , _ � ; ;,�`.'., 4Vi - ' i. 0 r -�� q ' \ St c 4 _ CO . r .•. N .� ` z �F� ms's ,'��: - - - . : a.. .ft .:R y S. ,r i ns l i "1.' , _ . C \I (3 a. Lu v ■ ° V) P42 W .,may: ' O.; i T r + R 1 1 ..- -- .i , j ... __ a) , 13. 1 _ 0 ...... . .': 4 - : , tit, .... • q.._,J) 2 . 4 U.) :*" .r j., , a : x j i,, r I W . W I . ,•• 4 *; . cgs — • itl . - ':r 57. aC . 0 i ...'. 4 .4 4 .1, ' .... ‘ .. : v ,,...„ it., lit 1 3 `•' • 'i c • X -.4, N . 1 37te 1— .4,,s,....-.._„.. , ., .: _ ; .,-c,„-- -..-_, 3.,..--1. 0 W P43 CO CU , .:* .>, , - All. p _,. . . , .. . „,..., .e L , . s. a .. . R • - ' . 's: ;.. .... �+ .. - o 40 -,= .' iv s ' Q CI, , tr °g *. .-.7-. 74 Ccl.),) 15 le 7 , N q .. Z V. / - . w 4 , 4 i t U 3 o a 1 • ' i■ Ii IE � � --. 4 o ......... , ..1-3.31.1,,... . ' • , .� _ 0 ce ' IF: 1. N =te r: = �' - R' - r U—I • I I �f ( litiji I ' .. ° 'P A, Z l• • r� x .. ,r s• t cC • i �Ci,: d VII) Z 4ii ',.i. V ' T fi r ; ` 'i z , _ J IL6... P44 _ O.; VIP*: CA; < = • - t - 40 / . .,.. k .ft", - ,, ..--;\ ': ..• f'4 .,., t. 41' i la .. .:_ ,... • .,• • ., •• ( en ti. 4., t 4 ,J CU • •• e 0 .. '• • 1‘ - . • . .- ist it . 1 • Clit • _ , rn 1 11.2 , , FAV ff:71i , t - 'it..-' ..... ,„ t, ,... .. 1 I IR_ . . : ' 11 • 4. (.1...: .. .,, ,.. -• .,. a. .At -., _ ... .... . crk ..._ __• - . . E ...--g >- -A -I -.. I t■ ''•• 111 H . i • . -- !",,‘,,, 0 ' 4 ., e • _ ,.. ' ava - - i C) • . .0:0..--... _ .. 0 -...• ,i,,i, ..-, . .0 . l.... .. •'.--‘ l', • 4 ' • VI ..,, -'• • ■ ...1 ar• „ . - ''. ' • . O , ‘ '• 11111 :.:- • • , • . I , , I 1 1 i) ', , 1 • - , f . '1 a ... - : r - ,... ,..., c.,) 0, „.., cx. 0 • -. 7 ' - .. • . 1 ... -1) , . , C? ti .• 7 • :: li .. i - ..,„ A Li .. -•- A r4 ' ;• . 1 ..4". 1 r74* itrk.Tis: . • . _,,, ..■ P 1-4 I : • . - • , met . L.10 . .. • . . • 7 •1 1 11 14 ...S' i 1 Il' & ,„ , ... ....i 1 i lls . • . , , . ( . aillitimiaiwitisolo , ._: I 4.--....L7 . . - ,.. _ . • ._ .. ".........,,,h4 ••••• , - ;" •.. ,,, ., , - 4 ' . draThji Illealp 1 •14Z .. . i ' / . .......V. ' 4: • ...° . ... I , . CO 4%, 114 .--..'!.., •• , allift , . • - - _ • . r.;. : .... • 'I' . . ^ :511.. . ... , • . - . . . .., C•1 . . - ., ..... • .133,y is c „,. ...w . LL.1 qdg , i-- 1 . • ifii If 01 ' ... 77 11 ir t r. i‘,., • ,, . ,. . , -- :1 7 E ! -,1 • .. ;. , es a_ • ' 1 :% 1 • , 1 I/ LI-I I . . " Zd , I .. ' V) . . . I 0 MI La P 4 5 vl = . . it GE: - • .47 oor... • 4 11% ... ::. • - I 4410 - H., • . __ _ ...c. .. 1 CU x , t■,. c - ,...-.., , • 01) 4 , I Ifia 1 c • 4 k . - , 1 /. .. . . ' ' ■ i Iis . - !''. :— t . —a - . .. A --. Y (Jo :• . ........ I >,„ . ..f.. . , \ , .... ,, ,•,. , . 4 , !I. , t4e 3... - . ..-- '' •• --4 -. — 4 ■ 1 `; ., . . )- ': . 4 . i atl i ..2 . 1 1111114161t-' .,.., . 41111 Viali/O Piktr — , L--- !ailitifit -.............L.. -... 1 . . :. ,,--... - .. . ,..• .or , , :111( ' . • ' •••• ' ; I. - - . .... ; . ■ i • . . k . Z (De i1 1 0 . . I .. -.0 . . . . t . , . ,. ' • . - ' ''l . • - . *-. ,, ... . . I .1:Sai . COM . ... ■ . 441kv f ir . . • • . . , - • . , . . % . 4... I - . •, i . , _ . , . LI-J an = 1 , • • , .:.4-.., • , , . . , . . . . ... 1111 , -i::- - - .r • ,,„ _ -111.,...; ea f - . - . Z : . • - 18*. •0 CO ‘4 tii. ... ... 4 f -I • . +' . ..., ..... _ _ .. . . iii- . ...,...'a.:. ,,-;.1: • . , .1 - . . . .........-- c-..., I- • rt . ‘,...:: ' .:•• ,, , • ,443, ..,.. . '_ . Z T '' - • t... t:' • f ,... i - .. 0_ ' "cr LIJ • = .% , .1... • , •• T W I 1/ . .. . 1 . LLJ la C . I .J" Ut . ., I I :-. i .. - i \\ , . - - P46 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Proposed Amendments to the Historic Preservation Ordinance DATE: October 13, 2010 SUMMARY: City Council adopted Ordinance #48, Series of 2007, nearly three years ago. The purpose of the ordinance was to identify postwar era properties in Aspen that may be considered "Potential 1 : ' 1 ; Historic Resources" and to create a system to encourage their ,, preservation. Ordinance #48 was intended to be replaced or improved upon. t. • Council appointed the Historic Preservation Task Force to examine j alternatives and make policy recommendations. Their work was completed in October 2009. Since that time s t a f f has met with Council to receive direction and H I S T O R I C feedback on the development of two new historic context papers. The P R E S E R V A T I O N context papers, completed this month, were commissioned in order to gather additional research and documentation of Aspen's 20 century development history. During the course of the summer, the City also hosted a program called AspenModern at the invitation of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. This program involved public outreach and input, and provided the City with additional professional guidance and mentorship from an organization that is working around the country to encourage communities to address their postwar heritage. In August 2010, staff presented Council with a proposed action plan for a new preservation ordinance. Council directed staff to bring an ordinance to public hearing by the end of this year. Council also indicated that, given numerous concepts for how the ordinance might be structured relative to postwar properties, their strong preference is that designations be voluntary only. Attached are proposed amendments to the existing historic preservation regulations. New language is underlined and red. Language that is to be eliminated is struck -out and red. Staff has highlighted particular areas where HPC may want to focus. Given the direction to retain a voluntary system, staff proposes the essence of the Ordinance #48 negotiation process remain in place for postwar properties, now termed AspenModem. No P47 changes are proposed for existing designated 19 century properties, now termed Aspen Victorian. An attempt has been made to clarify or better the AspenModern process. Many ideas from the Historic Preservation Task Force have been incorporated. Some of the Task Force's policy ideas are important, but not appropriate for inclusion in the ordinance. For instance, the Task Force recommended that the City initiate designation review for its own properties in the short term. The Task Force recommended more incentives for property owners that do not have current development plans. Many of these ideas require funding sources that don't exist at this time, however the concepts, such as fee waivers, grants for energy efficiency improvements and big picture ideas like revolving funds and purchase of life estates should not be forgotten. HPC is asked to provide comments for the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. If time allows, staff would also like to seek HPC's input at this meeting on possible amendments to the integrity scoring sheets to be used for AspenModern as well. P48 Chapter 26.415 HISTORIC PRESERVATION Sections: 26.415.010 Purpose and intent 26.415.020 Definitions 26.415.025 Potential Historic Resources Identification of historic properties 26.415.030 Designation of historic properties 26.415.040 Recordation of designation 26.415.050 Rescinding designation 26.415.060 Effect of designation 26.415.070 Development involving designated historic properties 26.415.080 Demolition of designated properties 4 26.415.090 Relocation of designated historic properties 26.415.100 Demolition by neglect 26.415.110 Benefits 26.415.120 Appeals, Council notice and call up 26.415.130 Variances by other City review bodies 26.415.140 Penalties 26.415.010. Purpose and intent. The purpose of this Chapter is to promote the public health, safety and welfare through the protection, enhancement and preservation of those properties, areas and sites, which represent the distinctive elements of Aspen's cultural, educational, social, economic, political and architectural history. Under the authority provided by the Home Rule Charter of the City and Section 29- 20- 104(c), C.R.S., to regulate land use and preserve areas of historical, architectural, archaeological, engineering and cultural importance, this Chapter sets forth the procedures to: A. Recognize, protect and promote the retention and continued utility of the historic buildings and districts in the City; B. Promote awareness and appreciation of Aspen's unique heritage; C. Ensure the preservation of Aspen's character as an historic mining town, early ski resort and cultural center; D. Retain the historic, architectural and cultural resource attractions that support tourism and the economic welfare of the community; and E. Encourage productive, economical and attractive reuse of historic structures. (Ord. No. 1- 2002, §7 [part]) P49 The City does not intend by the historic preservation program to preserve every old building, but instead to draw a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest in preserving the City's cultural, historic, and architectural heritage by ensuring that demolition of buildings and structures important to that heritage will be carefully weighed with other alternatives and that alterations to such buildings and structures and new construction will respect the character of each such setting. not by imitating surrounding structures. but by being compatible with them as defined in historic preservation guidelines. 26.415.020. Definitions. The following definitions are specific to the terms as used in this Chapter and in the field of historic preservation: Alteration. A change to an existing building, structure or feature that modifies its original appearance or construction. Certificate of appropriateness. An official form issued by the City stating that the proposed work on a designated historic property is compatible with its historic and architectural character and, therefore, the work may be completed as specified in the certificate and the City may issue any permits needed to do the work specified in the certificate. Certificate of demolition approval. An official form issued by the City authorizing the issuance of a demolition permit for a designated historic property or for a building or structure located in a designated historic district. Certificate of economic hardship. An official form issued by the City, in connection with a certificate of demolition approval, that allows the demolition of a designated historic property as the owner has demonstrated that maintaining it will impose an economic hardship. Certificate of no negative effect. An official form issued by the City stating that the proposed work will have no detrimental effect on the character- defining features of a designated property and, therefore, the work may proceed as specified in the certificate without obtaining further approvals under this Chapter and the City may issue any permits needed to do the work in the specified certificate. Contributing resource. A building, site, structure or object that adds to the historic associations, historic architectural qualities or archaeological values for which a property or district is considered significant. Designated property. A property listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. Historic District. A collection, concentration, linkage or continuity of buildings, structures, sites or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. Historic context paper. Research papers that define Aspen's architectural and cultural patterns in the context of local and national history. 2 P50 Integrity. The ability of a property to convey its significance relative to the aspects of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association. Mapped property. A property which is identified on the AspenModern map that is adopted by City Council. Monitoring committee. A subcommittee appointed by the Historic Preservation Commission of up to two (2) Commission members and the Historic Preservation Officer to provide oversight in the implementation of rehabilitation. Noncontributing resource. A building, structure, site or object that does not add to the historic architectural qualities or historic associations for which a property or district is significant because it was not present during the period of significance or does not relate to the documented significance; or due to alterations, additions, disturbances or other changes, it no longer possesses historic integrity. Object. A term used to distinguish buildings and structures from those constructions that are primarily artistic in nature or small in scale and simply constructed. It may be by nature or design movable, but it is associated with a specific setting and environment. Rehabilitation. Making a building or structure sound and usable without attempting to restore it to a particular period appearance, while retaining the character - defining features. Relocation. Moving a building or structure from its original, historically significant or existing location to another location. Repair. To restore to a sound or good state after decay, dilapidation or partial destruction. Restore. The repair or recreation of the original architectural elements or features of an historic property so that it resembles an appearance it had at some previous point in time. Significance. The documented importance of a property for its contribution to or representation of broad patterns of national, regional or local history, architecture, engineering, archaeology and culture. Site. The location of a significant event, a prehistoric or historic occupation or activity or a building or structure, whether standing, ruined or vanished, where the location itself possesses historic, cultural or archaeological value regardless of the value of any existing structure. Structure. A term used to distinguish from buildings those functional constructions made for purposes other than creating human shelter. (Ord. 1- 2002, §7 [part]) 26.415.025 Potential Historic Resources Identification of historic properties A. The Community Development Director shall conduct or cause to be conducted such preliminary surveys, studies or investigations as deemed necessary or advisable to adequately inform City Council and the Historic Preservation Commission of those properties located within the City which represent Aspen's 19 and 20 century history. The Community Development Director shall memorialize the results of surveys, studies and investigations in a series of historic inventory forms, maps and historic context papers which shall be available to the public. 3 P51 B. Properties associated with Aspen's 19 century history shall be called Aspen Victorian. The City of Aspen has comprehensively identified the remaining examples of Victorian era properties in Aspen since the 1970s and nearly all have been designated by ordinance to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures and are subject to the terms of this Chapter. Any additional 19 century properties which are identified in the future may be designated if they meet the criteria of Section 26.415.030.B.1. C. Properties associated with Aspen's 20` century history shall be called AspenModern. The City of Aspen has conducted surveys to identify potential historic resources of the postwar era since the 1990s. Designation to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures as an example of AspenModern is voluntary only, at the discretion of the property owner, if the property meets the criteria of Section 26.415.030.C.1. In an effort to proactively encourage designation where appropriate, the City will identify 20` century properties that preliminarily appear to meet the designation critiera of Section 26:415.030.C.1. on the official AspenModern map that is maintained by the Community Development Department and which has been adopted by City Council. No properties shall be added to the AspenModern map unless recommended by the Historic Preservation Commission and approved by City Council as part of the adoption of a new historic context paper, or amendment to an existing historic context paper, which may only occur every 10th year, starting in 2010. Mapped properties shall be subject to a degree of protection in advance of designation, and are also eligible for certain preservation benefits without designation, as follows. 1. Ninetv -Dav Negotiation Period. In the case that the owner of a mapped property submits a land use application or building permit proposing work that the Community Development Director determines meets the definition of Major Development, Demolition or Relocation, as addressed in this Chapter, the land use application or building permit will be placed on a temporary ninety -day hold. Work undertaken in conformance with the International Building Code provisions for emergency repairs, assuming that the repair matches the surrounding exterior materials and character to the extent practicable, shall be exempt from this Section. A property owner may also enter into the ninety -day negotiation period by submitting a voluntary application for designation to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. Only complete Land Use applications or building permits. as determined by the Community Development Director, shall be accepted. Nothing herein shall prevent the City from reviewing the land use application or building permit during the ninety -day negotiation period. A letter from the property owner indicating an understanding of this ninety -day negotiation period shall accompany the land use application or building permit. The ninety -day negotiation period may be extended an additional thirty (30) days upon a resolution adopted by a majority of the Council. Within the ninety -day negotiation period, the following shall occur: 4 P52 a. The Community Development Director shall offer to meet with the property owner to discuss the City's Historic Preservation Program and development and other benefits that the property may be eligible to receive upon designation as a Historic Landmark. b. The Community Development Director shall confer with the Historic Preservation Commission, during a public meeting, regarding the proposed land use application or building permit and the nature of the property. The Historic Preservation Commission shall make an assessment of the property's conformance with the designation critiera of Section 26.415.030.C.1. and will provide City Council with an assessment of the property's physical integrity compared to related examples for Council's reference when considering appropriate preservation benefits to be awarded at the time of designation. The property owner shall be provided notice of this meeting with the Historic Preservation Commission. c. The Community Development Director shall confer with the City Council regarding the proposed land use application or building permit, the nature of the property, and the staff and Historic Preservation Commission's assessment of its historic significance and the effects of the application or building permit. The property owner shall be provided notice of this meeting with the City Council. d. The City Council may negotiate directly with the property owner or may choose to direct the Community Development Director, or other City staff as necessary, to negotiate with the property owner to reach a mutually acceptable agreement for the preservation of the property. The City Council may choose to provide this direction in Executive Session, pursuant to State Statute. As part of the mutually acceptable agreement, the City Council may approve any land use entitlement or fee waiver permitted by the Municipal Code. Properties which HPC has recommended have the highest level of significance relative to the designation criteria and integrity assessment shall receive the greatest consideration in terms of preservation benefits. When benefits are awarded as part of the negotiation, Council shall require that the property be designated as a Historic Landmark, pursuant to the standards and limitations of Section 26.415.030, Designation of Historic Properties. As part of the mutually acceptable agreement, the City Council may choose to require the affected land use application or building permit be withdrawn by the property owner. e. If, upon the passage of 90 days or any extension thereof, the City and the property owner have failed to reach a mutually acceptable agreement, affected land use applications shall be reviewed and shall be issued a Development Order upon compliance with all applicable provisions of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. Affected building permits shall be reviewed and shall be issued upon compliance with all applicable building codes. The City Council, at its sole discretion, may choose to terminate negotiations at any time and allow the land use application or building permit to be reviewed. 2. Voluntary review. Owners of mapped properties who voluntarily comply with the provisions of this chapter may proceed with approved work without making application for designation. The Community Development Director will consider waiver or reduction of 5 P53 permit fees for the subject work. If this is not achievable within the City budget, the Community Development Director will ensure that the land use application and building permit review proceed ahead of all other applications accept those associated with affordable housing and Essential Public Facilities. 3. Transferable Development Rights. Properties which are included on the AspenModern map are eligible to create and sell transferable development rights according to the provisions of Chapter 26.535 of this Code, even if they are not designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. 4. Removal from map. If, in the opinion of the Community Development Director after completion of a building permit issued pursuant to this Section, the mapped property has been demolished or so altered that it would no longer meet the critieria for designation to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, the Community Development Director shall remove the property from the AspenModern map and it will no longer be subject to the terms of this chapter. Owners of mapped properties may also appeal to the Historic Preservation Commission to be removed from the AspenModern map. Said property shall be removed if the Historic Preservation Commission, at a public hearing, determines that the designation criteria found at Section 26.415.030.C.2 are not met. A finding that the criteria are met shall not cause the property to be designated, however it will remain mapped. The determination of the Historic Preservation Commission may be appealed to City Council according to Section 26.316. If an application for removal from the map is denied, an application cannot be filed again for a period of two (2) years from the date of the denial by the HPC or City Council. The time limitation of this Subsection may be waived by a majority vote of the City Council when such action is deemed necessary to prevent injustice or to facilitate the proper development of the City. If the primary structure(s) on any property identified on the AspenModern map have been destroyed by an act of God or are otherwise declared unsafe and ordered demolished by the Chief Building Official, the property shall be removed from the map. 5. Penalties. Any owner who takes action to alter or demolish a property identified on the AspenModern map, including purposeful removal, change or damage to any exterior materials, features, portions of a building, or structural members of a building shall be subject to the penalties established in Section 26.415.140, Penalties. The Community Development Department must demonstrate to City Council, using date stamped photographs, that the exterior of the building has been altered after the adoption date of this ordinance in order to apply penalties. In addition, properties on the AspenModern map are required to receive reasonable care, maintenance and upkeep as described in Section 26.415.100, Demolition by Neglect. Repairs or minimally intrusive work permitted under Section 26.415.025.D or completed according to a Development Order or Building Permit issued by the Community Development Department, as may be required, shall not be subject to penalties. (Ord.48- 2007) 6 P54 26.415.025 Potential Historic Resources • . • . •. - -- - • - - - .. - - • . � • - . . _ ' " z. - (altcrnativcly, the "List ") is to prevent the loss of buildings, sites, structures or objects, or collections of buildings, sites, structures or objects that may have historical, architectural, development or demolition of these potential resources on the character of the town during the • -• . . • - - • . t • • . • • , - - - - - _ _ . . b : - . • - - _ . - . - ... - _ • ' _ • - - ' - . • e _ - • :. : :cries of 2007, shall . - - • . - - - . • .. • - .. - .. . .. _ - eneral public by the • ▪ -• . •: •. - _ • .. -- - . • . .. - -- - been destroyed by an act of God or arc otherwise declared unsafe and ordered demolished by the Chief Building Official, the property shall be removed from the List. D. Applicability and Exemptions. For those properties identified on the List of Potential permits or land use applications for alterations, demolition or other similar development activity that substantially alters the Potential Historic Resource maybe accepted by the Community Development Department except as permitted pursuant to the provisions of Section 26.1 15.025.E. Exempt from this restriction shall be alterations, land use applications, and building permits limited to interior remodeling, paint color selection, exterior repainting or replastcring similar to window glazing. The Community Development Director may exempt other such exterior interior of a building shall be exempt from this Section. An owner may volunteer to have any proposed work .1- - - - • - Commission pursuant to the procedures and limitations of Chapter 26.415 of the Municipal 7 P55 that the repair matches the surrounding exterior materials and character to the extent practicable, shall be exempt from this Section. .. 1 . Historic Resources, building permits and land use applications for alterations, demolition, redevelopment, or other similar development activity that substantially alters thc Potential Historic Resource shall be accepted by thc Community Development Department. Only be accepted. A letter from the property owner indicating an understanding of this ninety day negotiation period shall accompany thc building permit or land use application. Upon acceptance, the building permit or land use application may be reviewed, but shall not be issued, for a period of ninety days to allow for a period of negotiation regarding the preservation of the Resource. This period may be extended an additional thirty (30) days upon a resolution adopted by a majority of the Council. Within the ninety day negotiation period, thc following shall occur: 1. Thc Community Development Director shall offer to meet with the property owner to discuss the City's Historic Preservation Program and development and other benefits that the property may be eligible to receive upon designation as a Historic Landmark. 2. The Community Development Director shall confer with the Historic Preservation nature of the Potential Historic Resource. The property owner shall be provided notice of this meeting with the Historic Preservation Commission. proposed building permit, the nature of the Potential Historic Resource, and the staff and Historic Preservation Commission's assessment of the Resource and the effects of the building permit upon thc Resource. The property owner shall be provided notice of this meeting with the City Council. /1. Thc City Council may negotiate directly with the property owner or may choosc to direct the Community Development Director, or other City staff as necessary, to negotiate with Resource. The City Council may choose to provide this direction in Executive Session, pursuant to State Statute. As part of thc mutually acceptable agreement, the City Council s hall require that the property be designated as a Historic Landmark, pursuant to the rf ■ affected building permit or land use application be withdrawn by the property owner. 5. If, upon the passage of 90 days or any extension thereof, the City and the property owner have failed to reach a mutually acceptable agreement, affected building permits shall be Affected land use applications shall be reviewed and shall be issued a Development 8 P56 Code. The City Council, at its sole discretion, may c .. - . - --- . - - -b: • . - . during thc ninety day period. If, in the opinion of the Community Development Director after completion of a building permit issued pursuant to this Section, the Potential Historic Resource has been demolished or so altered as to render the property no longer a Potential Historic Resource, the Community Development Director shall remove the property from the List of Potential Historic Resources. Rcsourccs. To request confirmation that a property is not included on the List of Potential authorized agent acting on behalf of the owner. The confirmation letter shall be in a recordable shall include a current copy of the List of Potential Historic Resources, and shall confirm that the operation. For structures between thirty (30) and forty (40) old, the confirmation letter shall also property' aggrieved by the Community Development Director's determination may appeal the decision to the City Council pursuant to Chapter 26.316, Appeals. C. Volunta .. ! • . _ - - • - . • , - • toric Preservation Commission and the Community Development Director may not initiate an application for designation unless the An owner of a property identified on the List of Potential Historic Resources who consents to Historic Designation may request thc Community Development Director initiate an application - . . e e • ' .. - • - - the penalties established in Section 26.11 5.1 40, Penalties. The Community Development penalties. 9 P57 reasonable care, maintenance and upkeep as described in Section 26.115.100, Demolition by Neglect. Repairs or minimally intrusive work permitted under Section 26.415.025.D or - • P • Development Deparnent, as may be required, shall not be subject to penalties. (Ord.48 2007) 26.415.030. Designation of historic properties. The designation of properties to an official list, that is known as the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures which is maintained by the City, is intended to provide a systematic public process to determine what buildings, areas and features of the historic built environment are of value to the community. Designation provides a means of deciding and communicating, in advance of specific issues or conflicts, what properties are in the public interest to protect. A. Establishment of the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures. The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures has been established by City Council to formally recognize those districts, buildings, structures, sites and objects located in Aspen that have special significance to the United States, Colorado or Aspen history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or culture. The location of properties listed on the inventory shall be indicated on maps on file in the Community Development Department. B. Criteria. To be eligible for designation on thc Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, properties shall be evaluated according to the following criteria. Whcn designating an historic district, the majority of the contributing resources in the district must meet the criteria dcscribcd below: 1. A property or district is deemed significant for its antiquity, in that it is: a. In whole or in part more than one hundred (100) years old, and b. It posscsscs an appropriate degree of integ • workmanship and association, given its age; or 2. A property or district is dccmcd significant as a representation of Aspen's 20th century history, was constructed in whole or in part more than thirty (30) years prior to the year in which thc application for designation is being made, posscsscs sufficient integrity of or more of the following: a. An event, pattern or trend that has made a significant contribution to local, state, regional or national history, or b. People whose specific contribution to local, state, regional or national history is deemed important and the specific contribution is identified and documented, or 10 P58 recognized designer, craftsman or design philosophy that is deemed important. 3. A property that was constructed less than thirty (30) y ars prior to the year in which thc the application has been filed by the owner of the property at the time of designation or, when designating —an historic district, the majority of the contributing resources in the district meet the thirty (30) year age criterion described above. /1. The construction date of a property shall be established by thc date of issuance of the Develejame ' ' • . - . . - - . " . • . _ b , " _ - b Shall be assumed to be, in whole or in part, at least thirty (30) y ars old. 5. The Historic Preservation Commission shall adopt, maintain and make available to the public guidelines, score sheets and other devices used by the Commission to apply the - • - • - - .. - • • . • • . -- • - b • - . - • • ' inventory. PreservatioCommission (HPC) or thc City Council may file an application for designation of a Structures. The application for thc designation of a property or collection of properties shall include the following: 1. The applicable information required in subsections 26.301.030.B.1., 2., 3. and 1. 2. Site or historic district boundary map. materials that document its physical characteristics. 5. Identification of the character defining features that distinguish the entity which should be preserved. B. Aspen Victorian 1. Criteria. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures as an example of Aspen Victorian, an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. The significance of properties shall be evaluated according to the following criteria. When designating an historic district. the majority of the contributing resources in the district must meet the criteria described below: a. The property or district is deemed significant for its antiquity, in that it contains structures which can be documented as built during the 19 century, and 11 P59 b. The property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location. setting, design, materials, workmanship and association, given its age. The City Council shall adopt and make available to the public score sheets and other devices which will be used by the Council and Historic Preservation Commission to apply this criterion. 2. Application. The property owner(s), the Community Development Director. the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) or the City Council may file an application for designation of an Aspen Victorian building, district, site, structure or object on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. The application for the designation of a property or collection of properties shall include the following: 1. The applicable information required in subsections 26.304.030.B.1.. 2., 3. and 4. 2. Site or historic district boundary map. 3. Property or district description, including narrative text, photographs and/or other graphic materials that document its physical characteristics. 4. Written description of how the property meets the criteria for designation. C. AspenModern 1. Criteria. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures as an example of AspenModern, an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. The significance of properties shall be evaluated according to the following criteria. When designating an historic district, the majority of the contributing resources in the district must meet at least two of the criteria a -d. and criterion e described below: a. The property is related to an event. pattern, or trend that has made a contribution to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific event, pattern or trend is identified and documented in an adopted context paper; or b. The property is related to people who have made a contribution to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific people are identified and documented in an adopted context paper; or c. The property represents a physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman, or design philosophy that is deemed important and the specific physical design, designer, or philosophy is documented in an adopted context paper; or d. The property possesses such singular significance to the City. as documented by the opinions of persons educated or experienced in the fields of history, architecture., landscape architecture, archaeology or a related field, that the property's potential demolition or major alteration would substantially diminish the character and sense of place in the city as perceived by members of the community, and 12 P60 e. The property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association, given its age. The City Council shall adopt and make available to the public score sheets and other devices which will be used by the Council and Historic Preservation Commission to apply this criterion. 2. Application. Only the property owner(s) may file an application for designation of an AspenModern building, district. site, structure or object on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. The application for the designation of a property or collection of properties shall include the following: 1. The applicable information required in subsections 26.304.030.B.1., 2.. 3. and 4. 2. Site or historic district boundary map. 3. Property or district description, including narrative text, photographs and /or other graphic materials that document its physical characteristics. 4. Written description of how the property meets the criteria for designation. 5. Written description of historic preservation benefits which the property owner requests be awarded at the time of designation. D. Review, public hearings and notice. 1. The Community Development Department shall maintain a database indicating the construction date of all structures within the City of Aspen. The construction date of a property shall be established by the date of issuance of thc urliest building permit for the subject structure found in the records of the Community Development Department. If there arc no building permit records available, thc structure shall be assumed to be, in inspection during normal business hours and on the Community Development Department's website. 21.An application for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures shall be transmitted to the Community Development Director to determine if the application is complete. For applications filed with sufficient information, a report will be prepared by City staff for transmittal to the HPC with the relevant information on the proposed historic property or district with a recommendation to approve or disapprove and the reasons for the recommendation. 372.A date for a public hearing on a complete application will be scheduled before the HPC. Notice of the hearing shall be provided according to the provisions of Subsections 26.304.060.E.3.a., b. and c., except when the Community Development Director, HPC or City Council is the applicant. When the Community Development Director, HPC or City Council is the applicant, notice of the hearing shall be mailed to the property owner(s) within three hundred (300) feet of the property and posted on the subject property for at least thirty (30) days prior to the hearing. Notice to the property owner shall be by registered mail. In the event that there is no evidence that the property owner received actual notice, the HPC may specify that additional measures be taken. 13 P61 43.The HPC shall evaluate the application to determine if the property or district meets the criteria for designation. At the public hearing, the property owner, parties of interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to provide information about the property or district's eligibility for designation. The HPC may recommend approval, disapproval or continuance of the application to request additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Their recommendation shall be forwarded to City Council. 4.Upon receipt of the decision, report and recommendations of the HPC, the City Council shall schedule a hearing on the application in accordance with the notice requirements for adopting an ordinance. The City Council shall evaluate the application to determine if the property or district meets the criteria for designation. At the public hearing, the property owner, parties of interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to provide information about the property or district's eligibility for designation. The City Council may approve, disapprove or continue the application to request additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. 675.If an application is denied, the Community Development Director, HPC or City Council may not file a reapplication for designation of the same historic resource, property or district on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures for five (5) years from the date of the City Council disapproval. (Ord. No. 1- 2002, §7 [part]; Ord. No. 30, 2007, §1) No alterations (other than interior remodeling, paint color selection, exterior repainting or fasteners, repair of window glazing or other such minimally intrusive work), no land use applications and no building permit applications shall bc undertaken or accepted by the Community Development Department until there has been a determination in accordance with this Section that the subject property should not bc considered for inclusion on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. Alterations, land use applications and building permit applications which exclusively impact the interior of a building shall be exempt from this Section. The purpose of this determination is to prevent the Loss of buildings, sites, structures or objects, or collections of buildings, sites, structures or objects that may have historical, architectural, archaeological, engineering and cultural importancc, and to limit the detrimental effect of development or demolition on the character of the City. Preserving and protecting historic resources promotes the public welfare by making the City a more attractive and desirable place in which to live and work. A. Procedure: P . - -_ building which is in whole or in part thirty (30) years or more old may be accepted by the Community Development Department, the Community Development Director shall review the affected property and make a preliminary determination as to whether the property should be considered for inclusi $ • . - - - . . ..... • -; • . ... . agc, it shall be assumed that the bu lding is over thirty (30) years old for the purpose of this Section. The determination by the Community Development Director shall be based on the criteria stated in Paragraph 26.115.030.B.2 and must be concluded within thirty 14 P62 • -- .. - . _ - ... - ... - , -- -- ' .. -, . -- - . - _ . - . . • ..: - : wrier may make a writtcn request to initiate this process at any time, even if no development is proposed. 2. If the Community Development Director determines that there is no probable cause to believe that the property should be considered for inclusion on the Inventory, or the Community Develop - - !' - - • -. - . - - --- ithin thirty (30) days of the submission of a complete application for such a determination, the Community Development Director shall issue a written verification that the alteration, land use application or building permit application may proceed without further review under this Section. The Historic Preservation Commission and City Council shall be provided with a copy of the Community Development Director's determination.. along with photographs procedures of Section 26.115.030, Designation of historic properties. If neither thc HPC nor the City Council takes such action, the Community Development Director's written verification shall be effective for a period of fiyc (5) y ars after the datc of issuance, and the Community Development Director, HPC or City Council may not file a reapplication Landmark Sites and Structures during that period. believe that the property should bc considered for inclusion on the Inventory, then: building permit application affecting the subject property for a period of one hundred eighty (180) days, beginning on the date that the Community Development Director makes such a written determination. The property owner may appeal thc Community, Development Director's determination to thc City Council pursuant to Chapter • :: - - - - - . - dred eighty day prohibition on the activities described above will be extended for a time period equal to that required to conclude the appeal process. b. The Community Development Director shall i - • - .. .. :. . : b- . pursuant to Section 26.415.030, Designation of historic properties. All contents of the application will be sent to thc property owner by certified mail at lest thirty (30) - - - - • ... designation application will be withdrawn. 5. Any owner who takes action to alter or demolish a property, including purposeful removal, change or damage to any exterior materials, features, portions of a building or structural members of a building, before the identification of potential historic resources is complete as described in this Section, shall bc subject to the penalties established in Section 26.115.110, Penalties. The Community Development Department must demonstrate to the City Council, using date stamped photogra • - , - . - - - - • . - - 15 P63 building has been altered after the adoption date of the ordinance codified hcrein in order to apply penalties. (Ord. No. 30, 2007, §3) 26.415.040. Recordation of designation. Upon the effective date of an ordinance by City Council designating a property on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, the City Clerk shall record with the real estate records of the Clerk and Recorder of the County, a certified copy of the ordinance including a legal description of the property. The location of properties designated by ordinance also shall be indicated on the official maps of the City that are maintained by the Community Development Department. (Ord. No. 1- 2002, §7 [part]) 26.415.050. Rescinding designation. A. Application and review. An application for the removal of a property from the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures shall follow the same submission requirements and review procedures as for designation described in this Chapter except that with respect to Subsection 26.415.030.C.4 an explanation shall be provided describing why the property no longer meets the criteria for designation. The HPC and City Council shall determine if sufficient evidence exists that the property no longer meets the criteria for designation and, if so, shall remove the property from the inventory. A parcel created through an historic Landmark lot split cannot be de- listed unless there is a finding that the resource which originally caused the site to be landmarked meets the criteria for removal from the historic inventory. B. Reapplication. If a request for rescinding designation is denied, an application cannot be filed again for a period of two (2) years from the date of the denial by the City Council. The time limitation of this Subsection may be waived by a majority vote of the City Council when such action is deemed necessary to prevent injustice or to facilitate the proper development of the City. (Ord. No. 1 -2002, §7 [part]; Ord. No. 43, 2004, §1) 26.415.060. Effect of designation. A. Approvals required. Any development involving properties designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, as an individual building or located in an historic district, unless determined exempt, requires the approval of a development order and either a certificate of no negative effect or a certificate of appropriateness before a building permit or any other work authorization will be issued by the City. B. Design guidelines. 1. The HPC has adopted design guidelines, hereinafter referred to as the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, in accordance with the procedures for notice and public hearings set forth in Section 26.304.06(E)(3) Paragraph (a). These guidelines set forth the standards necessary to preserve and maintain the historic and architectural 16 P64 character of designated properties and districts. The standards apply to the exterior features and/or notable streetscape and landscape elements of the designated historic property and/or district. These guidelines are intended to offer assistance to property owners undertaking construction, rehabilitation, alterations, changes in exterior appearance or any other development involving designated historic properties or districts. The guidelines will be periodically reviewed by the HPC and amended at a public hearing, as needed. 2. The "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines," as amended, which are on file with the Community Development Department, will be used in the review of requests of certificates of no negative effect or certificates of appropriateness. Conformance with the applicable guidelines and the common development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304 will be necessary for the approval of any proposed work. C. Special consideration. 1. To preserve and maintain the historic and architectural character of designated properties, the HPC or City Council may approve variations from the dimensional requirements set forth in the Land Use Code and may make recommendations to the Chief Building Official who has the authority to grant certain exceptions from the International Building Code (UBC) through the provisions of the International Existing Building Code (IEBC). These modifications may not change the applicable safety and permit requirements and must also follow the procedures provided for modifications set forth in the IEBC. 2. Designated historic properties are eligible for and have priority to participate in City programs related to financial, developmental or technical assistance that will serve to preserve, maintain or enhance their historic and architectural character. 3. All City authorities, including City Council, are authorized to grant economic and developmental benefits to designated historic properties or grant these benefits conditional upon the subsequent designation of the property. (Ord. No. 1- 2002, § 7 [part]; Ord. No. 43, 2004, § 2) 26.415.070. Development involvin g designated historic property. 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. 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 rertiodeling, 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. 17 P65 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. B. Certificate of no negative effect. 1. An application for a certificate of no negative effect may be made to the Community Development Director for approval of work that has no adverse effect on the physical appearance or character - defining features of a designated property. An application for a certificate of no effect may be approved by the Community Development Director with no further review if it meets the requirements set forth in the following Subsection 26.415.070.B.2: 2. The Community Development Director shall issue a development order based upon a certificate of no negative effect within fourteen (14) days after receipt of a complete application if: a. It is determined that the activity is an eligible work item and meets the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and b. Any modifications to the proposed work requested by the Community Development Director are agreed to by the owner /applicant and c. The proposed work will not diminish, eliminate or adversely affect the significant historic and /or architectural character of the subject property or Historic District in which it is located. 3. An application for a certificate of no negative effect shall include the following: a. The general application information required in Section 26.304.030. b. Elevations or drawings of the proposed work. c. Photographs, building material samples and other exhibits, as needed, to accurately depict location, extent and design of proposed work. d. Verification that the proposal complies with Chapter 26.410, Residential design standards. 4. The following work shall be considered for a Certificate of No Negative Effect: a. Replacement or repair of architectural features which creates no change to the exterior physical appearance of the building or structure. b. Replacement or repair of architectural features that restores the building or structure to its historic appearance. c. Installation of awnings or similar attachments provided no significant feature is damaged, removed or obscured by the installation. 18 P66 d. Fencing that has no adverse effect on the historic or architectural character of the property. e. Mechanical equipment or accessory features that have no impact on the character - defining features of the building or structure. f. Signs which have no effect on the character - defining features of the historic property. g. Alterations to noncontributing buildings within historic districts that have no adverse effect on its historic or architectural character. h. Alterations to no more than two (2) elements of nonprimary facades of a designated building. i. Installation of site improvements, such as walkways, patios, pools or hot tubs, or similar significant features. 5. The development order and associated certificate of no negative effect shall expire and become null and void after three (3) years from the date of issuance by the Community Development Director unless a building permit is issued within that time. 6. In the event that the Community Development Director determines that the issuance of a certificate of no negative effect is not appropriate, the owner ma apply for a certificate g may PP Y of appropriateness from the HPC. C. Certificate of appropriateness for a minor development. 1. The review and decision on the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness for minor development shall begin with a determination by the Community Development Director that the proposed project constitutes a minor development. Minor development work includes: a. Expansion or erection of a structure wherein the increase of the floor area of the structure is two hundred and fifty (250) square feet or less or b. Alterations to a building facade, windows, doors, roof planes or material, exterior wall materials, dormer porch, exterior staircase, balcony or ornamental trim when three (3) or fewer elements are affected and the work does not qualify for a certificate of no negative effect or c. Erection or installation of a combination or multiples of awning, canopies, mechanical equipment, fencing, signs, accessory features and other attachments to designated properties such that the cumulative impact does not allow for the issuance of a certificate of no negative effect or d. Alterations that are made to nonhistoric portions of a designated historic property that do not qualify for a certificate of no negative effect or 19 P67 e. The erection of street furniture, signs, public art and other visible improvements within designated historic districts of a magnitude or in numbers such that the cumulative impact does not allow for the issuance of a certificate of no negative effect. The Community Development Director may determine that an application for work on a designated historic property involving multiple categories of minor development may result in the cumulative impact such that it is considered a major development. In such cases, the applicant shall apply for a major development review in accordance with Subsection 26.415.07.D. 2. An application for minor development shall include the following: a. The general application information required in Section 26.304.030. b. Scaled elevations and/or drawings of the proposed work and its relationship to the designated historic buildings, structures, sites and features within its vicinity. c. An accurate representation of all building materials and finishes to be used in the development. d. Photographs and other exhibits, as needed, to accurately depict location, extent and design of proposed work. e. Verification that the proposal complies with Chapter 26.410, Residential design standards or a written request for a variance from any standard that is not being met. 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. 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. 20 P68 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. D. Certificate of appropriateness for major development. 1. The review and decision on the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness for major development shall begin with a determination by the Community Development Director that the proposed project constitutes a major development. A major development includes one or more of the following activities: a. The construction of a new structure within a historic district; and/or b. Alterations to more than three (3) elements of a building facade including its windows, doors, roof planes or materials, exterior wall material, dormers, porches, exterior staircase, balcony or ornamental trim; and /or c. The expansion of a building increasing the floor area by more than two hundred and fifty (250) square feet; and /or d. Any new development that has not been determined to be minor development. 2. The procedures for the review of major development projects include a two -step process requiring approval by the HPC of a conceptual development plan and then a final development plan. If a major development project involves additional City Land Use approvals, the Community Development Director may consolidate or modify the review process accordingly, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.B. 3. Conceptual development plan review. a. An application for a conceptual development plan shall include the following: (1) The general application information required in Section 26.304.030. (2) A site plan and survey showing property boundaries, the location and orientation of existing and proposed improvements and predominant site characteristics. (3) Scaled drawings of all proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their form, including their height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the primary features of all elevations. (4) Preliminary selection of primary building materials to be used in construction represented by samples and/or photographs. (5) Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the designated historic property or historic district including at least one (1) of the following: diagrams, maps, photographs, models or streetscape elevations. (6) Verification that the proposal complies with Chapter 26.410, Residential design standards or a written request for a variance from any standard that is not being met. 21 P69 b. The procedures for the review of conceptual development plans for major development projects are as follows: (1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for conceptual or final development plan approval. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. (2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. (3) The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. c. The effect of approval of a conceptual development plan is as follows: (1) Approval of a conceptual development plan shall not constitute final approval of a major development project or permission to proceed with the development. Such authorization shall only constitute authorization to proceed with the preparation of an application for a final development plan. (2) Approval of a conceptual development plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the conceptual plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the final development plan unless agreed to by the applicant. If the applicant chooses to makes substantial amendments to the conceptual design after it has been approved, a new conceptual development plan hearing shall be required. (3) Unless otherwise specified in the resolution granting conceptual development plan approval, a development application for a final development plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a conceptual development plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the conceptual development plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one -time extension of the expiration date for a conceptual development plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. 22 P70 4. Final development plan review. a. An application for a final development plan shall include: (1) The general application information required in Section 26.304.030. (2) Final drawings of all proposed structures(s) and/or addition(s) included as part of the development at 1/4" = 1.0' scale. (3) An accurate representation of all major building materials to be used in the development, depicted through samples or photographs. (4) A statement, including narrative text or graphics, indicating how the final development plan conforms to representations made or stipulations placed as a condition of the approval of the conceptual development plan. b. The procedures for the review of final development plans for major development projects roj ects are as follows: (1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for final development plan approval. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Paragraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a, b and c. (2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. (3) The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve deny. If the application is approved, roved, the HPC shall issue a certificate Pp or Y pP of appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall issue a development order. (4) A resolution of the HPC action will be forwarded to the City Council in accordance with Section 26.415.130 and no permit will be issued for construction of the project until the thirty (30) day "call up" period by City Council has expired. (5) Before an application for a building permit can be submitted, a final set of plans reflecting any or all required changes by the HPC or City Council must be on file with the City. Any conditions of approval or outstanding issues which must be addressed in the field or at a later time shall be noted on the plans. 23 P71 E. Amendments, insubstantial and substantial. There are two processes for amending plans approved pursuant to a development order and an associated certificate of appropriateness. All requests for amendments, insubstantial or substantial, must be in writing and accompanied by drawing(s) and elevations as specified below. 1. Insubstantial amendments. a. Insubstantial amendments are minor modifications to HPC approved plans that: (1) Address circumstances discovered in the course of construction that could not have been reasonably anticipated during the approval process or (2) Are necessary for conformance with building safety or accessibility codes and do not materially change the approved plans or (3) Approve specific building materials, finishes, design of ornamental trim and other such detail not provided in the HPC approved plans or (4) Change the shape, location or material of a building element or feature but maintains the same quality and approximate appearance of that found in the approved plans. b. The Community Development Director may authorize insubstantial amendments to approved plans. c. Monitoring committees established by the HPC, composed of up to two (2) members of the Commission and the Historic Preservation Officer or assign, may also authorize insubstantial amendments. d. Decisions of the Community Development Director or monitoring committee are binding. The Community Development Director or monitoring committee may determine that the proposed changes qualify as a substantial amendment and remand the matter to the HPC. e. Disapproval of a request for an insubstantial amendment may be appealed to the HPC to be considered in accordance with the procedures for substantial amendments. f. Approval of insubstantial amendments of plans will be reported to the HPC at their regularly scheduled meetings. 2. Substantial amendments. a. All changes to approved plans that materially modify the location, size, shape, materials, design, detailing or appearance of the building elements as originally depicted must be approved by the HPC as a substantial amendment. b. An application for a substantial amendment shall include the following materials, as determined appropriate by the Community Development Director: (1) A revised site plan. 24 P72 (2) Revised scaled elevations and drawings. (3) Representations of building materials and finishes. (4) Photographs and other exhibits to illustrate the proposed changes. c. The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for approval of a substantial amendment and waive any submittals not considered necessary for consideration. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. d. Notice for the review of an application for a substantial amendment will include publication, posting and mailing pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. e. Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the extent of the changes relative to the approved plans and how the proposed revisions affect the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Codes. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed revisions and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. f. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. 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. (Ord. No. 1- 2002, § 7 [part]; Ord. 43, 2004, § 3) 26.415.080. Demolition of designated historic properties. It is the intent of this Chapter to preserve the historic and architectural resources that have demonstrated significance to the community. Consequently no demolition of properties designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures will be allowed unless approved by the HPC in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section. A. Procedures for considering requests for demolition of designated properties. 1. An application for a demolition permit for designated properties will be filed with or referred to the Community Development Director by the Chief Building Official. The applicant will be provided a written response within fourteen (14) days of the request for a demolition permit describing the submittal materials needed for consideration. 2. An application for demolition approval shall include: a. The general application information requested in Section 26.304.030 and written documentation that the Chief Building Official has determined the building an imminent hazard or 25 P73 b. Narrative text, graphic illustrations or other exhibits that provide evidence that the building, structure or object is of no historic or architectural value or importance. 3. When complete application materials are on file, a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice for the hearing will include publication, mailing and posting pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. The staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a staff report that analyzes the request relative to the criteria for approval. 4. The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the property owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the standards for demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a. The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner /applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. 5. The HPC shall approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to consider the demolition request. 6. If the HPC approves the demolition request then a resolution of the HPC action will be forwarded to the City Council in accordance with Section 26.415.120 and no demolition permit will be issued until the thirty (30) day "call up" period by City Council has expired. 7. If the demolition request is denied because it does not meet the aforementioned standards, the applicant may request demolition approval based upon a finding of "economic hardship," as set forth below. 26 1 P74 8. Before a demolition permit will be issued, a certificate of appropriateness for the redevelopment or reuse plan, as provided for in Subsection 26.415.070.D, must be approved. When a demolition permit must be issued because the building, structure or object is an imminent hazard or because of the issuance of a certificate of economic hardship, the permit may be received prior to the approval of an acceptable reuse plan. B. Procedures for obtaining a certificate of economic hardship. 1. Purpose: It is the policy of the City to respect private property rights. The City recognizes, therefore, that there may be some circumstances in which the operation of this Chapter could create an undue economic hardship. This provision is created to provide property owners with a means of demonstrating that such a hardship may exist and that they should be allowed to demolish a designated historic property because of that hardship. It is the intent of this provision to insure that no private property is taken without just compensation. 2. Standard of review: The standard of review for a determination of economic hardship will be whether refusing to allow the property owner to demolish the property would result in a violation of the prohibitions of the U.S. and Colorado Constitutions against taking of private property for public use without just compensation as those prohibitions are interpreted by the courts of Colorado and the United States. In applying the standards, the economic benefits of fmancial, developmental and technical assistance from the City and the utilization of any federal and state rehabilitation tax credit programs may be considered. 3. Application: a. Upon receiving a request for a certificate of economic hardship, the Community Development Director shall provide a written response within fourteen (14) days as to the submittal materials required. b. Within -five (5) days after receipt of an application for a certificate of economic hardship, the Community Development Director shall determine whether the application is complete. If he or she determines that the application is not complete, the Director shall notify the applicant in writing of the deficiencies. The Director shall take no further steps to process the application until the deficiencies have been remedied. c. The application fee shall be set to defray all costs of the review process, including the fees of an independent hearing officer. 4. Administrative process: a. When the application is complete, the Community Development Director will refer the application to the Historic Preservation Officer and the City Attorney for review. The Historic Preservation Officer and City Attorney shall jointly prepare a report setting forth the City's response. 27 P75 b. In the event the City response concludes that the application does not demonstrate a case of economic hardship, the application will be set for a public hearing before a hearing officer. c. The hearing officer will be contracted by the City to conduct an impartial quasi - judicial hearing on the question of economic hardship. The Officer shall have sufficient legal and technical experience to conduct a fair hearing in accordance with appropriate standards of due process. The application, all support materials and the City's report shall be provided to the hearing officer in advance of the hearing. At the hearing, the applicant will be provided with an opportunity to present his application and may be represented by counsel. The City position will be presented by the City Attorney. 5. Appeal: An applicant may appeal the decision of the hearing officer to District Court pursuant to Rule 106 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. (Ord. No. 1 -2002, §7 [part]; Ord. No. 30, 2007, §4) 26.415.090. Relocation of designated properties. The intent of this Chapter is to preserve designated historic properties in their original locations as much of their significance is embodied in their setting and physical relationship to their surroundings as well as their association with events and people with ties to particular site. However, it is recognized that occasionally the relocation of a property may be appropriate as it provides an alternative to demolition or because it only has a limited impact on the attributes that make it significant. A. Application. An application for relocation shall include: 1. The general application information required in Section 26.304.030. 2. A written description and/or graphic illustrations of the building, structure or object proposed for relocation. 3. A written explanation of the type of relocation requested (temporary, on -site or off -site) and justification for the need for relocation. 4. A written report from a licensed engineer or architect regarding the soundness of the building, structure or object, its ability to withstand the physical move and its rehabilitation needs, once relocated. 5. A conceptual plan for the receiving site providing preliminary information on the property boundaries, existing improvements and site characteristics and the associated planned improvements. 6. If the applicant does not own the receiving site, proof from the site's property owner of the willingness to accept the relocated building, structure or object. 7. Evidence that the applicant has or is seeking the necessary approvals to place the building on the identified receiving site. If the site is outside of the city limits, verification that the building will be preserved on its new site through a formal action of the other jurisdiction or a preservation easement. 28 P76 8. Evidence of the fmancial ability to undertake the safe relocation, preservation and repair of the building, structure or object; site preparation and construction of necessary infrastructure through the posting of bonds or other financial measures deemed appropriate. 9. Supplementary materials to provide an understanding of the larger context for the relocated property and its impact on adjacent properties, the neighborhood or streetscape. B. Procedures for the review of relocation request. 1. The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for relocation approval. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. 2. Notice for the review of the relocation request shall include publication, posting end mailing pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. 3. If the relocation request is part of a major development project, the Community Development Director may consolidate or modify the review process accordingly pursuant to Section 26.304.060.B. 4. Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the standards for relocation approval set forth below, the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine if the standards for relocation have been met. 5. 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. 6. A resolution of the HPC action will be forwarded to the City Council in accordance with Section 26.415.120 and no relocation will occur until after the thirty (30) day "call up" period of the City Council has expired. C. Standards for the relocation of designated properties. Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards: 1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely 29 P77 affect the integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. D. Procedures for considering request for relocation of properties under consideration for designation. While it is the intent of this Chapter to preserve properties of demonstrated significance, it is also recognized that all buildings and areas of importance to the general welfare, prosperity and civic pride of its citizenry cannot be identified, evaluated, documented and designated at one time. However, it is important to protect properties which potentially qualify for designation against needless loss until review and hearings can be completed. 1. No relocation will be permitted for properties under consideration for designation to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures unless relocation approval is issued by the Historic Preservation Commission or City Council. 2. All properties under consideration for designation and, therefore, subject to the temporary stay of relocation will be identified on a list maintained by the Chief Building Official. Property owners will be notified by registered mail that their property is under consideration for designation and have an opportunity to review all materials compiled at that time to verify accuracy. 3. These procedures shall apply to any building located within an area under preliminary application for designation from the time the application is filed until the time action is taken on the application by the City Council. 4. If a public hearing to consider the application for designation is not held by the City Council within six (6) months of the initiation of the stay, the stay will expire. An additional six -month stay period may be approved by City Council in the form of a resolution, at a public hearing, with a showing of good cause. (Ord. No. 1- 2002, § 7 [part]) 26.415.100. Demolition by neglect. It is the intent of this Chapter to address the range of circumstances that affect the preservation of the community's significant historic and architectural resources. It is further recognized that many historic buildings and structures are lost because of deterioration from lack of maintenance. Whether this occurs unintentionally or through deliberate decisions, the result is the same: the loss of community assets. Consequently, it is declared that the exterior features of any designated building or structure shall be preserved against decay and deterioration and kept 30 P78 free from structural defects. The designated structures shall receive reasonable care, maintenance and upkeep appropriate for their preservation, protection, perpetuation and use. A. Standards for reasonable care and upkeep. 1. The owner or such other person who may have legal possession, custody and control thereof of a designated property shall, upon written request by the City, repair the following exterior features if they are found to be deteriorating or if their condition is contributing to deterioration such that it is likely to compromise the building's structural integrity or as to create or permit the creation of any hazardous or unsafe condition to life, health or other property. These features include, but are not limited to: a. Deterioration of exterior walls, foundations or other vertical supports that causes leaning, sagging, splitting, listing or buckling. b. Deterioration of flooring or floor supports or other horizontal members that causes leaning, sagging, splitting, listing or buckling. c. Deterioration of external chimneys that cause leaning, sagging, splitting, listing or buckling. d. Deterioration or crumbling of exterior plasters or mortars. e. Ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roofs and foundations, including broken windows or doors. f. Defective protection or lack of weather protection for exterior wall and roof coverings, including lack of paint or weathering due to lack of paint or other protective covering. g. Rotting, holes and other forms of decay. h. Deterioration of exterior stairs, porches, handrails, window and door frames, cornices, entablatures, wall facings ornamental trim and other architectural details that cause delamination, instability, loss of shape and form or crumbling. B. Enforcement procedures. 1. The HPC may file a petition listing specific defects, in accordance with Subsection 26.415.110.A, with the Chief Building Official, requesting that the official act under the following procedures to require the correction of the defects or repairs to designated properties. 2. Whenever a petition is filed, the Chief Building Official shall attempt to make direct personal contact with the owner or other such persons having legal possession or custody and/or his representative. If personal contact cannot reasonably be accomplished, then written notification of the specific defects purported by the HPC and a request to inspect the property within ten (10) days will be mailed to the owner and other such persons having legal possession, custody and control and will be posted at a conspicuous location appropriate to the identified defects. In the written notification the Chief Building 31 P79 Official shall document the nature of the specific defects and the corrective action ordered. 3. After receiving agreement from the owner, his representatives or other such persons having legal possession, custody and control of the property for an inspection, the Chief Building Official and the HPC Officer shall within ten (10) working days conduct an investigation and prepare a written report determining whether the property requires work to address conditions set, forth in Subsection 26.415.100.A.1. 4. If the property is found to contain conditions needing correction, the owner, his representative or other such persons having legal possession, custody and control of the property will be served within fourteen (14) days with a complaint identifying the property deficiencies and providing notice that a hearing will be held before a Hearing Officer of the City within forty -five (45) days. The purpose of the hearing is to: a. Receive evidence concerning the charge of deterioration and b. Develop a plan and schedule for making the needed repairs in a timely fashion, such that the building is stabilized and the deterioration is arrested and c. Ascertain whether the owner or other parties intend to make application for financial assistance from the City to correct the building defects. 5. Following such notice and hearing, the Hearing Officer will make a determination if there are any corrections required pursuant to Subsection 26.415.110.A.1 and shall state in writing the findings of fact in support of that determination. If it is determined that the building or structure is undergoing deterioration or if its condition is contributing to deterioration, the owner or other parties of interest will be served an order to repair those defective elements of the structure within a reasonable specified time frame. 6. If the owner fails to make the necessary repairs within the identified time frame, the City may undertake the work to correct the deficiencies that create any hazardous and unsafe conditions to life, health and property. The expense of this work will be recorded as a lien on the property. C. AppeaL Within thirty (30) days, the owner may appeal the decision of the Hearing Officer to the Board of Appeals and Examiners pursuant to the process established in Chapter 8.08 of this Municipal Code. (Ord. No. 1 -2002 § 7 [part]) 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. • : . - - - - - . . • . - - in Chapter 26.120. Benefits to encourage good historic preservation practices by the owners of historic properties are an important aspect of Aspen's historic preservation prozram. Historic resources are a 32 P80 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. All properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures may be eligible for the following benefits. A. Historic landmark lot split. This provision provides an exemption from the subdivision and . 411 4 1! I owners of designated historic properties to cr to a second unit in addition to the historic - • - - . - • - - . -b- - - . • • • - - ..: - . When a designated parcel is at least six thousand (6.000) square feet in size, subdivision into two (2) parcels, neither of which is smaller than three thousand (3,000) square feet in size, for the purpose of creating up to three (3) residential dwelling units may be allowed in the following Zone Districts: R -6. R -15, R -15A RMF and MU. Refer to Chapter 26.480, Subdivision for more information. All parcels created through a Historic Landmark lot split shall retain designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. 1. An application for a lot split of a designated historic property may be filed by the owner by providing the standard information required in Chapter 26.304. 2. The procedure for the review of a historic lot split application is a two -step process including a public hearing before the HPC and the City Council. Notice for these hearings includes publication, mailing and posting pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. 3. Staff will review the submittal material and prepare a report with relevant information and a recommendation to continue, approve, approve with conditions or disapprove and the reason for the recommendation. 4. The HPC may approve a resolution, recommending that City Council approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the application. 5. The City Council may, by ordinance, approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the application. 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 nondesignated property in the following Zone Districts: R -6. R -15, R -15A, RMF and MU. Refer to Chapter 26.710 for further information. B.C. Variances. Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving designated properties to create development that is more consistent with the character of the historic 33 P81 property or district than what would be required by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards. 1. The HPC may grant variances of the Land Use Code for designated properties to allow: a. Development in the side, rear and front setbacks; b. Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between buildings; c. Up to five percent (5 %) additional site coverage; d. Less open space 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. 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. Refer to Chapter 26.515 for further information. DE. 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. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that: a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building; c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; 34 P82 e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained. 2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits of the proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices. Projects that demonstrate multiple elements described above will have a greater likelihood of being awarded additional floor area. 3. The decision to grant a floor area bonus for major development projects will occur as part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Subsection 26.415.070.D. The floor area bonus may also be approved as part of a Historic Landmark Lot Split Review. No development application that includes a request for a floor area bonus may be submitted until after the applicant has met with the HPC in a work session to discuss how the proposal might meet the bonus considerations. KG. Exemption from growth management quota system requirements. Certain types of development on designated historic properties are exempt from the growth management quota system and have reduced impact mitigation requirements. Refer to Chapter 26.470 for further information. G:H. Waiver of impact fees. ! • - - • - . .. ° • - • ... - • - • . various City fees if it can be demonstrated the waiver shall assist in the preservation of the designated historic propcity. (Ord. No. 1 2002, § 7 [part]; Ord. No. 43, 2001, § 1; Ord. No. 52 2003, § 9) 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 26.415.120E of the Land Use Code cannot be donated as a conservation easement. 35 P83 K. Citv -owned building rehabilitation fund. The City shall give priority in the asset managementplan to budgeting the funds necessary to adequately maintain, rehabilitate or restore City -owned designated properties. L. Transferable development rights. Per 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 and nonhistoric property within the City. M. Tax credit applications. City Planning 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 is available for income producing properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places. N. Community- initiated development. The City will consider opportunities to be involved in public - privately funded rehabilitation efforts, building expansion or infill projects that demonstrate good historic preservation practices. 0. Building codes. The International Building Code (IBC) provides for flexibility in its application to historic structures. In addition to the IBC, the City has adopted the International Existing Building Code (IEBC) to assist owners in making repairs in a manner that minimizes intrusion into the historic structure. P. Contractor training. The Community Development Department shall provide periodic workshops for contractors on proper preservation techniques, using grants or other sources of funding. 0. 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 shall 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. 26.415.120. Appeals, notice to City Council and call up. A. Appeal. Any action by the HPC in approving, approving with conditions or disapproving a development order and an associated certificate of appropriateness for major development, demolition approval or relocation approval may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant or a property owner within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316. 36 P84 B. Notice to City Council. Following the adoption of a resolution approving, approving with conditions or disapproving a development application for a certificate of appropriateness for major development, demolition approval or relocation approval of a designated property, the HPC shall promptly notify the City Council of its action to allow the City Council an opportunity to avail itself of the call -up procedure set forth in Subsection 26.415.120.0 and D. C. Call -up. The City Council may order call up of any action taken by the HPC as described in Section 26.415.070 within thirty (30) days of the decision, action or determination. Consequently no associated permits can be issued during the thirty (30) day call -up period. D. City Council action on appeal or call -up. The City Council shall consider the application on the record established before the HPC. The City Council shall affirm the decision of the HPC unless there is a finding that there was a denial of due process or the HPC has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. The City Council shall take such action as is deemed necessary to remedy said situation, including, but not limited to: 1. Reversing the decision. 2. Altering the conditions of approval. 3. Remanding the application to the HPC for rehearing. (Ord. No. 1- 2002, § 7 [part]; Ord. No. 52 -2003, § 10) 26.415.130. Variances by other City review bodies. If an application for a variance involving a designated property is before the Board of Adjustment or the Planning and Zoning Commission, the HPC will be given the opportunity to make a written recommendation as to its approval. The Board of Adjustment or the Planning and Zoning Commission will not take action on said development application for a variance pursuant to Chapter 26.314, without receiving the written recommendation from the HPC. (Ord. No. 1 -2002 § 7 [part]) 26.415.140. Penalties. Any person violating the provisions of Sections 26.415.070 through 26.415.100 will be subject to the general penalty provisions of this Title. A. Additional penalties. Additional penalties for the violation of Sections 26.415.070 through 26.415.100 include: 1. Any person who constructs, alters, relocates, changes the appearance or demolishes a designated property in violation of any section may be required to restore the building, structure or setting to its appearance prior to the violation. 2. Following notice and public hearing, the HPC shall prohibit the owner, successor or assigns from obtaining a building permit for the subject property for a period of up to ten (10) years from the date of the violation. The City shall initiate proceedings to place a deed restriction on the property to ensure enforcement of this penalty. The property owner shall be required to maintain the property during that period of time in conformance with the Standards for reasonable care and upkeep set forth in Subsection 26.415.100A. 37 P85 3. Any variances or historic preservation benefits previously granted to the property may be subject to revocation. (Ord. No. 1 -2002, § 7 [part]) Chapter--24,42-0 Proposed to eliminated. All benefit information has been imported into Section 26.415.110, above, so that there is a single "Historic Preservation" Chapter. • 38 1