The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.council.special.20111102 THE CITY OF .ASPEN CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2011 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 4:00 P.M. I. Appeal of passage of Resolution #9 and Resolution #10, Series of 2011 by the Historic Preservation Commission. II. Council Call -up of passage of Resolution #9, Series of 2011, by the Historic Preservation Commission P1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council COPY: John Worcester, City Attorney THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director WI FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Appeal of passage of Resolution #9 and Resolution #10, Series of 2011 by the Historic Preservation Commission DATE: November 2, 2011 APPELLANT: Aspen Core ' ,, :' , Ventures, LLC, represented 0 ' `° ti ' ` �'" ` by Garfield and Hecht, P.C. . ' , 7.4-F,,,,,, - #''- " '�" 4 ''; 0 _it `• i ,z. Z0, j ' rM ,,� . SUMMARY: f r _ ' �> The Appellant is appealing -= s ,•, ' 0 ', 4,- � the recent approval of r F1 , ' ' ;'j ;% • Resolution #9 ... 9 a a , ' " " A , w;�, av Resolution #10, Series of 7 `j� c p _' � . ,Y ' F 2011 by the Historic / r ; Preservation Commission. ,, t. ; , j I) These resolutions granted , s 4. � ,r .,,`!, approval for the demolition ,� ; 4 of an existing building at 517 ` ... `+ 9 t E. Hyman Avenue, aka Little Annie's Eatery, and denied approval for the demolition of an existing building Figure 1: Vicinity Map of Aspen Core proposal located at 521 E. Hyman Avenue, aka Benton Condominiums. The appeal raises a number of issues that are identified herein, followed by Staff's response. The Appellant requests that Council nullify and invalidate both resolutions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council uphold both of the resolutions adopted by the Historic Preservation Commission. 1 P4 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. Finally, the Code defines historic preservation terms including: 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. 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. Staff concludes that the land use application for Aspen Core is subject to HPC demolition review and is not exempt from HPC review. There are many examples of HPC exercising its jurisdiction to review applications for Demolition of structures that were not individually landmarked, but located in one of Aspen's historic districts, the most recent of which include: 435 W. Main (Aspen Jewish Community Center) 2005 434 E. Cooper (Bidwell) 2006 308 E. Hopkins (La Cocina), 2006 508 E. Cooper Avenue (Cooper Street Pier), 2006 420/422 E. Hopkins (Fire Station), 2007 In all cases, HPC exercised its jurisdiction and authority to find that the structures in question did, or did not, meet the criteria for demolition. 2. DID THE HPC EXCEED ITS JURISDICTION AND ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY PREVENTING THE APPELLANT FROM DEMOLISHING A NON - HISTORIC STRUCTURE THAT IS NOT DESIGNATED ON "THE ASPEN INVENTORY OF HISTORIC LANDMARK SITES AND STRUCTURES" UNDER 26.415.080? 3. DID THE HPC DEPRIVE THE APPELLANT OF DUE PROCESS BY APPLYING THE DEMOLITION REVIEW STANDARDS UNDER SECTION 26.415.080, EVEN THOUGH THE STRUCTURES LOCATED ON THE SUBJECT PREOPERTIES WERE NEVER DESIGNATED ON "THE ASPEN INVENTORY OF HISTORIC LANDMARK SITES AND STRUCTURES" AFTER PROPER NOTICE, HEARING AND RECORDING? 4 P5 Staff Comment: Ord. 5, Series of 1972 created the process for designation of individual sites and historic districts and established required review processes that would affect these properties. Landmarking of individual sites began immediately. Two years later, Council adopted Ordinance #49, Series of 1974, creating the first district, the Commercial Core Historic District. The criteria for designation of the district were based on historical importance, architectural importance and geographic importance. City files indicate multiple meetings and public hearings preceding the designation. (See Exhibits A and B.) There is evidence in the file of public notice and an explanation of the effect of a historic district being sent to property owners, including owners of the properties which are the subject of this appeal. (See Exhibit C.) A Notice of Historic Designation was recorded in 1975 and appears in the exceptions noted in the Appellant's Title Commitment for the subject property (See Exhibit D.) The notice states in part: "As a consequence of designation, no building permit may issue for the (1) exterior remodeling, reconstruction of, or any addition to an exterior architectural feature of a structure within the district, (2) the demolition or moving of any structure within the district, or (3) the construction or erection of any new structure or addition to any structure within the district, until the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee has reviewed the permit application and approved the same." In subsequent years, the City continued to identify individually significant properties both within and outside of the districts (the Main Street Historic District was added in 1976), many of which were landmarked both to recognize their significance and to allow for the award of preservation benefits. Official City Zoning maps of record since the mid 70s have depicted the historic districts and the individually designated properties. The term "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures" began to be used to describe the resources subject to protection in the 1980s. On August 5, 2011, the Appellant submitted a land use application for Major Development (Conceptual), Demolition, and Conceptual Commercial Design Standard Review by the Historic Preservation Commission. The application was submitted in conformance with the review processes identified by Community Development staff at a pre - application meeting held in July. The Municipal Code in place at the time of the Aspen Core land use application clearly indicates that a property located in a historic district is part of the Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures as follows: 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 5 P8 RESOLUTIONS: Attached are draft Resolutions relating to each Subject Property. Council is provided with a resolution for 517 E. Hyman finding that the Historic Preservation Commission acted correctly and affirms their findings allowing demolition of the property known as Little Annie's Eatery. Also attached is a resolution finding that the Historic Preservation acted without authority and nullifying their findings allowing the demolition of the property known as Little Annie's Eatery. With 'regard to 521 E. Hyman, aka Benton Condominiums, staff has provided a resolution finding that the Historic Preservation Commission acted correctly and affirms their findings denying demolition of the property. Also attached is a resolution finding that the Historic Preservation acted without authority and nullifying their findings denying the demolition of the property. RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes the Historic Preservation Commission's decisions were approved appropriately and that the HPC did not deny Appellant its due process of law, abuse its authority, or exceed its jurisdiction. Staff recommends City Council uphold the HPC's resolutions by affirming the passage of Resolution #9 and Resolution #10, Series of 2011. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: (all motions must be made in the positive) "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2011, affirming HPC Resolution No. 9, Series of 2011, approving the demolition of 517 E. Hyman, aka Little Annie's Eatery." "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2011, affirming HPC Resolution No. 10, Series of 2011, denying the demolition of 521 E. Hyman, aka Benton Condominiums." ATTACHMENTS: Resolution # , Series of 2011 affirming Little Annie's demolition approval Resolution # , Series of 2011 nullifying Little Annie's demolition approval Resolution # , Series of 2011 affirming Benton Studio demolition denial Resolution #, Series of 2011 nullifying Benton Studio demolition denial Exhibit A Dec. 23, 1974 Planning Office documentation of actions taken prior to Commercial Core Historic District designation Exhibit B Dec. 23, 1974 City Council minutes Exhibit C Letter sent to property owners informing them of historic district hearings, including certificate of mailing to then owners of Lots G, H, and I, Block 95 (Dingilian and Dikram) and Lot F, Block 95 (Thomas Benton) Exhibit D Recorded Public Notice of historic district creation 8 P9 Exhibit E Current Official Map of the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures and Historic Districts Exhibit F Public handout, dated April 2011, indicating Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures Exhibit G Pre - application conference summary Exhibit H Notice of Appeal Hearing mailed to Appellant, dated October 12, 2011 Exhibit I Affidavit of Public Notice for November 2, 2011 Council Appeal Hearing Exhibit J Municipal Code chapter regarding Appeals Exhibit K Appeal (Please see the application for memos, minutes, and resolutions that are related to the appeal) 9 P1 0 RESOLUTION NO. (SERIES OF 2011) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AFFIRMING A RESOLUTION APPROVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION GRANTING DEMOLITION APPROVAL FOR THE STRUCTURE AT 517 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, AKA LITTLE ANNIE'S EATERY, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT E, BLOCK 95, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO WHEREAS, on September 21, 2011, the Historic Preservation Commission passed Resolution No. 9, Series of 2011, granting approval for the demolition of the structure located at 517 East Hyman Avenue, Lot E, Block 95, City and Townsite of Aspen. The property is located in the Commercial Core Historic District; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.316 — Appeals, any person with a right to appeal an adverse decision or determination shall initiate an appeal by filing a notice of appeal within fourteen days of the date of decision or determination being appealed. Aspen Core Ventures, LLC, owner of the subject property, timely filed an appeal following the Historic Preservation Commission's determination; and, WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Chapter 26.316, may affirm the resolution of the Historic Preservation Commission or modify or reverse the resolution upon finding that there was a denial of due process, exceeding of jurisdiction, or abuse of authority by the Historic Preservation Commission in approving the resolution; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has taken and considered written and oral argument from Garfield and Hecht, P.C., representing the appellants, as well as written and oral argument from the Community Development Director and has found that the Historic Preservation Commission provided due process and neither exceeded its jurisdiction nor abused its authority in approving the resolution; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council affirms the Historic Preservation Commission's approval of Resolution No. 9, Series of 2011. This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting on , 2011. Page 1 of 2 P11 ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney Page 2 of 2 P1 2 RESOLUTION NO. _ (SERIES OF 2011) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL NULLIFYING A RESOLUTION APPROVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION GRANTING DEMOLITION APPROVAL FOR THE STRUCTURE AT 517 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, AKA LITTLE ANNIE'S EATERY, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT E, BLOCK 95, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO WHEREAS, on September 21, 2011, the Historic Preservation Commission passed Resolution No. 9, Series of 2011, granting approval for the demolition of the structure located at 517 East Hyman Avenue, Lot E, Block 95, City and Townsite of Aspen. The property is located in the Commercial Core Historic District; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.316 — Appeals, any person with aright to appeal an adverse decision or determination shall initiate an appeal by filing a notice of appeal within fourteen days of the date of decision or determination being appealed. Aspen Core Ventures, LLC, owner of the subject property, timely filed an appeal following the Historic Preservation Commission's determination; and, WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Chapter 26.316, may affirm the resolution of the Historic Preservation Commission or modify or reverse the resolution upon finding that there was a denial of due process, exceeding of jurisdiction, or abuse of authority by the Historic Preservation Commission in approving the resolution; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has taken and considered written and oral argument from Garfield and Hecht, P.C., representing the appellants, as well as written and oral argument from the Community Development Director and has found that the Historic Preservation Commission did not provide due process and exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its authority in approving the resolution; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council nullfies the Historic Preservation Commission's approval of Resolution No. 9, Series of 2011. This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting on , 2011. Page 1 of 2 P1 3 ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney Page 2 of 2 P14 RESOLUTION NO. _ (SERIES OF 2011) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AFFIRMING A RESOLUTION APPROVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DENYING DEMOLITION APPROVAL FOR THE STRUCTURE AT 521 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS UNITS 1, 2 AND THE COMMON AREA OF THE BENTON BUILDING CONDOMINIUMS (AKA LOT F, BLOCK 95), CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO WHEREAS, on September 21, 2011, the Historic Preservation Commission passed Resolution No. 10, Series of 2011, denying approval for the demolition of the structure located at 521 East Hyman Avenue, legally described as Units 1, 2 and the Common Area of the Benton Building Condominiums (aka Lot F, Block 95), City And Townsite Of Aspen, Colorado. The property is located in the Commercial Core Historic District; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.316 — Appeals, any person with a right to appeal an adverse decision or determination shall initiate an appeal by filing a notice of appeal within fourteen days of the date of decision or determination being appealed. Aspen Core Ventures, LLC, owner of the subject property, timely filed an appeal following the Historic Preservation Commission's determination; and, WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Chapter 26.316, may affirm the resolution of the Historic Preservation Commission or modify or reverse the resolution upon finding that there was a denial of due process, exceeding of jurisdiction, or abuse of authority by the Historic Preservation Commission in approving the resolution; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has taken and considered written and oral argument from Garfield and Hecht, P.C., representing the appellants, as well as written and oral argument from the Community Development Director and has found that the Historic Preservation Commission provided due process and neither exceeded its jurisdiction nor abused its authority in approving the resolution; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council affirms the Historic Preservation Commission's approval of Resolution No. 10, Series of 2011. This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting on , 2011. Page 1 of 2 P1 5 ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney Page 2 of 2 P16 RESOLUTION NO. _ (SERIES OF 2011) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL NULLIFYING A RESOLUTION APPROVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DENYING DEMOLITION APPROVAL FOR THE STRUCTURE AT 521 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS UNITS 1, 2 AND THE COMMON AREA OF THE BENTON BUILDING CONDOMINIUMS (AKA LOT F, BLOCK 95), CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO WHEREAS, on September 21, 2011, the Historic Preservation Commission passed Resolution No. 10, Series of 2011, denying approval for the demolition of the structure located at 521 East Hyman Avenue, legally described as Units 1, 2 and the Common Area of the Benton Building Condominiums (aka Lot F, Block 95), City And Townsite Of Aspen, Colorado. The property is located in the Commercial Core Historic District; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.316 — Appeals, any person with a right to appeal an adverse decision or determination shall initiate an appeal by filing a notice of appeal within fourteen days of the date of decision or determination being appealed. Aspen Core Ventures, LLC, owner of the subject property, timely filed an appeal following the Historic Preservation Commission's determination; and, WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Chapter 26.316, may affirm the resolution of the Historic Preservation Commission or modify or reverse the resolution upon finding that there was a denial of due process, exceeding of jurisdiction, or abuse of authority by the Historic Preservation Commission in approving the resolution; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has taken and considered written and oral argument from Garfield and Hecht, P.C., representing the appellants, as well as written and oral argument from the Community Development Director and has found that the Historic Preservation Commission did not provide due process and exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its authority in approving the resolution; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council nullifies the Historic Preservation Commission's approval of Resolution No. 10, Series of 2011. This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting on , 2011. Page 1 of 2 P17 ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney Page 2 of 2 • P1a C tt06- PUBLIC HEARING DECEMBER 23, 1974 MAJOR SUPPORTING FILE DOCUMENTS FOR THE COMMERCIAL CORE HISTORIC DISTRICT 1. Goal established to preserve Aspen's Historic Heritage - Goals Task Force, September 2, 1971. 2. Ordinance 5,. Series 1972 - Amendment incorporating the Historic Section to the code and establishing the HPC. 3. Actions to Designate Individual Structures. ' Wheeler Opera House by Ordinance adopted on March 12, 1972 • Court House by Ordinance adopted on September 10, 1973 ' City Hall by Ordinance adopted on May 21, 1974. • Crystal Palace by Ordinance adopted on August 10, 1973. 4. Wheeler Restoration Funds $60,000 - '73, '74 and $15,000 - '75. 5. Requests for Historic Designation • Woods Building • Cowenhoven Building ' Aspen Arcades 6. Incorporation of the proposed Historic District as an integral element of the Urban Design Plan - Spring, 1974. 7. Actions to Designate the Historic Overlay District., ' P & Z recommendation to HPC to evaluate the Commercial Core for Historic Designation - August 10, 1973. • HPC recommendation to establish the Commercial Core as a Historic District - October 13, 1973. • Inventory of all historic structures in the Commercial Core - completed in Spring, 1974. P19 • Planning Studies and Maps presenting analysis of and a pre- liminary plan for the Commercial Core Historic District - Spring and Summer 1974. • Notice of joint public hearing with P & Z and HPC - published Times June 6, 1974. • Technical Assistance and information and recorded transcript of comments. - John Frisbee, Regional Director of the National Trust for Historic Preservation - June 24, 1974. - James Hartman, Colorado Historical Society - June 17, 1974. ' Public Hearing with P & Z and HPC and the transcript of the hearing - June 25, 1974. • Development and refinement of building review guidelines. • HPC and P & Z findings and reports to Council from the public hearing. • Study Sessions with P & Z, City Council and • HPC adoption of guidelines for review - August 23, 1974. ' Notice of public hearing - October 24, 1974. ' Public hearing and transcript of the hearing - November 11,1974.. • Notice of public hearing published in Times - November 28, 1974. • Pending amendments to Section 24:9 of the code. These major file documents along with additional public and private efforts fulfill the necessary ingredients. for an effective historic preservation program. 1. Private citizen interest and involvement. 2. Responsive local government. 3. Effective legal and regulatory controls. 4. Adequate base of data and information. 5. Manner in which the historic information and regulatory powers are combined with other elements of the city's planning process. 6. Money. -2- r P20 Designation of Aspen's Commercial Core as a Historic District represents a major new step towards historic preservation, a step that is broader and more comprehensive than any past efforts. The designa- tion first gives recognition to the Commercial Core as an area where much of the city's early heritage is represented by designating the remaining 39 historic structures of the mining era. Second, it estab- lishes the review of new construction, exterior remodeling and demoli- tion of structures in the Commercial Core to insure that the integrity of the area is maintained and promoted. In conclusion the Planning Office recommends adoption of the Commercial Core Historic District from the standpoint that: ▪ Historic'Districts have been established and proven to maximize restoration and preservation efforts. ' Aspen's Historic District will help to guide future de- velopment of the Commercial Core as a unique location with high visual and aesthetic standards. ' The district will increase the Commercial Core's appeal to both residents and tourists thereby lending support to the economic strength and success of the area and the City in general. • -3- Ali Ord. #49 ORDINANCE #49, SERIES OF 1974, CREATION OF COMMERCIAL CORE H - HISTORIC DISTRICT • O 1 H District Second reading and public hearing. _. 21 Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. C,cI John Stanford - "The proposal up here tonight is on the proposed designation of the commercial core, H - Historic district, which is located, the boundaries of which are Hunter street on the east, Monarch street on the west, Durant street on the south, and the alley behind the Jerome on the north. 1 I would like to submit a list of major supporting file documents for the designation of the commercial core Historic district and enter this list in the records of tonight's hearing. This document also traces Aspen's public involvement to develop and protect the values to be derived from historic preservation. The list reads as follows: 1. The goal was established to preserve Aspen's Historic heritage by the Goals Task . Force, September 1971. 2. Ordinance 5, Series of 1972, amendemnt incorporating the historic section to the code incorporating provisions for a historic district, and establishing the Historic Preserva- tion Committee. 3. Actions to designate individual structures within the proposed district are as follows: - I The Wheeler Opera House by Ordinance adopted on March 12, 1972 Crystal Palace, adopted on August 10, 1973 Courthouse, by ordinance, on September 10, 1973 City Hall adopted by ordinance on May 21, 1974. 4. There are additional requests for historic designation of historic buildings in the core, and these are The Woods building, same thing as Aspen Drug Cowenhoven Building, which is Ute City Banque The Aspen Arcades 5. In 1973 and 1974 over $60,000 was spent on the restoration of the Wheeler Opera House with $15,000 more scheduled for 1975. I) I 6. The proposed historic district is also incorporated as an integral element of the 1 1 1 Urban Design Plan developed the spring of 1974. i . 7. Specific actions to designate the historic overlay distr are: iI : P & Z recommendation to HPC to evaluate the Commercial core for historic designation on August 10, 1973 The HPC recommendation to initiate procedures to establish the commercial core i) as a historic district on October 13, 1973. An inventory of all historic structures in the commercial core completed in the spring of 1974. Planning studies and maps presenting analysis of and a preliminary plan for the commercial core historic district which was done in spring and summer of this year Public notice of the joint public hearing with P & Z and HPC - published in the Times June 6, 1974. Technical assistance and information and a recorded transcript of comments from Mr. John Frisbee, Regional Director of the Nation Trust for Historic preservation, June 24, 1974 and Mr. James Hartman of the Colorado Historical Society, June 17, 1974. ;I Joint public hearing with P & Z and HPC and the transcript of the hearing which ;I was held on June 25th of this year. The development of building review guidelines HPC and P & Z findings and reports to Council from the public hearing Study sessions on building reveiw guildelines with P & Z, City Council and local architects. �! HPC adoption of guidelines for review, August 23, 1974 !j Public notice of the public hearing, October 24, 1974 The public hearing and transcript of that hearing, November 11, 1974 Notice of the public hearing published in the Times November 28, 1974 Pending amendments to Section 24.9 of the code w ich is in process right now I These major file documents, which I have listed along with public and private efforts fulfill the various necessary ingredients for an effective public historic preserva- tion program. . The designation of Aspen's commercial core as an historic district represents a major, new step towards historic preservation. The step that is broader and more comprehensive than any past efforts. The designation first designates the remaining 39 historic structures in the proposed district, and second it establishes the review of new con- struction, exterior remodeling, and demolition of historic structures in the commercial j core to insure that the integrity of the area is. maintained and promoted. i In conclusion, the planning office recommends establishment of the commercial historic tt district from the standpoint that historic districts have been established and proved L. to maximize restoration and preservation efforts. Aspen's historic district will help to guide future development of the commercial core as a unique location in the city with I li ii _ P 2 high visual and aesthetic standards. And finally the district will promote the commercia core's appeal to both residents and tourists alike thereby lending support to the economic strength, prestige and success of the area and City in general." 1 Sandra Stuller - "Let me just admit some additional documents on the record. I'd like to 1 , submit the report of the HPC to the Council on the Commercial district, list of the owner -,� of the property within the proposed district, copies of all the letters sent to the same, certificates of mailing of the letter to all the owners, all indicating compliance with the notice requirements of 24- 9.1(e). That's it" Mayor Standley - "Anybody else that wishes to address the public hearing." � I I Rus Pielstick - "First of all a letter from Ted Mularz, he's sorry he couldn't be here. I think that I speak for most of the architects in Aspen. We have met with the Historic Preservation Commission and presented our views on exactly what we felt the value of historic preservation was. We have no argument with the idea that old buildings, which have%walue to the community, should be preserved and preserved by legislation. However, it seems to us that to put in the hands of the Historic Preservation Committee the I evaluation of contemporary buildings within Aspen is a misinterpretation of the value of history. It seems that to put constraints on design can only be conceived in the past, you can only look at the past and establish those constraints. And in no way can you perceive that which the future has to offer by looking at the past. It seems that you have a choice between optimism and pessimism. The optimistic view, of course, if the view that there's a possibility in the future that is greater than the possibility of the past. The pessimistic view is that the past, indeed, has all the charm. It seems to me that that's a lie. Aspen is not Savannah, Georgia; Aspen is not Williamsburg, Virginia; Aspen is a community! that has had a vitality over a period of years, has had new and creative structures within its commercial core and yet it has in its history an effort to obtain the best that modern time had to offer. When we got ready to put up the first tent, we didn't put up a tent like the miner's used. We went to one of the best architects we could find and had Eero Saarinen design our first tent. When we got ready to remodel the first tent, we didn't go back to the 1870's, we went to Herbert Bayer and had him remodel the tent. It seems to me that the opportunities that would be provided for the future, which could be cancelled out by this kind of legislation are innumerable. And it seems to me that I it's shortsighted of us to think that the preservation of the past is the best that we can expect Of the future. It seems to me that when you're talking about things like I mood and emotional content of the community and so forth that we can expect a lot more of the future than we can expect of the past. And to use the past as the guidelines in my opinion is rather stupid. It seems to me that it would be stupid to use the guidelines I for a Model T to design missiles for the moon. It seems that 1970 should not and indeed • in reality cannot be the guidelines for establishing a standard of 1870. It seems to me that this kind of legislation is detrimental to the community, and that does not speak against the value of history.- I think anyone who has been through the rigors of architectural training has a great respect for history. And we would be very supportive of any legislation which would be protective of the history which is available in our Ii i community. But to overlay upon our community the restrictions of history seems short- sighted. That's all I have to say." Councilman Behrendt - "Rua, wouldn't your very worries be taken care of if you and a number of others would apply and be chose to serve on that board, because I don't think at any point are we requiring anyone to put up a Victorian cathedral or something like ' that." i Rus Pielstick - "I find a danger in that, Mike. In fact, perhaps the danger was i exemplified right here in that Jim Breasted, who is a good designer, worked through a )plan which other professionals in the field couldn't accept. And it seems to me that you have to allow the professionals who are involved, the people who are developing a 1 project to put the initiative and their own inspiration into a project in order to make it good. I think it's that inspiration that puts the art in architecture. It's some - II thing that you can't evaluate in terms of the past." I I Councilman Breasted - "I think you're reading a lot more into the ordinance than is there. Rus Pielstick - "I think that's possibly true, but I think to have" I Councilman Breasted - "NO one is telling you you have to make a Victorian building." • Rus Pielstick - "But they do tell you you have to use vertical windows. They do tell you that you have to have certain types of relationships in the overhang to the window align- I ment, those kind of things are rather restrictive. It seems to me that if you would just I take as an example one block, let's take Cooper street where the Wiener Stube is. First of all if the Wiener Stube came into this Commission, you would never approve that building, it's garbage. And yet it's one of the best spaces in town." j Councilman Breasted - "It has to do with ownership rather than architecture." Rus Pielstick - "You would never, at this point, approve the Shaft, and yet when you I watch people congregate on Cooper street, where do they congregate? The Shaft. That's where people are. " I Mayor Standley - "Well, so what?" Rus Pielstick - "Obviously, they are responding to it. I don't think that any of us II here, and myself included, and other professionals on the Board included, I don't think we have the perception to see, I really don't." 1 Ramona Markalunas - "I'm compelled to remind you Rus, that today is tomorrow's history. That everything historical is not based in the 1870's or the 1880's. I just cannot see O • G this viewpoint that when it's historical, it has to be in the 1880's. I think we are 'P23 making history in Aspen every day of the week. That just because it's an historic district does not mean that it's an 1880's architecture." I I Rue Pielstick = "I don't think you can take people who have the orientation of looking at I. history and have, let's just take some examples of recent buildings. The Conoco station ` couldn't be built. The A.I.A. says that's a pretty good building. I don't know whether it is or not. History is going to tell as whether it's a good building. It's a pretty 0 exceptional gas station, anyway. That building couldn't be built." Bill Dunaway - "Why do you say that ?" I Rue Pielstick - "Because it wouldn't conform. The windows are not vertical." 1t ' Mayor Standley - "This isn't.a discussion. It's a public hearing to make comment and I p don't want it to generate into a dialogue." l I Bill Dunaway - "My name is Hill Dunaway. I'm the owner of two buildings in the proposed l district and I think that what Mr. Pielstick just said here is rot. I think, if you don't have some guidelines to go on, and I think the historic guidelines are the best. Every I building that's built has been designed by an architect. You go to Vail and you see every -I' l one of -those buildings has been designed by an architect without any guidelines based on l 1 history. And what do you have? I mean if you like what they're doing in Vail, then you don't want the H district here. But I'm for it as a property owner and as somebody 111 I interested in the community. I think we do need historic guidelines, and I think that's the most important thing that Aspen has is to rely on its tradition and its history and not to permit the architects to create something entirely new." d I 1 Bob Sproull - • "Twos the night before the night before Christmas. ��.I is too bad that this l important issue is brought before the people when most are just out of time at this time 1 of year. It was thoroughly discussed during the P & Z open hearing this past summer, and I must say with some vigor, a lot more than is here tonight. Your records, which it has not been mentioned, should indicate that P & Z recommended disapproval of this ordinance." ii Bill Dunaway - "That's wrong." Bob Sproull - "Well maybe I'm wrong but that was certainly the mood of the meeting. I an Bob Sproull, I own and operate Jake's restaurant, and I personally own the building in which it is located. I believe this ordinance is well - intentioned and I agree with much of its II purpose, but I am bothered by it. My building was built in 1888 and I hope it stands, as r is, in 2088. Just as important, 'I hope this town remains relatively the same in 2088. i I Most ski resorts are set up by the big mother corporation with an investment of. 20, 30, 50 I 1 million dollars. They own everything, and lease out to various individuals, restaurants, 0 I shops, gas stations, etc. They make sure that all they lease, or even sell, is done to II "right people" who will perform in an accepted, controlled manner. Thus the big corpora- 1 tion investment will not be undermined. Consequently, you end up with plastic, instant l nostalgia, cute, contrived situations, i.e., Vail, Sun Valley, and I'm sorry to say even ! Snowmass, if you will. Aspen is unique because to date we are not controlled by the big mother, Curt Haar, Andre, Bert Bidwell, Don Fleisher, to name only a few, all look at. thing �. differently, do it their way, and may the town interesting. I am becoming concerned that Aspen is becoming a cute, a botique, it seems that lately the few people, again well intentioned, are deciding what looks nice for everybody. Now a few people will decide on il private property what colors look nice, what something looks like is nice, but who decides or knows if they are nice? Seven or ten people deciding what looks nice by its very nature can very easily make everything look like a pat . job. It seems to me that what was I unique to Aspen, again to date we are not controlled by the big mother, is becoming usurped. All the ingredients are being set up here in this ordinance, for a cute, contrivedll perfect Carmel -of- the - Rockies. ' , Who knows who is going to be on the historical committee ten years 'from now. The people r who designed the malls are no longer even in town. This ordinance in my thinking has �1. nothing to do with growth or non - growth. The City is pretty well zoned against skyscrapers in the Washington monument. i Here's what I came to say. I believe it's more important that this town not become a cute lI fake than some guy paint his building mint green. Incidentally, the majority of the people1 who own this property did not want this ordinance, and that should be a very strong fact. That's how I feel about it." i Mayor Standley - "I have got a letter from Ted Mularz. 'As a person who has done a great Il deal in the interest of preserving the architectural character of Aspen during my 16 years as a resident and an architect, I submit this letter in opposition to the ordinance creating an historic district within the commercial core in it's present form. Unfortunately the 11 1 public hearing is scheduled during a week when many residents are busy because of the holiday season, and I, as one, apologize for not being able to attend personally. I have, however expressed my criticism and objections as well as given positive input to the 1 historic committee at two different meetings prior to this meeting obviously to no avail. other Aspen architects and I would be happy to review them again with Council at another I� i time convenient for all of us. Sincerely, Ted Mularz.' Are there any other comments ?" I , C ity Manager Mahoney - "There is a memo here from the building department. I would like to I h eve that entered into the record." it i i I!, II . II P 24 1/4- - ■ C `Y OF ASPE arr�N aspen,colora box v • May 28, 1974 Don Fleisher & James Cox Box 2630 -`� � • Aspen, Colorado 81611 /.,) (t1 Re: Lot(s) e. 6' of G; H; I J � t Block 89 • City of Aspen Dear Sirs: The Aspen Historic Preservation Committee was established in 1972 to identify and preserve historic sites and structures in the City of Aspen. Encouraged by the federal government's actions to preserve the nation's heritage and recent Colorado legislation authorizing historic designation by municipalities, the Committee has initiated proceedings pursuant to Section 24-9.1 of our code to designate the central core of the city an historic district. The area is bounded by Durant Street to the south, Monarch to the west, Hunter to the east and the alley north of Main Street. The proposed district contains structures already carrying historic designation, many proposed for such designation, and the area as . a whole incor- porates a high concentration of structures and sites representing the commercial, social and political • history of the City of Aspen prior to 1893. Our ordinance requires that our Committee contact all owners of property within an area proposed for designation to state the reasons for and effects of such designation, and to attempt to obtain consent by the owners. Incorporated in this correspondence is a map showing the area proposed for designation, a letter from the city attorney outlining the effects of designation, and a consent form which we submit for your signature. We would appreciate a return within a week, if possible. A joint public hearing of the Committee and the Planning and Zoning Conunission will be held in the City P May 28, 1974 Page 2 Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, on Tuesday, June 25, 1974, at 5 P.M., to consider the rezoning of the area as an H, Historic Overlay District, and your comments at that time are invited. If you have any questions, please contact John Stanford, City Planning Office, at 925 -2020, Ext. 58. Thank you for your consideration, Aspen Historic Preservation Committee P26 ` EFFECTS OF HISTORIC DESIGNATION The Aspen Historic Preservation Committee has requested that I summarize the legal effects and consequences to landowners upon creation of the proposed historic district in the central core. Let me first note that the procedures have only been initiated, and there must yet be (1) preliminary approval of the designation by the .Planning and Zoning Commission, (2) a joint hearing by the Historic Preservation Committee and Planning and Zoning Commission, scheduled for June 25, 1974, (3) adoption of the district by the City Council, and (4) recordation of the adopting ordinance . In establishing a historic district, as opposed to designating specific structures, all land (vacant or otherwise) and existing and proposed structures within the district area come under the close super- vision of the Preservation Committee. Let me describe the effects as follows: Required Review No building permit may issue for 1. the exterior remodeling or reconstruction of any structure within the district; 2. the demolition or moving of any structure within the district; or 3. the construction or erection of any new structure or addition to any structure within the district; unless the building inspector determines that no change to the exterior appearance of the structure or combination of structures will occur, or until the Preservation Committee has reviewed the permit application and approved the same. Review Procedures The review procedures are rather complex so I will merely summarize. They require an applicant to submit preliminary scale drawings and outline specifications to the building inspector who will determine if exterior changes will result. If so, the material is forwarded to the Preservation Committee who will hold at least one public hearing and then either: 1. approve or approve the proposal subject to modifications and so advise the building inspector, or 2. disapprove and so notify the building inspector who must then deny the permit. P27 Criteria for Approval The Preservation Committee will judge any proposed remodeling for the preservation of historical, archi- tectural and characteristic qualities, and any new structure for complementary design with the existing structures within the district. In case of an applica- tion to raze, demolish or move a structure, judgment shall be made on the basis of the structure's historical and architectural importance, its importance as a part of the area within which it is located, and the actual physical condition of the structure. Dangerous Conditions; Exceptions; Appeal The Committee may grant exceptions from the effects of designation, and Committee approval is not necessary when the owner is repairing or demolishing a structure on order of a city or other governmental officer when needed to remedy a dangerous condition. ' I As is apparent, historic designation does have significant impact on landowners within a district. If you have any questions, please call me at 925 -2020, Ext. 53, and I will be happy to help. Thank you. Very truly yours, Sandra M.- Stuller City Attorney SMS:sd \ • P28 LETTER OF REPLY TO: The Aspen Historic Preservation Committee RE: Designation of the Aspen Central Core as an Historic District I, the undersigned, acknowledge receipt of notice of the joint public hearing for the district designation to be held June 25, 1974, and further acknowledge that I have been advised of the reasons for and effects of the designation of the central area of the city as an H, Historic Overlay District. I wish to consent to such designation affecting that property owned by me within said proposed district and by my signature hereto do so consent. Date (Signature) • • 1 P29' . j i HISTORIC PRES•ERVATIDNI • VEr:LAY DISTRICT L ._1[ II 1[ 1 11I11`; .. i L 0 .H211 I1 1.1, e�� ;Y Hous ' v MAIN ST. 1 C ITY i II I i li a.* CI 1 l • HOPKINS AVE. :I N m I ; [ II'�' 1 I► � 1 i 5 TII I I I I l [�1 I IA 1 1 g _ 11.1 Q HYMAN AVE. 1 71 . I r • . 1 L � 8 I , I I I 2 _ � � i ,a T;;1 1 I, . 1 . COOPER W AVE. 1........ OIJRANT AVE �_� �_'i . I on 11 1 LEGEND * Designation pending action by City Council \ 11. Photographic Studio Cj EXISTING DESIGNATED STRUCTURE I 12. Aspen Lumber and Supply and Sabhatinfs 13. Brand Buikling PROPOSED STRUCTURES FOR DESIGNATION 14, Two Residential Structures 1. Aspen Times 15. Mother l.rxle Pv 16. Danny's, Aspen Chug died lake's Abbey ' 2. Thre Jerome slenlivl Structure( 17. Elks Building 3. Three o 1 Aspen 18. Liquor Store 4. E A 19. Paupon :rod the As1:on 3 o.k 5. Epicure icure 20. Cnwanhnmru Budding G. Saint Mary's Parish Home 21, Red Oman 8. Saint ces and 22. Eagles 1k, il11mi 8. Isis letulo 1w:m ncry and lx Caeina Restaurant 23. IrxluMrrxlunen Budding 9. Ius Td twaur' 24. Bnwin:o Gluck 10. Theo Rendenli;d Stmr.Lnes I I • ____ _ ...... ... . ( ... t P 3 0 t RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL-30, c (pits postage) I STREET ANO NO epsymARK __.. Thomap Benton Aii-onE CD , . ... Milt 0 vett P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE A IVA- —218-14ebiliftikiElatiaill — -- . Plb q t.0 Rum -1 . — Sitiiiito whom ilit iiiiiricifiliiiii. .. 1A0- : IL " RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only . .. , i , i '''' 650 en Cti SERTE 2. Shows to whom, date and whore delivera 35 4 "' A ' 1 S With delivery to addreSSO0 0171 L ._. .. 850 .------' DELIVER TO ADDRESSEEThiNIFT— ---------Ir= -2----- O ________ i Z APpAr.R;71 380 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED-- (See other side) NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL 4 01, 0:15172 0- 4 60-743 1 1 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL-30c (plus postage) POSTMARK SENT TO OR DATE Dillaillan & Dikran A S. STREET AND NO, (D , . 04 PM., STATE AND ZIP CODE sz.:4 0") ---1164V-AINA.CibicallActdc&a6 --- . v '4 RETURN I. Shows to whom and date delivered .. .... 350 \ i • - Li) RECEIPT With delivery to addressee 041Y .... .... 65t 2 Shows to whom, date and where delivered _ Aso • SERVIOES With de:MOM:psi address!! orb . , ..... 2 , 85t 7- DETITErtifianisTETTRTy - - Mod _ ..._ O i iiiibiAL tTalqiiirC6Atro fen reqUi roc6"... Z PS Form 4,4n Pi0 INSURANCE EGITERIT17 Apr, a NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL - e OPO :1972 0 - 460.440 • 4 1 - Recorded At 2:35 PM January 13, 197 Reception No 172512 Haae NOTICE qF HISTORIC DESIGNATION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the following area located in Pitkin County, Colorado, constituting the commercial core of the City of Aspen, has been desigpated an H, Historic Overlay District, to wit: Blocks 80, 81, 82, 83, 87, 88, 89, 90, 93, 94, 95, 96, and the south half of Blocks 79, 86, 92, of the original townsite of the City of Aspen, and south half of Block 19 of the East Aspen Addition to the City of Aspen. Such designation was made under the authority of Section 24 -9.1 of the Aspen Municipal Code by Ordinance 49, Series of 1974, effective January 8, 1975. As a consequence of designation, no building permit may issue for the (1) exterior remodeling, reconstruction of, or any addition to an exterior architectural feature of a structure within the district, (2) the demolition or moving of any structure within the district, or (3) the construction or erection of any new structure or addition to any structure within the district, until the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee has reviewed the permit applic- ation and approved the same. The Preservation Committee will judge any proposed remodeling for the preservation of historical, architectural and characteristic qualities, and any new structure for complimentary design with the existing structures within the district. In case of an application to raze, demolish or move a structure, judgment shall be made on the basis of the structure's historical and architectural importance, its ( importance as a part of the area within which it is located, and • GP .�., - r' k 11 fir. ' � , L'. : t .� ,.. i , .'.�{r M}. k..r °�. � _ ) a, %h . - i y � c w G. Y F P32 A 8 y it f yu the actual physical condition of the structure. All as set r forth in said Section '24 -9,1, and reference is made to rt Section 24 -9.1 for amore specific and detailed analysis of the:procedures and guidelines for the Committee's review. THIS NOTICE is given this seventh day of January, 1975, pursuant to the requirements of Section 24 -9.1 (e) 5b • of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado. e. j P . ' • Eat? yn Hauter ,r .��... �. s,V.'• City Clerk (SEALI b , ,r , o 4:, DI' o OQ o I 1 A --.. b O b�'Q I a t10 l Q g ;i � u6 r7� e _ ' 0 p o r' -,;(> • . , b .. ,,. I4 1 441i . Q . _o O4 td p o o • 111111.1, { { F aoo p 0 i eq o z �� Ea 8� s 1 C \ 1 p aV i B o X 0 4 _ " C?cg ... o r _ C aU 0 0 4 qc� Q� 5 1 ` 0 0 -:',7 ' � O br„� o: O 9 n , O0 �, O . C2 , - -, •• o 0o ,, 121 Q, ... F Q O. •�. . ,. W • °.°%�s�0 j p p� a _ .p "O ° � OQ aCt �� 6 .. o g �� ' • 6 (� ��`3 ' r \ o u z � O ,, aab e -" yam/ Q ry CI - civet,, t � a �� G G1 •.. .['S Ocnhhlt' _„-.0 V % O DDS �� a A ❑ . 0 . t 8 " r ?F ' 1� 4 © � � s� . - 1 l7 l G' - • Rb 10' 0 n ca3i o !�' QGi Egg £ h 8 - , (�g7M � lj „�Q' ,, q t, 4 Q' u � e .• Art_ q it RtziA ,e 2.'1-' �7 a❑Qp0 Q . U s fl � r 'a . � kg �� g ti °o 9E L . Lu . /� �Q - . 0 • .' ot- a . °., fro' a ' � o va � fl o 0 0 '' i'.'Ngi§ Fiki ° 1 ,:i.' - ID ti ' . ,4 , z Ili. \ ' - D ' .° gc6 2 ! '---‘; ''- J : r-' 4 1 CT 1 }-[-- Aff rl . I 4 ;__'-/ ' . ' ' ? )t' ri c2 i de p n .. re Aa c k .. F� S[a4 , a z q e 9 E ? . F E3 n� a o � 7 i r ; _ - ,`o D = , , ' G I n I r doe $ t a ,, ,,.,§i.,, ' ❑ d❑ 6 C` `V o f S '^ � ..-- F �.` dry 1 U q � 1 , �' I ° aan a a ° $ • q e- p° O d Q P - , ° d\ e . 'D De b O d C YW �` 4 � o ° g I. , \ ' .9 o z� ;.,k, ;.,k, 1 ;t., = 4 6 'd � d - 1M ct ; Y 6 © q ci •t ,0 <3 b `b 57 ii i i rr 8 $ P34 � �►��1- CITY OF ASPEN env, "THE "THE ASPEN INVENTORY OF HISTORIC LANDMARK SITES AND STRUCTURES" Updated April 2011 (THIS LIST IS PROVIDED AS GENERAL INFORMATION. SINCE IT IS POSSIBLE THAT STREET ADDRESS NUMBERS HAVE CHANGED, CALL AMY GUTHRIE AT 429 -2758 OR SARA ADAMS AT 429 -2778 TO CONFIRM THE STATUS OF ANY PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY WHEN IN DOUBT.) P35 (Note: The ordinance that designated the property historic is provided after some addresses.) COMMERCIAL CORE HISTORIC DISTRICT (Established via Ordinance #49, Series of 1974) 420 E. Cooper (Red Onion) (National Register) - Ord. 9 -1982 501 E. Cooper (Independence Building) - Ord 9 -1982 529 -531 E. Cooper - Ord 61 -1992 104 S. Galena - Ord 16 -1985 130 S. Galena (Armory City Hall) (National Register) - Ord 38 -1974 203 S. Galena (Hyman -Brand Building) (National Register) - Ord 57 -1981 209 S. Galena- Ord. 34- 1995 210 S. Galena (Webber Block) (National Register) - Ord 49 -1989 303 S. Galena (Aspen Block) - Ord 57 -1981 312 S. Galena - Ord 57 -1981 302 E. Hopkins - Ord 16 -1985 309 E. Hopkins /200 S. Monarch - Ord 36 -1990 316 E. Hopkins - Ord 1 -1992 406 E. Hopkins - Ord. 58- 1995 530 E. Hopkins — Ord. 34- 1995 532 E. Hopkins — Ord. 34- 1995 534 E. Hopkins — Ord. 34- 1995 405 -407 Hunter (National Register) — Ord. 61 - 1992 300 E. Hyman (and Owl Cigar sign)- Ord 57 -1981 314 E. Hyman — Ord. 34- 1995 328 E. Hyman (Wheeler Opera House) (National Register) - Ord 10 -1973 413 E. Hyman (Riede's City Bakery) (National Register) - Ord 77 -1981 419 E. Hyman- Ord 17 -2001 432 E. Hyman — Ord. 34- 1995 428 E. Hyman - Ord 9 -1982 501 E. Hyman (Ute City Building)- Ord 57 -1981 304 -308 S. Galena (Arcades)- Ord 22 -2001 303 E. Main — (National Register) Ord 15 -1994 309 E. Main - Ord 56 -1989 310 E. Main - Ord 5 -1987 315 E. Main - Ord 56 -1989 330 E. Main — (National Register) Ord 9 -1982 506 E. Main - (National Regiser) Ord 25 -1973 533 E. Main (St. Mary's Church) - Ord 77 -1981 100 S. Mill - Ord 5 -1987 101 S. Mill - Ord 5 -1987 204 S. Mill (Collins Block) (National Register) - Ord 9 -1982 208 S. Mill - Ord 57 -1981 2 P36 MAIN STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT (Established via Ordinance #60, Series of 1976) 128 E. Main - Ord 4 -1985 201 E. Main- Ord 50 -1986 202 E. Main - Ord 16 -1985 208 E. Main - Ord 16 -1985 216 E. Main - Ord 16 -1985 220 and 230 E. Main (Cortina Lodge) — Ord 25 - 2010 221 E. Main — Ord 16- 1985 & Ord. 4- 1995 227 E. Main — Ord. 34- 1995 125 W. Main - Ord 16 -1985 132 W. Main - Ord 33 -1994 & Ord 56 -1976 135 W. Main - Ord 16 -1985 205 W. Main — Ord. 34- 1995 211 W. Main - Ord 16 -1985 300 W. Main - Ord 21 -1988 320 W. Main (Smith - Elisha House) (National Register) - Ord 56 -1988 328 W. Main - Ord 57 -1981. 332 W. Main - Ord 4 -1982 333 W. Main - Ord 5 -1987 400 W. Main - Ord 16 -1985 430 W. Main - Ord 49 -1989 435 W. Main (in district)- Ord 36- 2006 500 W. Main - Ord 57 -1981 501 W. Main 518 W. Main — Ord. 34- 1995 604 W. Main — Ord. 34- 1995 611 W. Main — Ord. 34- 1995 612 W. Main - Ord 16 -1985 616 W. Main- Ord 10 -1996 627 W. Main - Ord 57 -1979 633 W. Main - Ord 57 -1979 & Ord 4 - 1995 701 W. Main and a new lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot split — Ord. 34- 1995 706 W. Main - Ord 56 -1989 709 W. Main - Ord 59 -1994 & Ord. 34- 1995 734 W. Main (Sorenson's) - Ord 5 -1987 101 S. Monarch — Ord 4 - 1995 200 S Monarch — Ord 36- 1990 Paepcke Park Gazebo - Ord 57 -1981 3 P37 DESIGNATED LANDMARKS LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS Aspen Brewery Ruins — Ord 4- 1995 Aspen Grove Cemetery — Ord 4- 1995 Boat Tow and Lift 1 (National Register) - Tower, Skier Chalet - Ord 57 -1981 710 S. Aspen - 720 Bay Street — Ord 34 -1992 100 E. Bleeker - Ord 62 -1989 110 E. Bleeker — Ord 34 - 1992 126 E. Bleeker - Ord 5 -1985 134 E. Bleeker - Ord 25 -1992 200 E. Bleeker (Community Church) (National Register) - Ord 39 -1974 209 E. Bleeker — Ord 4 - 1995 214 E. Bleeker - Ord 7 -1982, plus vacant lot created through Historic Landmark Lot Split 227 E. Bleeker — Ord 34 - 1992 232 E. Bleeker — Ord 34 - 1992 121 W. Bleeker — Ord 34 - 1992 129 W. Bleeker — Ord 34 - 1992 131 W. Bleeker - Ord 77 -1981 205 W. Bleeker — Ord 4 - 1995 213 W. Bleeker- Ord 10 -2000 214 W. Bleeker - Ord 11 -1991 215 W. Sleeker - Ord 5 -1987 217 W. Bleeker — Ord 34 - 1992 233 W. Bleeker — Ord 34 - 1992 331 W. Bleeker- new house on lot created by Historic Landmark Lot Split 333 W. Bleeker (D.E. Frantz House) (National Register) - Ord 77 -1981 442 W. Bleeker (Pioneer Park) (National Register) - Ord 7 -1982, Ord 41- 1993 500 W. Bleeker - Ord 5 -1987 513 W. Bleeker — Ord 77 - 1981 605 W. Bleeker /aka 121 N. Fifth Street — Ord 77 - 1981 609 W. Bleeker- new house on a lot created by Historic Landmark Lot Split 620 W. Bleeker (Wheeler - Stallard House) (National Register) - Ord 18- 1973 631 W. Bleeker- new house on lot created by Historic Landmark Lot Split 635 W. Bleeker — Ord 34 - 1992 735 W. Bleeker, Ord 43 -1998 118 E. Cooper - Ord 4 -1982 124 E. Cooper — Ord 34 - 1992 135 E. Cooper (Dixon - Markle House) (National Register) - Ord 77 -1981 820 E. Cooper- Ord 51, 1995 824 E. Cooper — Ord 34 - 1992 918 E. Cooper- Ord 7, 1996 935 E. Cooper — Ord 34 - 1992 939 E. Cooper, units A -E - Ord 2 -1995 1000 E. Cooper — Ord 34 - 1992 4 P38 1006 E. Cooper- Ord 30 -2000 1020 E. Cooper — Ord 34 - 1992 827 Dean — Ord 17 - 2007 1004 E. Durant #1 - Ord 32 -1989 505 N. Eighth - Ord 4 -1982 121 N. Fifth /aka 605 W. Bleeker - Ord 77 -1981 609 W. Bleeker- new house on lot created by a Historic Landmark Lot Split 421 N. Fifth — Ord 4- 1995 505 N. 5th- Ord 77 -1981 & Ord 5 -2001, newer house on a Historic Landmark Lot Split 308 N. First — Ord 33 - 1999 414 N. First - Ord 57 -1981 311 S. First — Ord 34 - 1992 317/319 N. Fourth, units A and B - Ord 77 -1981 120 W. Francis Ord 41 - 1995 123 W. Francis - Ord 41 -1995/ Ord 34 - 1992 129 W. Francis- new house on lot created by a Historic Landmark Lot Split 126 W. Francis — Ord 34 - 1992 135 W. Francis Ord 77 - 1981 201 W. Francis (Bowles - Cooley House) (National Register) - Ord 7 -1982 202 W. Francis — Ord 34 - 1992 234 W. Francis (Davis Waite House) (National Register) - Ord 7 -1982 420 W. Francis - Ord 5 -1987 432 W. Francis (Hallet House) (National Register) - Ord 77 -1981 500 W. Francis - Ord 4 -1982 522 W. Francis — Ord 34 - 1992 523 W. Francis — Ord 34 - 1992 529 W. Francis, new lot created by a Historic Landmark Lot Split 533 W. Francis 600/612 W. Francis- Ord 20- 2008 700 W. Francis - Ord 10 -1992 712 W. Francis — Ord 34 - 1992 716 W. Francis - Ord 11 -1992 860 Gibson - Ord 4 -1995 980 Gibson — Ord 34 - 1992 990 Gibson — Ord 34 - 1992 311 Gillespie /710 N. Third - Ord 7 -1982 314 Gillespie - Ord 4 - 1995 330 Gillespie — Ord 4 - 1995 405 Gillespie /707 N. Third — Ord 34 - 1992 507 Gillespie- new lot created by Historic Landmark Lot Split 515 Gillespie- Ord 20 -2001 Glory Hole Park — Ord 34 - 1992 101 E. Hallam- Ord 16 -2001/ Ord 34 - 1992 105 E. Hallam — Ord. 4 - 1995 123 E. Hallam - Ord 4 -1985 127 E. Hallam - Ord 78 -1989 5 P39 131 E. Hallam - Ord 77 -1981 216 E. Hallam, plus lot to the rear containing the bam- Ord 34- 1992 223 E. Hallam — Ord. 4 - 1995 232 E. Hallam - Ord 4 -1982 100 W. Hallam - Ord 4 -1982 215 W. Hallam - Ord 62 -1987 229 W. Hallam — Ord 34 - 1992 233 W. Hallam — Ord 34 - 1992 304 W. Hallam — Ord 36 - 2002 320 W. Hallam - Ord 4 -1982 323 W. Hallam — Ord 34 - 1992 334 W. Hallam - Ord 21 -1988 403 W. Hallam — Ord 34 - 1992 417/421 W. Hallam (421 W. Hallam — Ord 34 — 1992) 504 W. Hallam — Ord 4 - 1995 525 W. Hallam - Ord 46 -1995 530 W. Hallam - Ord 7 -1982 533 W. Hallam — Ord 34 - 1992 610 W. Hallam- Ord 58 -1994 620 W. Hallam - Ord 11 -1991 716 W. Hallam (condo unit 1)— Ord 34 - 1992 834 W. Hallam- Ord 56 -1993 918 W. Hallam- new house on a lot created by a Historic Landmark Lot Split 920 W. Hallam- Ord 23- 1998 922 W. Hallam- new house on a lot created by a Historic Landmark Lot Split 113 E. Hopkins - Ord 77 -1981 208 E. Hopkins - Ord 7 -1982 214 E. Hopkins — Ord 34 - 1992 623 E. Hopkins /625 E. Hopkins — Ord 34 - 1992 635 E. Hopkins — Ord 34 — 1992 (aka 205 S. Spring Street) 811 E. Hopkins, plus new house on same parcel — Ord 34 - 1992 819 E. Hopkins, plus new house on same parcel — Ord 34 - 1992 1008 E. Hopkins- Ord 18- 1997 134 W. Hopkins - Ord 21 -1988 134 % W. Hopkins — Ord 21 - 1988 135 W. Hopkins — Ord 34 - 1992 200 W. Hopkins — Ord 34 - 1992 205 W. Hopkins — Ord 34 - 1992 212 W. Hopkins - Ord 26 -1988 222 W. Hopkins - Ord 77 -1981 325 W. Hopkins — Ord 34 - 1992 500 W. Hopkins (portion of the Boomerang Lodge)- Ord 21 of 2007 134 E. Hyman — Ord 44 - 2006 201 E. Hyman - Ord 7 -1982 630 E. Hyman — Ord 26- 2009 920 E. Hyman- Ord 1- 1999 6 P40 935 E. Hyman - Ord 30 -1996, Lot 1 990 E. Hyman — Ord 4 - 1995 214 W. Hyman — Ord 34 - 1992 216 W. Hyman — Ord 34 - 1992 312 W. Hyman — Ord 45 - 2006 107 -119 Juan — Ord 4 - 1995 920 King- new house on a lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split 930 King- Ord.20 -1998 935 King — Ord 4 - 1995 206 Lake (Newberry House) (National Register) - Ord 57 -1981 210 Lake - Ord 28 -1980 212 Lake - Ord 17 -1980 220 Lake - Ord 10 -1981 240 Lake- Ord 15 -1998 320 Lake - Ord 77 -1981 330 Lake- Ord 4 - 2000 540 E. Main 835 W. Main- Ord 50 -1993 Marolt Barns Site and Lixiviation Plant Ruins (National Register) - Ord 45 -1988 Maroon Creek Bridge (National Register) — Ord 4 - 1994 920 Matchless (unit 1) — Ord 34 - 1992 930 Matchless (unit 2) — Ord 34 - 1992 950 Matchless- Ord 28- 1998 The Meadows (Restaurant, Trustee Townhomes, Health Club, racetrack, Bayer gardens) Ord 5 -1996 327 Midland /328 Park — Ord 15 - 2001 590 N. Mill (Holy Cross Building) - Ord 51 -1981 202 N. Monarch — Ord 34 - 1992 212 N. Monarch - Ord 57 -1981 218 N. Monarch - Ord 77 -1981 114 Neale /17 Queen- Ord 17 -1990 311 North - Ord 79 -1992 401 North Ord 4 - 1995 500 North - Ord 77 -1981 Opal Marolt House (40176 Highway 82) — Ord 45 - 1988 308 Park- Ord 4 - 1995 310 Park, new lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split 328 Park/327 Midland- Ord 15 -2001 333 Park - Ord 4 - 1995 401 Park - Ord 4 - 1995 1080 Power Plant (City Shop) - Ord 21 -1992 101 Puppy Smith — Ord 4 - 1995 17 Queen Street — Ord 17 — 1990 and Ord 1 — 1997 541/541 %z Race Street /Alley - Red Butte Cemetery — Ord 5 - 1996 1295 Riverside Drive, plus new lot created by Historic Landmark Lot Split — Ord 3 -2004 7 P41 423 N. Second - Ord 77 -1981 426 N. Second/229 W. Smuggler — Ord 40 - 1999 525 N. Second (Shilling -Lamb House) (National Register) - Ord 77 -1981 Sheeley Bridge (National Register) — Ord 34 - 1992 117 N. Sixth- Ord 48- 1998 106 N. Seventh Street- new house on Landmark property 28 Smuggler Grove Road- Ord. 25 - 2008 229 W. Smuggler /426 N. 2 Ord 40 -1999 400 W. Smuggler - Ord 77 -1981 406 W. Smuggler - Ord 49 -1989 434 W. Smuggler — Ord 58 - 1992 513 W. Smuggler - new house on a lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split, Ord 77 -1981 523 W. Smuggler — Ord 77 - 1981 609 W. Smuggler — Ord 34 - 1992 610 W. Smuggler /505 N. 5th- Ord 77 -1981 & Ord 5 -2001 629 W. Smuggler — Ord 4 - 1995 715 W. Smuggler - Ord 77 -1981 205 S. Spring Street - Ord 34 — 1992 (aka 635 E. Hopkins) 470 N. Spring — Ord 34 - 1992 514 N. Third - Ord 32 -1989 610 N. Third - Ord 4 -1982 620 N. Third — Ord 34 - 1992 640 N. Third- Ord 18 -2001, Historic Landmark Lot Split Ord. 47 of 2005, created new lot (335 Lake Avenue ?) 701 N. Third — Ord 34 - 1992 710 N. Third - Ord 7 -1982 205 S. Third (Matthew Callahan Log Cabin) (National Register) - Ord 77 -1981 Triangle Park - Ord. 4 -1982 Ute Cemetery — (National Register) Ord 15- 1973 1500 Ute Avenue — Ord 34 - 1992 520 Walnut - Ord 48 -1994 557 Walnut — Ord 4 - 1995 1102 Waters Avenue — Ord 23 - 2010 2 William's Way- Ord 18 -1999 8 CITY OF ASPEN n 1 P42 PRE- APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY " ' t " PLANNER: Chris Bendon, 429 -2765 DATE: 7.20.11 PROJECT: Hunter /Hyman REPRESENTATIVE: Stan Clauson, Stan Clauson and Associates, 925 -2323 DESCRIPTION: The prospective applicant is interested in redeveloping the vacant parcel at the corner of Hunter and Hyman and the two adjacent commercial buildings to the west. The properties are not designated as historic structure, but are located in the Commercial Core Historic District. The new building(s) would contain commercial, free - market residential, and affordable residential uses, with underground parking access from the alleyway. The applicant is not expecting to request zoning variances. The project will require conceptual commercial design review prior to an application for growth management. Staff suggests the following sequence of reviews: HPC — Conceptual commercial design review; Conceptual major development; demolition within the CC historic district P&Z — Growth management review for new commercial, free - market residential, and affordable residential; \ recommendation to City Council for subdivision Council — Subdivision review HPC — Final commercial design review; Final major development Certain submission dates for growth management applications apply.' The project will be reviewed under the Land Use Code in effect upon submission of the first application within this sequence as long as the project remains active. Relevant Land Use Code Section(s): 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.412 Commercial Design Review (Conceptual and Final to be reviewed by the HPC) 26.415.070.D Certificate of appropriateness for major development. (Conceptual and Final by HPC) 26.415.080. Demolition of designated historic properties. (The properties are not designated, but are within the CC Historic District) 26.470 Growth Management Quota System 26.470.070.4 Affordable Housing 26.470.080.1 Expansion or new commercial development 26.470.080.2 New free - market residential units within a mixed -use project 26.470.110 Growth Management Review Procedures 26.480 Subdivision (for merging lots and the development of multiple dwelling units) 26.515 Parking 26.610 Impact Fees 26.620 School Lands Dedication 26.710.140 Commercial Core Zone District Review by: Staff for complete application Referral agencies for technical considerations Public Hearing: Yes — HPC, P &Z, and City Council. Staff will publish notice in the newspaper; applicant is responsible for posting and mailing notice. Planning Fees: $2,940 (for 12 hours of staff time, additional hours are billed hourly at $245.00 /hour) Referral Fees: $820; Housing and Engineering at $410.00. (flat fees due with GMQS aplication) Total Deposit: $2,940 for each of three submission phases. (HPC; PZ/CC; HPC) An additional $820 is due with the PZ/CC application. Note — the fees due will be according to the applicable fee policy at submission of each phase and may differ from those cited here. To apply, submit the following information P43 4 ❑ Proof of ownership with payment. ❑ Signed fee agreement. ❑ Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. ❑ Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attomey licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and 4 agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. ❑ Total deposit for review of the application. 4 ❑ 15 Copies of the complete application packet and maps for UPC submission 25 Copies of the complete application packet and maps for P &Z + Council submission 4 ❑ An 8 112" by 11" vicinity rpap locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. ❑ Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status, including all easements and vacated rights of way, of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado. (This requirement as discussed previously will be waived by the Community Development Department if the project 4 is determined not to warrant a survey document. Please submit a letter confirming there are no easements that are being built upon). ❑ A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include existing 4 conditions as well as proposed. List of adjacent property owners within 300' for public hearing 1 ❑ 3 -D digital model of the project, sketch -up preferred. ❑ Copies of prior approvals 1 ❑ Applications shall be provided in paper format (number of copies noted above) as well as the text only on either of 1 the following digital formats. Compact Disk (CD)- preferred, Zip Disk or Floppy Disk. Microsoft Word format is preferred. Text format easily convertible to Word is acceptable. 4 1 Disclaimer: i The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary 4 does not create a legal or vested right. 4 4 • 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 P44 \ - (—\. October 12, 2011 Mr. David L. Lenyo Garfield and Hecht, P.C. THE CITY OF ASPEN 601 E. Hyman Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 RE: APPEAL OF A RESOLUTION APPROVED BY THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Dear David, As required per Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.316.030 D., Appeal Procedures, Notice Requirements, notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, November 2, 2011, to begin at 4:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen. The purpose of the hearing is to consider the Aspen Core Ventures, LLC appeal of an action taken by the Historic Preservation Commission. The attached notice will be published in the Aspen Times on October 16, 2011. For further information, please feel free to contact me at 970.429.2758 or by email at amy.guthrie@n,ci.aspen.co.us. A memo will be provided to you prior to the hearing. Sincerely, Amy Guthrie Historic Preservation Officer 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 521 E , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: V&A NOV 2 € t , 20 (1 STATE OF COLORADO 1 ) )ss. - ... C County of Pitkin ' ) I , v �� . (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official L paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty -two (22) inches wide and twenty -six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the _ day of , 20, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (Continued on next page) • P46 Rezoning or text amendment: Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this / 7 day of O(ire) bQI , 20 (1, by ,tea -_, __ .. RE: APP i BLNO TICOF A RESOLUTION APPROVED BV THE EN HISTORIC PRESERVATION WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL NOTICE REBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, November 2, 2011, to be et 4:00 p m. befo the Aspen CIry Council, /�, 1 or Ci Council Chambers, re Ci He1L i 3o S. Galena My co la r t� sion exp' es: V11 siJf St, Aspen, to cosider an appeal of an action tak- en b h Aspen n age a 01 c Preservation O regar d to demol the passa re ocated o h I n re to d erci of Hi District. locs.etl The si ct Com- fecte are Corp Historic n Ave The otrF, u Bl 9 fected are 521 E. Hymen Avenue, Lot F, Block 95 � +� i ►- and 517 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot E; Block 95, City Notary P u b c 7 c ,„ : ' yp & • �:• • and Townsite of Aspen. The appeal Is submitted . • .. P • F, ky ��} Hym by Garfield and Hecht, P.C., on behalf of Aspen • V e Core an VenAVetures, t LLC, en Garfield and her further Hecht, 501 is- • •� 1 E. 1 u h1e •• formation, coonntaact cl Amy my Guthrie at- City of As- • � tl / i ,, pen Community Development Department, 13 n.. Galena St., fe pen, en.po. 429.2755, or by email CORY J. i a[amv ourhda�cl aspen co us ARSKE !, slMichael Aspen City d. Afavor • 1:'1 . Aspen City Council Published in the As en Times Week /y on October F / 5.2011 Pn75 oP ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: a • '••••' cvr-nn �.LE PUBLICATION ?^...._- * PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) My �'` "' Expires 054812011 * LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENT AGENGIES NOTIED BY MAIL * APPLICANT CERTICICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE \ AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24- 65.5 -103.3 , • • \ Chapter 26.316 APPEALS Sec. 26.316.010 Appeals, purpose statement Sec. 26.316.020 Authority Sec. 26.316.030 Appeal procedures Sec. 26.316.010.Appeals, purpose statement. The purpose of this Chapter is to establish the authority of the Board of Adjustment, Growth Management Commission, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council to hear and decide certain appeals and to set forth the procedures for said appeals. (Ord. No. 17 -2002, §2 [part]) Sec. 26.316.020. Authority. A. Board of Adjustment. The Board of Adjustment shall have the authority to hear and decide the following appeals: 1. The denial of a variance pursuant to Chapter 26.314 by the Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission. B. City Council. The City Council shall have the authority to hear and decide the following appeals: 1. An interpretation to the text of this Title or the boundaries of the zone district map by the Community Development Director in accordance with Chapter 26.306. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting. 2. Any action by the Historic Preservation Commission in approving, approving with conditions or disapproving a development application for development in an "H," Historic Overlay District pursuant to Chapter 26.415. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting. 3. The scoring determination of the Community Development Director pursuant to Chapter 26.470. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting. 4. The allocation of growth management allotments by the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to Chapter 26.470. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting. 5. Any other appeal for which specific authority is not granted to another board or commission as established by this Title. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting. C. Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall have the authority to hear and decide an appeal from an adverse determination by the Community Development Director on an application for exemption pursuant to the Growth Management Quota System in accordance with Subsection 26.470.060.D. of this Title. City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 300, Page 35 P48 D. Administrative Hearing Officer. The Administrative Hearing Officer shall have the authority to hear an appeal from any decision or determination made by an administrative official unless otherwise specifically stated in this Title. (Ord. No. 17 -2002, §2 [part]; Ord. No. 27 -2002, §23; Ord. No. 12, 2007, §I8) Sec. 26.316.030. Appeal procedures. A. Initiation. Any person with a right to appeal an adverse decision or determination shall initiate an appeal by filing a notice of appeal on a form prescribed by the Community Development Director. The notice of appeal shall be filed with the Community Development Director and with the City office or department rendering the decision or determination within fourteen (14) days of the date of the decision or determination being appealed. Failure to file such notice of appeal within the prescribed time shall constitute a waiver of any rights under this Title to appeal any decision or determination. 13. Effect of filing an appeal. The filing of a notice of appeal shall stay any proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from unless the Community Development Director certifies in writing to the chairperson of the decision - making body authorized to hear the appeal that a stay poses an imminent peril to life or property, in which case the appeal shall not stay further proceedings. The chairperson of the decision - making body with authority to hear the appeal may review such certification and grant or deny a stay of the proceedings. C. Timing of appeal. The decision - making body authorized to hear the appeal shall consider the appeal within thirty (30) days of the date of filing the notice of appeal or as soon thereafter as is practical under the circumstances. D. Notice requirements. Notice of the appeal shall be provided by mailing to the appellant and by publication to all other affected parties. (See Subsection 26.304.060[E]). E. Standard of review. Unless otherwise specifically stated in this Title, the decision - making body authorized to hear the appeal shall decide the appeal based solely upon the record established by the body from which the appeal is taken. A decision or determination shall be not be reversed or modified unless there is a finding that there was a denial of due process or the administrative body has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. F. Action by the decision - making body hearing the appeal. The decision - making body hearing the appeal may reverse, affirm or modify the decision or determination appealed from and, if the decision is modified, shall be deemed to have all the powers of the officer, board or commission from whom the appeal is taken, including the power to impose reasonable conditions to be complied with by the appellant. The decision - making body may also elect to remand an appeal to the body that originally heard the matter for further proceedings consistent with that body's jurisdiction and directions given, if any, by the body hearing the appeal. The decision shall be approved by written resolution. All appeals shall be public meetings. (Ord. No. 55 -2000, § §4, 5; Ord. No. 27 -2002, §24; Ord. No. 12, 2007, §I9) City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 300, Page 36 P49 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council COPY: John Worcester, City Attorney THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director L " FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer I RE: Council Call -up of passage of Resolution #9, Series of 2011, by the Historic Preservation Commission DATE: November 2, 2011 SUMMARY: �• Whenever the Historic Preservation _ _ , __ -. Commission approves or disapproves . , ,,, . Major Development, Demolition or ---- - -~ .�` . t Relocation of designated property, City Council must be promptly notified and - r given the opportunity to Call -up the HPCs ,, < . determination. , On September 21, 2011, the Historic ) a y ` ,` . ; - 4 '7 . o . d, �, ,'.' Preservation Commission passed �„_,_...„..:� � y. ,.' : , � ," ,, :` �,P ,1 Resolution #9, Series of 2011, approving Subject Property in 1967, before the demolition of the structure located at establishment of Little Annie's Eatery 517 E. Hyman Avenue, commonly known as Little Annie's Eatery, by a vote of five in favor and one opposed. On September 22, I i 1 2011, Historic Preservation Staff sent notice of the decision to City Council, and at the September 26, 2011 regular Council Air meeting, three members; Ireland, Torre and -: - -- -_ Skadron, requested that a Call -up review be - A scheduled. I ' ' No STAFF RECOMMENDATION: cif fi - Staff recommends City Council uphold _ ': Resolution #9, Series of 2011, as adopted :`';r :2, ,_ by the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission. Subject Property today 1 P50 STANDARD OF REVIEW: Section 26.415.120 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Appeals, notice to Council and call -up, sets forth the applicable standards of review that Council should follow and the actions available to Council. 26.415.120.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. The Land Use Code does not define the terms: "a denial of due process ", "exceeded its jurisdiction," or "abused its discretion." Court cases, however, have helped define these terms as follows and may be used by Council in its deliberation: A denial of due process may be found if some procedural irregularity is determined to have occurred. Ad Hoc Executive Committee of Medical Staff of Memorial Hospital v Runyan, 716 P. 2d 465 (Colo. 1986.) A decision may be considered to be an abuse of discretion if the "decision of the administrative body is so devoid of evidentiary support that it can only be explained as an arbitrary and capricious exercise of authority." Ross v Fire and Police Pension Ass 'n., 713 P.2d 1304 (Colo. 1986); Marker v Colorado Springs, 336 P.2d 305 (Colo. 1959). A decision may be considered to be in excess of jurisdiction if the decision "is grounded in a misconstruction or misapplication of the law," City of Colorado Springs v Givan, 897 P.2d 753 (Colo. 1995); or, the decision was not within the authority of the administrative body to make. City of Colorado Springs v SecureCare Self Storage, Inc., 10 P. 3d 1244 (Colo. 2000). STAFF COMMENT: Staff believes that proper procedures were followed to ensure due process at the HPC public hearing. The HPC was within their jurisdiction. With regard to abuse of discretion, both Staff'and HPC applied the criteria for demolition to 517 E. Hyman Avenue and found that approval was appropriate. The criteria cited in the memo, HPC's deliberation, and the approved resolution are: 26.415.080. Demolition of designated historic properties. 26.415.080.A.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 2 P51 approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner /applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen, or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located, and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. The Staff memo stated: "The facade has changed over time with the addition of a faux false front facade reminiscent of 19 century frontier architecture. This replicated style does not architecturally or aesthetically contribute to the historic integrity of the district. Historic Preservation in Aspen does not address or protect important local serving businesses like Little Annie's Eatery." HPC member Jamie Brewster stated: "The Little Annie's building does bring vitality to the area, but our criteria is to judge the building, not the business." HPC member Sarah Broughton stated: "If we could retain Little Annie's as a restaurant for the rest of our lives that would be a different story. That restaurant could close tomorrow and would be an empty storefront that to me does not contribute to the history of our downtown from an architectural context viewpoint." HPC member Jason Lasser stated: "It is a struggle because I dislike losing the use and demolishing the building but it doesn't meet the criteria and it is a fairly modern building." Voices of dissent included HPC member Ann Mullins, who stated: "(she) isn't convinced and there may be documentation that demonstrates that it has some significance. The front was put on in 1971. It is in the historic district and I don't feel any of the criteria in the second portion is met because it does contribute to the historic district." The value of the small scale of the structure within the urban fabric was also mentioned in the hearing. 3 P52 Little Annie's is not the first business to occupy this building. Even if HPC were to find that the demolition criteria were not met, the beloved restaurant operation could be removed. This is a similar discussion to what took place when the previous operator of The Red Onion departed. Luckily, that restaurant was revived. Some local businesses, such as The Steak Pit, have moved in town and carried on their tradition for additional years. The historic preservation regulations cannot ensure this, and in staff's opinion they are not an appropriate tool for the issue. RESOLUTIONS: Attached are two Resolutions. One finds that the Historic Preservation Commission acted correctly and affirms their findings. The second finds that the Historic Preservation Commission exceeded their jurisdiction, abused their authority, or failed to provide due process and reverses their action. RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes the Historic Preservation Commission's resolution was rendered appropriately and that the HPC did not abuse its authority or exceed its jurisdiction. Staff recommends City Council uphold the HPC's resolution by adopting the proposed resolution affirming the passage of Resolution #9, Series of 2011. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: (all motions must be made in the positive) "I move to approve Resolution # , Series of 2011, affirming the approval of Resolution #9, Series of 2011 by the Historic Preservation Commission." ATTACHMENTS: Resolution # , Series of 2011 Resolution # , Series of 2011 Exhibit A- Staff memo to HPC dated September 21, 2011 Exhibit B- Historic Preservation Commission meeting minutes, dated September 21, 2011 Exhibit C- Resolution #9, Series of 2011 adopted by the Historic Preservation Commission 4 P53 RESOLUTION NO. _ (SERIES OF 2011) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AFFIRMING A RESOLUTION APPROVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION GRANTING DEMOLITION APPROVAL FOR THE STRUCTURE AT 517 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, AKA LITTLE ANNIE'S EATERY, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT E, BLOCK 95, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO WHEREAS, on September 21, 2011, the Historic Preservation Commission passed Resolution No. 9, Series of 2011, granting approval for the demolition of the structure located at 517 East Hyman Avenue, Lot E, Block 95, City and Townsite of Aspen, in the Commercial Core Historic District; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.415.120 — Appeals, Notice to City council and 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; and WHEREAS, 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 reversing the decision, altering the conditions of approval or remanding the application to the HPC for rehearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the record of proceedings and found that the Historic Preservation Commission provided due process and neither exceeded its jurisdiction nor abused its authority in approving the resolution; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council affirms the Historic Preservation Commission's approval of Resolution No. 9, Series of 2011. APPROVED by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting on , 2011. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney Page 1 of 1 P54 RESOLUTION NO. _ (SERIES OF 2011) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL TO REVFRSE A RESOLUTION APPROVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION GRANTING DEMOLITION APPROVAL FOR THE STRUCTURE AT 517 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, AKA LITTLE ANNIE'S EATERY, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT E, BLOCK 95, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO WHEREAS, on September 21, 2011, the Historic Preservation Commission passed Resolution No. 9, Series of 2011, granting approval for the demolition of the structure located at 517 East Hyman Avenue, Lot E, Block 95, City and Townsite of Aspen, in the Commercial Core Historic District; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.415.120 — Appeals, Notice to City council and 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; and WHEREAS, 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 reversing the decision, altering the conditions of approval or remanding the application to the HPC for rehearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the record of proceedings and found that the Historic Preservation Commission did not provide due process and either exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its authority in approving the resolution; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council reverses the Historic Preservation Commission's approval of Resolution No. 9,. Series of 2011. APPROVED by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting on , 2011. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney Page 1 of 1 r A 4, 1 l A%ct 55 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner THRU: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 517 and 521 East Hyman Street and the Parking lot at the corner of Hunter and Hyman Streets (Block 95, Lots G, H, and I) - Major Development (Conceptual), Demolition, and Conceptual Commercial Design Standard Review, Public Hearing DATE: September 21, 2011 SUMMARY: HPC has purview over the design of this project due to its location in the Commercial Core Historic District. The applicant requests Conceptual Commercial Design Standard Review, Major Development Conceptual Review, and Demolition. The applicant requests approval for a height increase from 38 feet to 40 feet, which is reviewed through Conceptual Commercial Design Standard Review. The project comprises three separate lots, 517 and 521 E. Hyman Street and the parking lot on the corner of Hunter and Hyman Streets. Two buildings are located on the subject properties: the building that houses Little Annie's Eatery at 517 E. Hyman and located at 521 E. Hyman Street is Tom Benton's original design studio. Neither of these building are designated historic landmarks but they are both located within the boundaries of the Commercial Core Historic District. The three properties are proposed to be merged through subdivision review. The newly created lot is proposed to be 15,000 square feet in size: 3,000 (517 E. Hyman) + 3,000 (521 E. Hyman) + 9,000 (parking lot). The applicant proposes to construct a mixed use building on the site including the following: subgrade parking garage and storage, commercial on the first floor, commercial and affordable housing on the second floor, free market residential and affordable housing on the third floor, and a rooftop deck on the free market residential portion of the building. Currently 7,500 square feet of floor area exist on the three properties. The applicant proposes about 32,640 square feet of floor area that is roughly broken down into the following percentages: 56% commercial, 24% free market residential and 20% affordable housing. The maximum height is proposed to be 40 feet with the elevator shafts extending to 50 feet. The proposal meets the dimensional requirements of the Commercial Core Zone District, with the exception of the requested height increase from 38 feet to 40 feet through Commercial Design Review. Staff recommends that HPC continue the application for redesign. HPC Review 9.21.2011 Aspen Core Page 1 of 14 P56 DEMOLITION The applicant requests approval to demolish the Benton studio building and the adjacent building that houses Little Annie's Eatery. These properties are located in the Commercial Core Historic Districts and as such require HPC's approval for demolition. The image below, courtesy of the Aspen Historical Society Ann Hodges Collection, shows both buildings on December 28, 1967. Photograph 1: Benton Studio with second floor addition, 1967. •w lw.K� � � � y 4 z r t� - d SKr A N r 1' } �� .fig .4,44' 4 ,, 4.r �./ a , 'l, [ , — - .. ' . r '''' ''..--,.. . ,. It . Y _- 7 w Ui LrL� . ... .... .:, The criteria for granting demolition approval are below: §26.415.080. Demolition of designated historic properties. §26.415.080.A.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, HPC Review 9.21.2011 • Aspen Core Page 2 of 14 P57 b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen, or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located, and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. Staff Findings: Benton studio building (521 E. Hyman) The photographs ( # 2 and #3 below) depict before and after the facade changes. Following is an excerpt about Tom Benton and his relationship with Aspen from the context paper titled Aspen's Twentieth Century Architecture: Modernism 1945 – 1975: Photographs 2, 3: Benton Studio, before and after remodel Almost twenty years after Bayer and Benedict, Tom Benton (1930 -2007) arrived in 1963, as the ski town's growth and were shifting into high gear. Serving in the Navy ,, , popularity g g g � g: �, ._`., during the Korean War, Benton used the G.1 Bill to study _ ' _ architecture at the University of Southern California (B. q '1 t Arch, 1960) and worked in southern California for a time = _ • • ! • T Though trained as an architect, he really wanted to be a __ "working artist." ski trip to Aspen convinced him that it was ; r;' ` where he should be Bringing a sensibility that fat well with -T' T t: ; Aspen's growing image as a counter - culture mecca, Benton / -, i`a , `y : designed his studio and gallery— « unique, a clean and sharp r a t � 'tiF im � 3 blend of wood and cinder block" (heavily altered today) —at . - t j • 421 E. Hyman Avenue. He collaborated with Hunter _ _ 7-_, } Thompson and others to create "images that helped to define Aspen's tempestuous political and social upheavals" in the late 1960s. More interested pr , in graphic art than in architecture, he still designed the occasional building, including a residence for actress Jill St. John. His funky, organic, California esthetic was in sync with Aspen 's Wrightian tradition. His designs, ; , P58 such as the Patio Building (1969), a flat- roofed commercial building at 630 E. Hyman (1969), exhibit a similar interest in natural materials, simple geometric shapes, deep overhangs, horizontal emphasis, and orienting the building to frame views toward the mountains. Tom Benton designed the building located at 521 E. Hyman in 1964 as his design studio and residence. Additions in 1966 and 1970 added the second and third floors, both designed by Benton. Starting around 1979, the first floor was converted to a restaurant/bar use. In 2004, the exterior of the building was significantly changed to the present condition. Stucco, copper details, and new windows erased Benton's aesthetic and use of natural materials and textures on the lower front facade. The original form of the east, west and north facades of the building are intact. The Benton studio was not included as part of Ordinance Number 48 (Series of 2007) or included as part of AspenModern due to the extent of the alterations. It is possible to restore the building to its original appearance using historic photographs since the form is intact; however the restoration of the building is not proposed by the applicant and it is not required. HPC is asked to grant demolition of this structure because it is located within the Commercial Core Historic District. Staff is struggling with whether the building meets the demolition criteria due to the exterior alterations considering the historic evidence that is available to restore the facade and the importance of Tom Benton to Aspen history. Photograph 4: Recent photograph of Little Annie's Little Annie's Eatery (517 E. Hyman): Little Annie's Eatery is one of the few z , local watering holes left in Aspen. The restaurant/bar is well loved; but this is not a criterion for inclusion in the IMP voluntary AspenModern program. As =y r evidenced from the 1967 photograph above, the facade has changed over time with the addition of a faux false front b lI facade reminiscent of 19 century `♦` frontier architecture. This replicated _ style does not architecturally or aesthetically contribute to the historic '. integrity of the district. Historic Preservation in Aspen does not address or protect important local serving businesses like Little Annie's Eatery. Instead the voluntary Aspen program focuses on tangible aspects of our local history like buildings, landscapes and cemeteries that reflect Aspen's architectural, cultural and aesthetic past — either the 19 century, ski renaissance or Aspen Idea. As such, in Staff's opinion the physical aspects of 517 E. Hyman meet the criteria for demolition. HPC Review 9.21.2011 Aspen Core Page 4 of 14 P59 CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW/ MAJOR DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUAL Sec. 26.412.050. Review criteria. An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the standards. B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the facade of the building may be required to comply with this Section. C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means. The Commercial Core Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines policy is the following: "improvements in the Commercial Core Historic District should maintain the integrity of historic resources in the area At the same time, compatible and creative design solutions should be encouraged:" Important defining characteristics of the historic district are the street grid; a hard street edge that is defined by buildings built to lot lines; variations in height between 1, 2 and sometimes 3 stories; and lot widths of 30 feet, 60 feet and sometimes 90 feet with a depth of 100 feet. Prominent storefronts on the ground level with a tall plate height and subordinate upper stories are traditional buildings in Aspen's downtown. Building Placement and Public Amenity: The proposed building generally continues the hard street wall that is typical of the historic downtown. The project is required to provide public amenity space equal to 10% of the lot area, or 1,500 square feet. A 32 feet wide and 37 feet deep space (1,184 square feet) is proposed along Hyman Street in front of the proposed one story section of the building. The applicant requests approval from HPC to pay cash in lieu for the remaining HPC Review 9.21.2011 Aspen Core Page 5 of 14 P60 316 square feet that is not provided onsite. The public amenity space is north facing and is located across the street from an existing underutilized public amenity space. The applicant expressed a desire to have the public amenity space function as outdoor dining for a restaurant; however there is no guarantee that this space will be used for outdoor dining. Most downtown lots are smaller in size than the proposed 15,000 square foot lot, which means that the required public amenity is typically smaller and varied throughout the block face, rather than one large public amenity. The 1904 map below shows typical lots sizes and open space. The left hand side of the map shows dense commercial buildings, some of which are as small as 15 feet in width. The density and open space loosens up toward the right hand side of the map, as development was located further away from the downtown core. The arrow indicates the location of the subject lots. The image to the right shows the current build out of the subject lots. Image 1: 1904 Sanborne Map compared to 2010 Map of building footprints .ii, :, mss. hV: 6 Y s ri 3 i 1.��. 'rj e- t3,.. %.; / : ' a iz t .. _ , i. A . nE7K7�.,, .' C z J..i !• i � ' xy a .Y .c . _• ,, r 111 i : i '' .e_ 9 .mg ,A� */ 'T 6 , 7 i? � 'Ill '. rr. 1 it ' N - a , j t- i 4,4',," _... 4 ° ' ill *t I NA.,, - 1 iiii* ., ., t i i,,,,1 1'; L.4 ; t /-4 i - -- 4'''' 4 4 1' ''. " - ',:gt,/ '^; , to, . .i • . ....,,, ,... ,i 2,.. '4..7-, ,..._' .$ - 1 .r. i . ? a- � - -.L EA6,,,F., .. ._ - - - AVr-- -',6 A s w .1 The guidelines for street facing amenity space state; "a street facing amenity space, usually located towards the middle of a block may bel considered. However, within the heart of the district, where the greatest concentration of historic storefronts align, creating new gaps in the street wall is discouraged. Providing space on sites that are located in the outer edges of the district, especially along the southern edge is more appropriate." The location of the subject properties is on the eastern edge of the historic district so there is some flexibility regarding the design of the public amenity space. The Design Objectives for Public Amenity are below. Design Objectives: • Create an active and interesting street vitality through the promotion of public gathering space. • Maintain a well - defined street edge and street corner to ensure that such public space creates an accent within the street facade. HPC Review 9.21.2011 Aspen Core Page 6 of 14 P61 • Create an additional commercial frontage and /or space to the side or rear of the site or building. • Create a well defined, localized public space at the street edge, e.g. where additional space for street dining may be beneficial. • Design a space that maximizes access to sunlight throughout the year. Staff Response: Staff finds that the location and size of the proposed amenity space could be closer aligned with the Design Guidelines and Objectives. Staff is concerned that the atypical size of the proposed 15,000 square foot lot is driving an oversized public amenity space to meet the requirement for the entire lot that is north facing and sandwiched between 3 story buildings on either side. Staff recommends that the applicant break up the public amenity space by reducing the depth of or eliminating the proposed amenity space on Hyman and pursuing a possible amenity space on the Hunter facade that is east facing and has the opportunity to contribute to the vitality of the block and break up the proposed 3 story, 100 feet long facade. Building Form and Orientation The proposed flat roofs and rectangular building modules, and the proposed building orientation meet the Design Objectives and Guidelines for development in the Commercial Core, specifically 6.20, 6.21, 6.22, 6.23, and 6.24. See Exhibit A for a complete list of the Guidelines. Building Mass & Scale The Design Objectives and Guidelines state: "The character of the Commercial Core derives in part from the range and variety of building heights. These vary from one to three stories. Building height with traditional lot width creates a constantly changing cornice profile along a block face. This is the basis of the human scale, architectural character and visual vitality of the city center. New development in this area should continue this variation." As mentioned previously, the applicant proposes a 15,000 square foot lot with one large building that is broken up into different modules through height and setback variations. A 15,000 square foot lot is much larger than the typical sized lot in the Commercial Core as illustrated on the 1904 map above. Lot sizes at most were 9,000 square feet (90 feet x 100 feet) with a minimum of 3,000 square feet (30 feet x 100 feet) Typically, downtown buildings are deeper than they are wide - the iconic downtown historic structures (Elks, Wheeler Opera House, Aspen Block, Independence Square) have a building footprint of about 60 feet x 100 feet, the Hotel Jerome is the exception with a 115 feet x 100 feet footprint. Within the Historic District, the only other single developments occupying more than half of a block face are Mill Street Plaza (on Hopkins and Mill Streets) and the Ajax Mountain Building (on Durant Street). Staff Response: Staff is concerned about the mass and scale of the proposed building on such a large lot. Changes in materials and building height attempt to break up the size of the building, however these elements do not have a strong relationship to traditional HPC Review 9.21.2011 Aspen Core Page 7 of 14 P62 patterns of the historic district. Overall Staff is concerned that the proposed breaks in architecture (for example the intersection of the three story brick building with the tall double story entryway on Hyman Street, see image below) meant to reduce the size of the building and to relate to surrounding historic intervals of 30 feet and 60 feet building widths, is unsuccessful as proposed. Staff recommends that the applicant redesign the proposed modules to clearly reflect historic building widths. Image 2: 3 -D rendering of proposal f f M '' , , 7 I f t �V '' Fl = t ■411, I � 9 It; 1 r —xj 1, i4 i A . g;!, I .%;i i li I I ,. • . I ,,, ,• , ,i1-,1 1,. 7, 1 i .- I . I L 1 ,,,.. _ ..., -...._ HYMAN STREET WF.W The applicant proposes a horizontal stone band above the first story commercial windows along Hunter Street that wraps around the corner for a portion of the Hyman Street facade where it terminates into a two story tall entry. This type of banding detail is encouraged in Guideline 6.25, however the thickness of the proposed stone band and the overall flatness and simplicity of the first story misses the intent of the guideline. The photograph below of Cooper Street shows the importance of a continuous horizontal band to define the first story commercial space. 6.25 Maintain the average perceived scale of two - story buildings at the sidewalk • Establish a two -story height at the sidewalk edge, or provide a horizontal design element at this level. A change in materials or a molding at this level are examples. The floor to ceiling heights do not successfully relate to the surrounding historic architecture. The height of the upper floor of the proposed 3 story corner piece is 12 feet floor to ceiling; however the proposed 2 ft. parapet wall makes the upper floor read as 14 feet. Typically, the focus of 19 century architecture was on the first floor where the commercial spaces were located. Offices and living spaces were on upper floors with a shorter plate height and simpler architecture. The photograph of the La Faye Block on the next page shows the elegance and attention to detail of the prominent first story. HPC Review 9.21.2011 Aspen Core Page 8 of 14 P63 Photograph 5: Cooper Street, courtesy of the Aspen Historical Society III .� R G t d ,. ' ., - s' F � mot a • 1 it N k • . _, , ' . 1 1 f , ' [ ri' , v r a • r F,. ! 3 ( ri y F 4 - VIM" 1 4 0 ., _' : ate. ' yy"'r a. � r vc1' 0 : FAR Y la .,p 'R. �.. .•`.: r:.( Photograph 6: La Faye & Bowman Buildin:, courtes of Aspen Historical Socie ,..• a a ";j 4 - b . ._ 1 The photographs intend to show historic references upon which the Guidelines and Objectives are based. Replicating historic buildings is not suggested; however referencing specific character defining aspects of historic architecture, a prominent HPC Review 9.21.2011 Aspen Core Page 9 of 14 P64 detailed first floor with subordinate upper floors for example, helps new architecture meet into the historic district. Staff recommends that the applicant restudy the architecture to better reflect these Design Objectives and Guidelines. Height Variations for Larger Sites The Design Objectives and Guidelines state: `Buildings within the commercial center and historic core of Aspen represent the traditional lot widths of the city (30 ft.), either in building width or the horizontal and vertical design articulation of the street facade. New development occupying a site of more than one traditional lot width should be designed to integrate with the scale created by narrower existing buildings. The architectural rhythm of earlier street facades should also be reflected in new development to retain and enhance the human scale and character of the center of the city. " The height requirement in the Commercial Core is 38 feet with the ability to request a height increase to 42 feet through Commercial Design Review. The applicant proposes 3 stories, or 40 feet, at the corner of Hunter and Hyman Streets for the entire length (100 feet) of the Hunter Street facade, and for a portion of the Hyman Street facade. A rooftop deck for the free market residential units is located atop the 40 feet section of the building. Elevators and associated access to the roof reach 50 feet in height - all of these elements meet Land Use Code height requirements. Moving from east to west along the Hyman Street facade, about 50 feet from the corner, the 3rd story is set back to provide a break in height and to create a roof top terrace for a third floor free market residential unit. In the center of the proposed Hyman Street facade, the applicant proposes a one story, 32 feet module setback from the street about 37 feet The rooftop of the one story element is not accessible. Continuing to the west, the building steps up to 3 stories or 38 feet, with the third story slightly set back from the street. Refer to Image 2 on the previous page for illustration of heights. Relevant Design Guidelines are below: 6.27 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of the Commercial Core. • A minimum 9 ft. floor to ceiling height is to be maintained on second stories and higher. • Additional height, as permitted in the zone district, may be added for one or more of the following reasons: o In order to achieve at least a two foot variation in height with an adjacent building. o The primary function of the building is civic. (i.e. the building is a Museum, Civic Building, Performance Hall, Fire Station, etc.) o Some portion of the property is affected by a height restriction due to its proximity to a historic resource, or location within a View Plane, therefore relief in another area may be appropriate. o To benefit the livability of Affordable Housing units. HPC Review 9.21.2011 Aspen Core Page 10 of 14 P65 o To make a demonstrable (to be verified by the Building Department) contribution to the building's overall energy efficiency, for instance by providing improved day lighting. 6.28 Height variation should be achieved using one or more of the following: • Vary the building height for the full depth of the site in accordance with traditional lot width. • Set back the upper floor to vary the building facade profile(s) and the roof forms across the width and the depth of the building. • Vary the facade (or parapet) heights at the front. • Step down the rear of the building towards the alley, in conjunction with other design standards and guidelines. 6.29 On sites comprising more than two traditional lot widths, the facade height shall be varied to reflect traditional lot width. • The faced height shall be varied to reflect traditional lot width. • Height should be varied every 60 ft. minimum and preferable every 30 ft. of linear frontage in keeping with traditional lot widths and development patterns. • No more than two consecutive 30 ft. facade modules may be three stories tall, within an individual building. • A rear portion of a third module may rise to three stories, if the front is setback a minimum of 40 ft. from the street facade. (e.g. at a minimum, the front 40 feet may be no more than two stories in height.) 6.30 On sites comprising two or more traditional lots, a building shall be designed to reflect the individual parcels. These methods shall be used: • Variation in height of building modules across the site. • Variation in massing achieved through upper floor setbacks, the roofscape form and variation in upper floor heights. • Variation in building facade heights or cornice line. Staff Response: Staff is concerned about the proposed 40 feet height of the 3 story element that, essentially, comprises 9,000 square feet of the lot. Staff finds that Design Guideline 6.27 is not met for granting a height increase from the required 38 ft. Staff finds that the continuous height of the facade along Hunter Street needs to be varied to meet the Guidelines 6.29 and 6.30. Staff is concerned that the amount of 3 story construction proposed for the site is out of character with the historic district, which is more varied with 2 story and some 3 story buildings comprising a block face, especially toward the perimeter of the historic district. Placing a 1 story building in the middle of the proposed development may exacerbate the heights of the proposed 3 story buildings. The Design Objectives and Guidelines state that "Designing a building in the historic district demands a sensitivity in deign analysis and approach which is exacting and which will vary with each situation. The intent is that a new building or addition to an existing building should be designed to respect the height and scale of historic buildings within the commercial core." HPC Review 9.21.2011 Aspen Core Page 11 of 14 P66 Staff is supportive of a 3 story element at the corner of the property to anchor the intersection and preserve the street wall. Staff recommends that the applicant reduce the height of the building to meet the 38 feet requirement and restudy the Hunter Street facade to provide height variation and meet the Guidelines listed above. COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS Sec. 26.412.060. Commercial design standards. The following design standards, in addition to the commercial, lodging and historic district design objectives and guidelines, shall apply to commercial, lodging and mixed -use development: A. Public amenity space. Creative, well- designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive, exciting and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights -of -way or private property within commercial areas. On parcels required to provide public amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Public amenity, the following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity. Acceptance of the method or combination of methods of providing the public amenity shall be at the option of the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, according to the procedures herein and according to the following standards: 1. The dimensions of any proposed on -site public amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of uses and activities to occur, considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants and uses. 2. The public amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade trees, solar access, view orientation and simple at -grade relationships with adjacent rights -of -way are encouraged. 3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures, rights -of -way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment. 4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls, sidewalks or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian environment. 5. Any variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity, Subsection 26.575.030.F., promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements. Staff Response: As mentioned previously, staff recommends that the applicant restudy the public amenity space to meet the Design Guidelines listed above and Standard A.3. Staff is concerned about the size and placement (north facing and across the street from existing public amenity) of the proposed space. Staff is unsupportive of the request for a reduction in the public amenity requirement considering that this property is a complete HPC Review 9.21.2011 Aspen Core Page 12 of 14 P67 scrape and replace. B. Utility, delivery and trash service provision. When the necessary logistical elements of a commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success of the district. Poor logistics of one (1) building can detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The following standards shall apply: 1. A utility, trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated along the alley meeting the minimum standards established by Section 26.575.060, Utility /trash/recycle service areas, unless otherwise established according to said Section. 2. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property and along the alley. Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall be minimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site conditions, such as an historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed. 3. Delivery service areas shall be incorporated along the alley. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged. 4. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical. 5. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a public right -of -way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall Staff Response: The applicant demonstrates that these standards are met. Staff is unclear as to the location of the trash area for the affordable housing tenants. A service court is provided off of the alley that is accessible near the commercial spaces and the free market residential lobby. The basement garage plan illustrated only mechanical, parking and storage areas. Staff recommends that the applicant provide more information as to how the minimum standards of 20 feet x 10 feet x 10 feet for trash/utility /recycle is met onsite. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC continue the public hearing for a restudy. Staff suggests that HPC discuss and provide feedback to the applicant regarding the following points: 1. Demolition of 521 and 517 E. Hyman Streets. HPC is asked to decide Demolition Review of these building prior to discussing the proposed new building. 2. Size and location of public amenity space. HPC Review 9.21.2011 Aspen Core Page 13 of 14 P68 3. Mass and Scale: proposed building modules, horizontal banding above the first floor. 4. Floor to ceiling heights. 5. Height Increase from 38 ft. to 40 feet. 6. Height Variations. 7. 3 stories at the corner of Hunter and Hyman. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A: Design Objectives and Guidelines Exhibit B: Application HPC Review 9.21.2011 Aspen Core Page 14 of 14 llo ; ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21.2011 Mitch Haas said if we did go with mixed use and stuck with the Cl zone there would be zero setback requirements on the front, side or rear and a whole lot more floor area and height. This is being as sensitive as we can get and we are hearing that there could be more sensitivity done. Greg has demonstrated a better track record than anybody in trying to respond to the issues made by this commission. Jay said we are 85% close to mass and scale and there are a few things that can occur for final. One idea would be a full streetscape and full landscape plan. We know you want to be a duplex. 517 E. Hyman Ave. (aka Little Annie's Eatery), 521 E. Hyman Ave. (aka The Benton Bldg.) and the parking lot on the corner of Hunter and Hyman — Conceptual Development, Conceptual commercial Design Standard Review, Demolition, Public Hearing Nora seated Jay recused himself Sarah seated Exhibit I — Public Notice Sara Adams, The project is the redevelopment of the projects at 517 E. Hyman, 521 E. Hyman and the parking lot at the corner of Hyman and Hunter Street. A site visit occurred today and Jason, Jamie, Brian and Ann were present. John Toya, architect Stan Clausen, Stan Clausen architects represented the applicant Sara said HPC is asked to review major development conceptual, commercial design review and demolition of properties located within the commercial core district. The proposal is to demolish the two existing buildings onsite; one is the old Tom Benton design studio and the other houses Little Annie's restaurant. The proposal includes a sub -grade garage and storage area; commercial, free market residential and affordable housing. It also includes merging the three lots into a 15,000 sq. ft. lot. Right now there is a 9,000 sq. ft. lot which is the parking lot, 3,000 sq. ft. which is Little Annie's and a 3,000 sq. ft. lot which is the Benton building. The proposal meets all the requirements of the commercial core zone 5 P70 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 district. There is a request to increase the height of a portion of the building from 38 to 40 feet which is under HPC purview. There are clearly two separate reviews: Demolition review and the presentation. Demolition review is based on the merits of the existing buildings not what is proposed to possibly replace them. Disclosure: Sarah Broughton said her office has done work with the applicant in the past but currently they are not under any contract. Sara said the criteria for granting demolition are A and B and whether the structure is sound or not. Criteria C talks about practically be relocated and criteria D talks about documentation that exists that supports historic significance to the district. The second set of criteria deals with whether or not the structure contributes to the historic district in this case. Sara said 521 E. Hyman is the Benton building. Tom Benton was a trained architect and he is recognized as important to Aspen's post war history. Two photos are provided to show what the building looked like and what it looks like now. The building has been heavily altered. This happened in 2004 and the lower portion of the front facade was bumped out and the fenestration was changed and the material palate was changed; however, when you walk around the building and look at the building the form is still intact and the three dimensional geometric shapes that Tom Benton is expressing in the building are still intact. The siding and facades aren't changed very much. Staff is struggling with the recommendation about demolition of this building. As the building sits today it is heavily altered and we cannot require the applicant to restore it to its original appearance. I'll leave HPC with this question: Does the building as it appears today contribute to the integrity of the historic district and does it contribute to the integrity of the historic preservation program? 517 E. Hyman — Little Annie's building. The photograph is from 1967. Sara pointed out that a false front was added. There is no doubt that the restaurant is well loved by the community but the demolition criteria don't address the restaurant use of the building. The historic preservation program and the demolition criteria reflect whether or not there are historic architectural or aesthetic aspects of the building that in this case contribute to the historic district. In staff's opinion this replicated architectural style 6 _........... P71 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 false front building does not meet the criteria to not permit demolition so we are in favor of demolition of the Little Annie's building based on the criteria in the packet. We ask the same question of HPC, does this building that houses Little Annie's contribute to the integrity of the district and the integrity of the preservation program according to the criteria of the packet. Jim True, Special Counsel said the attorney's office suggest that HPC consider the demolition issue not in context as to what will replace it but in context to what is there now under the two review sections 26.415.080.A.4 I suggest you take public comment now and completely address the demolition issue before the conceptual design review because they are two separate items in the review. Sarah said she would like to move forward with the hearing and deal with demolition and then conceptual. Demolition: Stan Clausen, Stan Clausen and associates John Toya, architect Stan said we have separated per the advice of Jim True the presentation into two parts. The Benton building and Little Annie's are structures that are not included in the Aspen Inventory of historic place. When you look at the list of properties that constitute the commercial core historic district you do not find either of those properties listed. For that reason actually we believe that makes it a clear statement that the historic preservation commission over the years has chosen not to include this as an appropriate historic property for land marking. That in itself says everything about the demolition issue that is to say it is not an historic property and it is not a contributing property to the historic district or it would have been on that list and it would have been placed on that list by previous historic preservation commissions. That list includes not only those properties that were part of the original ordinance of 1974 but a number of properties were added in subsequent years as historic preservation committees considered other properties and determined that they were appropriate to put on that inventory. By virtue of it being in the historic district we do not believe it creates a situation that it is under demolition review as an historic landmark structure as per the land use code. Tom Benton did a number of renovations to the building and adding a second floor and modifying the facade as he felt appropriate. In 2004 the prior owner of the bldg. changed the front facade with the permission of the 7 P72 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 HPC from a store front that was a bar that had a large deck out front and the owner could not find a subsequent restaurant that wanted to be in that location so he put a store front facade on the front and considerably altered the facade in an attempt to make it a viable economic building. It also has an inefficient layout intemally and on the second floor doesn't provide ADA access to the upper floor. It has been consistently unoccupied. The Little Annie's was also remodeled on the front facade. It was originally developed as a store front as far back as the parapet wall and it was then altered to include the front section. It may have had an outdoor deck at one point that was closed in. It has no historic features to make it a landmark structure which is why it is not on the inventory. Both of these buildings are proposed for demolition and replacement and while it is part of our presentation to follow what it does do are permit the installation of a continuous sub -grade level which would be difficult to do if these buildings were retained. The sub -grade level will provide for parking which is part of the land use code for a new project. Noted in "Aspen Modern" that there were considerable changes to the Benton building and while this particular report does not make a specific recommendation for any property it does note those properties that have been altered and lost their historic significance. If demolition criteria were to apply the key demolition criteria would be that the structure cannot practically be moved to an appropriate place in Aspen and that is fairly clear for a cinder block building of its size and type. I'm speaking of the Benton building and it would also be true of the Little Annie's building. There is no documentation that supports that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance. I am sure there are people that want to speak of the cultural significance. Tom Benton did poster making of his anti -war during the Vietnam War all of which make for an interesting story. That story is not encompassed within the Benton building. The building as it stands right now does not reflect that story in any meaningful way. The structure itself does not fit with Victorian architecture. With respect to Little Annie's we will stick with the staff recommendation. Chairperson Sarah Broughton opened the public hearing. Georgia Hanson: I am a 40 year resident and I feel very strongly that Tom has earned the right to be acknowledged and I understand the entire building can't be completely returned to where it was. I am surprised that it didn't show up on a list before all the alternations happened. His architectural 8 P73 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 circles that are echoed across the street are important and to the story and the modem movement. I would like to see the developer and this committee come up with a way to signify the importance and his talent as an architect. Junee Kirk said she has lived her 43 years. I served on the historic task force commission and we need to look at these buildings as not whether they have historic significance because they were altered but who built them, who lived there and how they contributed to our culture and our history which Tom Benton definitely has. With his poster business he encapsulated the 70's with the people he know and people who governed. If it is a significant person that dwelled in that place, designed the place, it is historic even though it has been altered. I'm sure there is a way to have the facade or parts of it preserved to honor some of' our history that is so important to the community. The same with Little Annie's. If you tear the buildings down there goes the character of the neighborhood. People should come along as developers and try to give back to the community in some way. I ask you to work with the developers so that they can preserve a portion of this. Bill Wiener, retired architect The Tom Benton building is an architectural form and the core is still there, the roof and the circle. We are here to discuss concepts with the building. I am asking that you don't vote on demolition until you hear the entire story. I am asking that the center part of the roof be retained and the first floor kept open. Jim said Bill Wiener handed out a book as an Exhibit II. Joe Edwards submitted a photograph. Tom built this building 48 years ago during a time of great conflicts in the issue of land use and whether we are going to turn into something like Vail looks like in the spread of condominiums. Tom was a big mover in that decision to try and stop what happens if you just let the free market developers have their way. Many decisions were made in this building. The building should look like Tom had it in the photograph. It is stupid not to utilize this building as historic. This building and Tom's history are historical on modern Aspen. Modern Aspen is what it is because of what occurred in this building. It is an abomination to demolish this building. Sara also said there was a letter from Bill Wiener that was included in the book. Exhibit III, letters from Matthew Moran and Associates; Kelsey 9 P74 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21.2011 Moore; Calie Edward; Meg Braested; Ruth Hosteller; Lonnie White; Linda Edwards and Patrick Siegel. Most are against demolition of either Little Annie's or the Benton building. Sarah said Exhibit IV — map from Bill Wiener and Exhibit V is the photograph from Joe Edwards. Chairperson Sarah Broughton closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Stan Clausen said no one is questioning Tom Benton's importance. In this particular building it is not a building that embodies Mr. Benton. I can think of many places in Aspen's history that were important. Nothing ensures that Little Annie's will remain a restaurant as things change. It is important not to confuse the memories that we have. This corridor has the potential to add vibrancy down Hyman Ave. and to Spring Street. Jason said as an architect and an artist Tom Benton is the kind of person that I moved to Aspen to be. I moved here because I don't want to see McDonald signs and parking lots etc. Tom Benton had the courage to question systems and our authority and our landscape. This town looks different than any other place. We are losing buildings that represent people. I know his son Brian Benton. He had an open door policy and people could just walk into his building. The inventory list is just a list. This is a case by case commission and a case by case town. 26.415.080.A.4 Demolition of designated historic properties. a. The property has been determined to be an imminent hazard. The structure is not structurally sound. c. The structure cannot practically be moved. d. No documentation exists to support that the property has architectural or cultural significance. There is cultural significance and the one story element is significant. We have heard that if this gets torn down it will not be inconsequential. It would be a significant blow to our culture. The party walls are there and they could be exposed. This building would provide scale on the street if it is kept. On 517 E. Hyman the facade is not original and it would be a stretch to keep it. Brian said upon moving to Aspen I was exposed to Tom's poster work. I have deep admiration and respect to what he did. His brilliance was highlighted by his art work. Little Annie's doesn't contribute to the historic integrity of the town as it is not an historic facade, it is something that retrofitted. There is not a lot of "teeth" to say that building should be 10 P75 A SPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21.2011 preserved. The Benton building does contribute to the character of the town mostly because of its funkiness and it is those collection of elements that make Aspen great. This particular building has been altered significantly and to me it has become a detriment to the streetscape. As a landscape architect that is something that I am constantly looking at. It is my obligation as a member of this board to see to it that there is vitality in the Aspen core and I do not think this building is providing that anymore. I wish this building was intact the way Benton intended it to be. I would be open to maintaining the facade but they aren't usually successful like the Mother Lode. Ann thanked the public for their comments. The Benton building should not be demolished and it should be restudied and somehow incorporated in the plan that the developer comes up with. We have seen great restoration projects, the Berg cottage and the patio building etc. All are assets to the downtown. We continue to lose the 70's buildings and the size and scale of them and the funkiest of the architecture. I'm not convinced that you couldn't work the interior to make the building work. Little Annie's is one of the busiest restaurants in town and it would be a shame to see that go away and have an empty storefront in its place. Jamie said this is difficult because it is hard to distinguish between a building and a business. With the Little Annie's building it does bring vitality to that area but our criteria is to judge the building not the business. The one thing the two buildings have going for them is the size and scale of the buildings which is reduced from everything else around them. I'm concerned what that street facade would look like if it was all built out and there was no smaller scale buildings to show the change over time. I would like to see the Benton building studied as to how we can preserve it and if there is a way to preserve it. I haven't made a decision on either building. Nora thanked the public for their comments and compassion. If we look back we can take a number of buildings and say why didn't we designate that. I'm trying to be cautious about this and this block is the end of the book mark. You have the Wheeler Opera House, Aspen Block, Eagles, Ute City Banque and Benton. I would encourage you to find a way to voluntarily designate it and make it part of something fabulous. You can do an iconic project in keeping what is important to the history of the town culturally as well as architecturally. I have a hard time saying there is nothing there to keep. 11 P76 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 Sarah said while I love the scale and this is my community also there needs to be space for the next Thomas Benton. It is too bad this building couldn't be incorporated. I personally feel that the building in its current state 521E. Hyman structurally cannot be moved given its structure type, 26.415.080.A.4 c. On 517 E. Hyman criteria d. If we could retain Little Annie's as a restaurant for the rest of our lives that would be a different story. That restaurant could close tomorrow and would be an empty store front. That to me does not contribute to the history of our down from an architectural context viewpoint. Not meaning any disrespect to our town and citizens and the friends of Thomas Benton I am in support of demolition and it meets the criteria. Stan Clausen requested that the motion be set up in two resolutions for the two properties. Jim said the properties are designated as part of the historic district and they are historic sites. HPC has the purview to consider this and it is appropriate to do two different resolutions. Stan said should there be a vote for against demolition this meeting would effectively be over because the design was predicated on demolition. MOTION: Brian moved to approve resolution #9 for the demolition of 517 E. Hyman Ave, Little Annie's, second by Sarah. Sarah amended the motion to allow for demolition under code section 26.415.080.A.4.d. and in addition a,b,c criteria are met. Brian accepted the amendment. Jason said we will hear more about Little Annie's than the Benton building from community back lash. It is a struggle because I dislike losing the use and demolishing the building but it doesn't meet the criteria and it is a fairly modern building. Ann said she isn't convinced and there may be documentation that demonstrates that it has some significance. The front was put on in 1971. It is in the historic district and I don't feel any of the criteria in the second portion is met because it does contribute to the historic district. Vote: Nora, yes; Sarah, yes; Brian, yes; Jason, yes; Jamie, yes; Ann, no. Motion carried 5 -1. 12 P77 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21.2011 MOTION: Jason moved to deny 521 E. Hyman the demolition request by the applicant for this particular property setting forth that the criteria has not been met 26.415.080.A.4 a,b,c,d and a.b.c. motion second by Ann. Motion carried 4 -2. Vote: Jason, yes; Brian, no; Sarah no; Ann, yes, Jamie, yes, Nora, yes. MOTION: Sarah moved to continue Conceptual Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Standards, Public Hearing to Oct 26 second by Jason. All in favor, motion carried. 320 Lake Avenue Work Session Sarah recused herself on 320 Lake Ave. Jim True, Special Counsel — We are going into a work session so the meeting will not be recorded. It is a work session and there is nothing binding on the commission or any individual commissioner. This is done to provide information to the applicant to assist them. There is nothing upon which the applicant can rely of the commission as a whole or individually. Motion: Ann moved to adjourn; second by Brian. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 XI; X. 6. �7i1t� Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 13 • P78 IT/V-(4 t 1O t G A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING DEMOLITION OF THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 517 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT E, BLOCK 95, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION # 9, SERIES OF 2011 PARCEL ID: 2737 - 182 -24 -002 WHEREAS, the applicant, Aspen Core Ventures, LLC, represented by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc., submitted an application for Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Conceptual Major Development Review and Demolition for the properties located at 517 East Hyman Avenue (Lot E, Block 95), 521 East Hyman Avenue (Units 1 and 2 of the Benton Building Condominium, aka Lot F, Block 95) and Lots G, H and I, Block 95, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, 517 East Hyman Avenue is located within the designated boundaries of the Commercial Core Historic District as described in City Council Ordinance number 49, Series of 1974; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, in order to authorize a Demolition, according to Section 26.415.080, Demolition of designated historic properties, it must be 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 RECEPTION #: 582981, 09/23/2011 at 12:07:40 PM, 517 East Hyman Avenue- Demolition 1 OF 2, R 516.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION HPC Resolution #9, Series of 2011 Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO Page 1 of 2 P79 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; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on September 21, 2011 the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application during a duly noticed public hearing, the staff memo and recommendation, and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and approved demolition by a vote of five to one ( 5 — 1). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants Demolition approval for the property located at 517 East Hyman Avenue, Lot E, Block 95, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado based on the finding that Land Use Code demolition criteria set forth in Section 26.415.080.A.4.d and 26.415.080.A.4, and second part subparagraphs a — c are met. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 21" day of September, 2011. W4 Sarah Broughton, Chair Approved as to Form: Jim True, Special Counsel ATTEST: Kathy $lrickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 517 East Hyman Avenue- Demolition HPC Resolution #9, Series of 2011 Page 2 of 2