Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.Lily Reid House.200 S Monarch.A13-91A\ I ly Reid House Final HPG Develop. Ptan & GM -OS Exemp.Review App. ,737-073-38-002 I r-Ij GI 1/41 fo ASPENTITKIN PLANNING OFFICE A 13- t 1 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303)920-5090 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES City 00113 -63250-134 GMP/CONCEPTUAL -63270-136 GMP/FINAL -63280-137 SUB/CONCEPTUAL -63300-139 SUB/FINAL -63310-140 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS -63320-141 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS REFERRAL FEES: 00125 -63340-205 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 -63340-190 HOUSING 00115 -63340-163 ENGINEERING SUBTOTAL County 00113 -63160-126 GMP/GENERAL -63170-127 GMP/DETAILED -63180-128 GMP/FINAL -63190-129 SUB/GENERAL -63200-130 SUB/DETAILED -63210-131 SUB/FINAL -63220-132 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS17 IUD -63230-133 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS -63450-146 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REFERRAL FEES: 00125 -63340-205 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 -63340-190 HOUSING 00113 -63360-143 ENGINEERING PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00113 -63080-122 CITY/COUNTY COD \ -63090-123 COMP. PLAN �. -63140-124 COPY FEES fL� -69000-145 OTHER 'J SUBTOTAL TOTAL Name: �� �� ,L� Phone: }} Address:'' '\�1 C t - Project: Check # —�_� Date: Additional billing: #of Hours: r THE LILY REID PROJECT AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS ► l"D 210 SOUTH ( 'AtTNA ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 303/925-2867 EMMEME MEN NONE M. mommool NMME&- - C119HH HAGMAN Ye W,ANCIIITF17S,1TI), • r MEMORANDUM TO: Bill Drueding, Zoning Officer FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planner RE: Lily Reid GMQS Exemption by Planning Director for Enlargement of Historic Landmark DATE: June 1, 1992 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The applicant, Larry Brooks, received a full development approval for the redevelopment of the Lily Reid parcel June 10, 1991. A condition of approval required a GMQS Exemption by the Planning Director for the expansion of the Historic Landmark that increases the building's net leasable but not the floor area pursuant to Section 24-8-104 A.l.b. The Code requires that a building permit application be submitted before a GMQS Exemption may be considered. The applicant has submitted building plans for permit review and intends to begin redevelopment of the parcel within this month. ZONING: Commerical Core �1 LOCATION: "Q'�D - Aspen FINDINGS: The applicant proposes to demolish the existing one- story structure on the corner parcel and relocate the historic Lily Reid Cottage to the corner. A new three story commerical and residential building will be built behind the cottage. Pursuant to Section 24-8-104 A.l.b.(2) the Planning Director may exempt the enlargement of an Historic Landmark which increases either the building's existing floor area ratio or its net leasable square footage, but does not increase both. The relocated Lily Reid cottage will be refurbished to provide approximately 7,550 square feet below grade retail space to be used for a restaurant and secondary display space. As a result the applicant is providing new net leasable space but is not adding additional floor area. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the GMQS Exemption for the addition of 7,550 square feet of net leasable space that is completely below grade. I hereby approve the GMQS Exemption for the enlargement of an Historic Landmark pursuant to Section 8-104 A. of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code. &/T� U W , 2, Dia 'Moore, City Planning Direct r 0 0 Joseph Wells MAY 15 Joseph Wells, AICP Land Planning and Design May 15,1992 Leslie Lamont Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Leslie: As we discussed, my letter is to request Exemption from GMQS from the Planning Director for the Lily Reid project under the provisions of Section 8-104 A.Lb, Exemption for an Historic Landmark. Approval of this exemption was a condition of the prior City Council approval (Ordinance 15/91) even though the project received approval of a GMQS Exemption for expansion of an Historic Landmark from the P&Z under the provisions of Section 8-104 B.1.c. We would have preferred to address this issue earlier in order to avoid any possibility of delay, but the code procedure requires that the applicant first apply for a building permit. It is my understanding that the permit has now been filed and that it is being reviewed by Bill Dreuding. Would you let us know at your earliest convenience if we need to provide you with any additional information beyond that contained in the building permit application in order to obtain the Planning Director's signoff on this exemption? Sincerely._ Ij Joseph Wells, AICP cc (by FAX): Larry Brooks Jim Gibbons Gideon Kaufman Heidi Hoffman 130 Midland Park Place, Number F2 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone (303) 925-8080 Facsimile (303) 925-8275 1� $ 0 0 ' Yll Rrr,,-IVEC NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARI G CASE #92-1 JrtV LILY REID HOUSE BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to the Official Code of Aspen of June 25, 1962, as amended, a public hearing will be held in the Council Room, City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, (or at such other place as the meeting may be then adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 24, Official Code of Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. Particulars of the hearing and requested variance are as follows: Date and Time of Meeting: Date: March 19, 1992 Time: 4:00 p.m. Owner for Variance: Name: Larry brooks Address: 202 South Monarch Location or description of property: Lots A, B, C, Block 19 - Aspen Townsite Appellant for Variance: Hagman Yaw Architects Variance Requested: Applicant is asking to store a structure at Block 19, Lot A,B, and C for 8 months. Chapter 24, Article 10- Ordinance No. 69 (Series 1990) Expands the authority of the Board of Adjustment to grant variances for construction staging and temporary storage. Will applicant be represented by counsel: Yes: No: X The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Remo Lavagnino, Chairman Jan Carney Deputy City Clerk 0 • MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Board of Adjustment cc: Bill Drueding, Zoning Officer From: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: Temporary relocation of Lily Reid Cottage (309 E. Hopkins) Date: February 28, 1992 The applicant will be appearing before you to receive your approval (per Ordinance 69, Series of 1990) to temporarily relocate the historic brick cottage located at 309 E. Hopkins. The "Lily Reid" cottage has received HPC's approval for temporary relocation (up to 10 months) to the site at 7th and Main, in order to accomplish the site work and redevelopment necessary for the parcel at Monarch and Hopkins. The HPC asks for your approval in order to complete the project as proposed. Financial security in the amount of $100,000 (in the form of a bond) is a condition of the approval, to insure the cottage's safe relocation and restoration back on site. We understand the applicant wishes to begin work as soon as possible on this project. RAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS LTD 510 EAST HYMAN ASPEN, COLOPADO 81611 ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY 130 S. GALENA ASPEN CO 81611 L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 �! IAR - February 5, 1991 THE LILY REID HOUSE APPLICATION FOR HPC FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEd OF SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT AND APPROVAL TO TEMPORARILY RELOCATE AN HISTORIC LANDMARK, SPECIAL REVIEW AND GMQS EXEMPTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF AN HISTORIC LANDMARK, AND REQUEST FOR GMQS EXEMPTION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND VESTING OF APPROVALS Submitted to: The City of Aspen and The Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303-920-5000 FAX: 303-920-5197 Applicant: Mr. Larry Brooks, General Partner Aspen Arcade, Ltd. 1148 Fourth Street Santa Monica CA 90403 Phone: 213-394-4938 FAX: 213-393-7988 CONSULTANTS Hagman Yaw Architects, Ltd. 210 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303-925-2867 FAX: 303-925-3736 ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS: Charles Cunniffe & Associates 520 East Hyman Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303-925-5590 FAX: 303-925-5076 ATTORNEYS: Gideon I. Kaufman 315 East Hyman, Suite 305 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303-925-8166 FAX: 303-925-1090 Chuck Brandt Holland & Hart 600 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303-925-3476 FAX: 303-925-9367 LAND PLANNER: Joseph Wells, AICP 602 Midland Park Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303-925-8080 FAX: 303-925-8275 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION FOR 14 SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL CORE HISTORIC DISTRICT INVOLVING AN HISTORIC LANDMARK (§7-601(F)(4)) III. REQUEST FOR HPC APPROVAL TO TEMPORARILY RELOCATE 31 AN HISTORIC STRUCTURE OFF -SITE (§7-602) IV. REQUEST FOR SPECIAL REVIEW (Article 7, Division 4) 37 V. REQUEST FOR GMQS EXEMPTION FOR ENLARGEMENT 42 OF AN HISTORIC LANDMARK (§8-104(3)(1)(c)) VI. REQUEST FOR GMQS EXEMPTION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING 46 (§8-104(C)(1)(c)) Li A. General Application Information (§6-202) 1. Application Form 2. Applicant's Letter of Authorization 3. Disclosure of Ownership 4. Certificate of Limited Partnership B. Minutes of Prior Land -Use Actions Regarding the Lily Reid Site 1. Minutes of January 10, 1990 HPC Meeting Granting Conceptual Development Plan Approval, Approval of On -Site Relocation of the Lily Reid House, Approval of Demolition and Partial Demolition within the Commerical Core Historic District and Recommending Landmark Designation of Lots A, B and C, Block 81. 2. Minutes of April 3, 1990 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Recommending Approval of Landmark Designation of the Lily Reid Site (Lots A, B and C, Block 81). 3. Minutes of May 14, 1990 (First Reading) and July 9, 1990 (Public Hearing) of City Council Approving Ordinance 36 (Series of 1990). 4. Ordinance 36 - Series of 1990 - An Ordinance Designat- ing 200 South Monarch Street/309 East Hopkins Avenue (Lots A, B and C, Block 81) As H, Historic Landmark, Pursuant to Division 7, Section 7-701 of the Land Use Code. C. Letter from Ryberg Cosntruction Company Regarding Relocation of Lily Reid Cottage. D. Letter from Owners of Lot A through C, Block 19 Granting Permission to Temporarily Relocate the Lily Reid Cottage onto the Property. ' I. INTRODUCTION This application for H.P.C. Final Development Plan review of Significant Development and Temporary Relocation of an Historic ' Landmark, for Special Review and GMQS Exemption for Enlargement of an Historic Landmark by the Planning & Zoning Commission, and for GMQS Exemption of Affordable Housing and Vesting of all approvals by City Council is filed on behalf of Aspen Arcade, Ltd., owner of the Lily Reid Cottage and the adjacent commercial ' building located on Lots A, B and C, Block 81, Aspen Townsite. On January 10, 1990, H.P.0 granted Conceptual Development Plan approval for the proposed restoration of the Lily Reid Cottage. At that time, H.P.C. also granted conditional approval for demolition and partial demolition and for relocation of the ' historic structure from Lot C to Lot A; finally, HPC also recommended approval of Landmark designation of the entire site. Following that approval, P&Z also recommended approval of Land- mark designation of the entire site on April 3, 1990; City Council approved Landmark designation of Lots A, B and C on July 9, 1990 (see Ordinance 36, Series of 1990, Exhibit B4). On January 9, 1991, HPC granted a 90 day extension in the one-year filing deadline for Final HPC Development Plan review following approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. 1 1 • • The Lily Reid cottage is the last remaining brick cross -gabled cottage in the Commercial Core Historic District, and one of only a few remaining in Aspen. Information in the Planning Office indicates that Lily Reid was the first owner of the property. Franz Berko, noted Aspen photographer of the post-war/early ski era also owned this property P Y for a number of years and maintained his studio at this location. The concept for the redevelopment of the parcel remains consis- tent with prior approvals, including an "L" shaped multi -use building wrapping behind the detached Lily Reid Cottage, which is relocated to a prominent corner position and surrounded by landscaped public space, as illustrated on the following architectural drawings. Important design considerations which were previously noted by the Planning Staff have been maintained in the design, including no below -grade open space, orienting the primary facade toward on which are Hopkins, not Monarch, and the use of new materials non -competing to the Lily Reid Cottage. The proposal includes approximately 2,300 sq.ft. of open areas at the plaza level. The site is within the Commercial Core zone district. An FAR of 1.5:1 is allowed (13,500 sq.ft.), or up to 2.0:1 (18,000 sq.ft.) by Special Review when on -site affordable housing is provided. Consistent with the prior approvals, the FAR proposed on the two 2 MF.CHANICAI.RWM f MECHANICAL RUOM l to 1 l IYVAMR ENUR'MENT SUBBASEMENT PLAN � m = = m= r m m = = w m i� m m i p h RETAIL ��Plliiill'k. RETAIL BASEMENT PLAN = m m = = m r== m r m m r= m= m= 000rsn N6PJUC w,onsn xwr F[ E� MAW NWO KEY PLAN Pam Y.Utf-UP ♦RI Plva ILUURT YuII- MILL STREET PLAZA 0� CRYSTAL PALACE ALLEY �RKIN A BR mYR� l t� - YLLN g1A61. rillJ, O N IRVQI —iRRIGYT IJrt P RETAIL YICY OIA�- R+rY(JPI roll m roro ❑ � ((a�+'M i I II I RETAIL / I L �RErofAMd Pall wauY PURI L HOPKINS AVENUE g - � x LL SITE & LEVEL ONE PLAN BASS PARK m= r m= M m m = = r r== m = = M= AFFORDABLE HOUSING 1 RETAI[./OFFICE. x.urr run � ' L rca auea j� rs� tt MILL STREET PLAZA % rni au� - iioumx+o 4--�+a�Mevme*�e ��wse $ETAIUOFFICE I T HOUSE BELOW� LEVEL TWO PLAN = = = r = = = r = = m = = = m = = = = MILL STREET PLAZA HAGMAN YAW ARCHTCECTS m llPSmlMGlU omwoA M%�. LppM011b11 r4Y7Ljbi 71I=� -.—_ _ RJARTY ILIR --- LEVEL THREE PLAN 5 MILL STREET PLAZA - - aaovaarr uns ._ _ ROOF PLAN *"Ile 1 I 1 _ I --- �arerrebdmlrur orverHv.) rry wNmw�Nor eivr�w.) EASE ELEVATION van.rev -..--- _ roao ram I —L Owl — C] _ NORTH ELEVATION - ai+++ee ---Our owdwc.) SOUTH ELEVATION WEST E MAnQN— EXOTNG PLAN LILY REED HOUSE avt rwr-a EXLSCING m w� w m m m m m m w r w m= m e/w & Ny.- NO tNM tmfffffffffffr /•�/1�/ WING'bN4� \ —� NM M/tlf6Af0I � l-�Y6 dSVY7 /rYN/NiCY•/ I�NN+GVNWLbW re•(NVILl1J evwwNr I—�' U.I IIIIIIIUI IINNNN NII I II Y - IIWIIIII _ Mr w"i.. w wwM •MMw�w ��_ iwww� �. _ _ •w•••••wwi•w� � wiwM•••M � •• � /fwwwwww•wi�wwwi► `. www•w.wuwwuw.MR �., .w.�•�s-sree_Mwi � •MwM.M MMw — � — - "T' 1 E� NNadJ D.•i_�wE Svsnr.5 d+Y N/NQWI wu.owro>' ate.• „�,. oal/,,, i /.wN qb4 /'AM�NiN4 d !A:/GWfNy PROPOSED PLAN LRY REID HOUSE PROPOSED CHANGES a 1 — i fK hO 5'P'b _—^�`Vf eL bwOYRM6 dJA t -_—_ pw3�0'dMbs YEYi�bP MONARCH STREET ELEVATION New. +.mow bw b�"PI Pwuw nravi..r d�U.LOWMJ i a1�U �� L' lY V i'J GLlI YM11V1`I —+�v it m= m w w w m r w w m w m m m m m ALLEY ELEVATION -lee , r--1 gu.f u.-nr. —,;N�, o n 11NM Nlro NQ P�Vwr6�G LH` _--atCt4Gad`m rvvL�dYcn LJGHTWELL ELEVATION CORNER ELEVATION 1 I n 1 sites is 1.47:1 (13,200 sq.ft.), or uo to 2.0:1 (18,000 sq.ft.) affordable housing to be located on the second level of the new building. The two existing buildings on the site presently include 6,200 square feet of FAR, so that the net FAR expansion is 7,000 sq.ft. The project will include retail, office and affordable housing uses as well as storage for these uses and other accessory space. The new structure includes a ground level of 3,433 sq.ft. of retail space, the second level includes 2,451 sq.ft. of retail and office space and 1,506 sq.ft. of affordable housing and the third level includes 3,156 sq.ft. of office space. The basement level will include approximately 7,550 sq.ft. of retail space to be used for a restaurant and secondary display space for some of the retail uses on the ground floor. This is being proposed in order to provide these long-term local tenants with additional space which can be rented at a lower rate than that of the ground level space, therefore in turn keeping their overall rents low. There is an additional subbasement level which will be used for storage for the tenants in the building and for mechanical space, to minimize the amount of roof -top mechanical equipment. 13 i I II. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION FOR SIGNIFICANT ' DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL CORE HISTORIC DISTRICT INVOLVING AN HISTORIC LANDMARK (§7-601(F)(4)) The Applicant requests Final Development Plan approval by the HPC ' of the proposed restoration of the historic Lily Reid Cottage, which is to be relocated to the northwestern corner of Lots A, B and C, Block 81 as well as approval of a new structure to be constructed along the eastern and southern portions of the site. The ownership is a 9,000 square foot lot which has received 1 Landmark designation; it is located within the Commercial Core ' Historic District, as illustrated on Sheet 3 of the architectural drawings (following page 2). Submission requirements for Final Development Plan review are as follows: 11 A. The general application information required under §6-202: 1. The City's Application Form, which includes the names and addresses of the Applicant and his representative and the street address and legal description of the property, is attached as Exhibit Al. 2. Applicant's Letter of Authorization is attached as Exhibit A2. 14 ' 3. Disclosure of ownership is attached as Exhibit a3. 4. The Rey Map on the Site Plan (Sheet 3) Locates the subject parcel (see architectsral drawings). 5. Under the provisions of §6-205(E)(4)(a), no notice is required for Special Review, 1MQS Exemption or Final HPC Develop- ment Plan applications. 6. Compliance with Final Development Plan review standards ' are addressed in this Section, beginning on page 28. B. An accurate representation of all major building materials, such as samples and photographs, to be used for the proposed development: Samples of major building materials will be presented at the Final HPC presentation as will a scale model which is more detailed than the one used for the conceptual presentation. The new model provides a clearer indication of the scale of materials and colors to be used for the project. The Lily Reid Cottage will be restored as closely as possible to historical accuracy. The restoration will be an interpretation based on other existing houses in the neighbor- hood. The shed structure which was added to the rear of the building and is not historic, will be removed, the rear facade 15 cleaned up and windows added. The enclosed front porch will be ' returned to its original state as an open porch. The exterior brick will either be cleaned to its original finish (if possible, without damage) or repainted. This decision will be made with HPC's assistance. All wood trim, fascias and gable ends will be ' restored and repainted. The roof will be redone in wood Ishingles. The ground level facades of the new building which face the street will be constructed from red brick with simulated sand- stone banding and detail. Canvas awnings will protect windows at street facades. Rails, exposed spandrel beams at awning loca- tions and window trim will be painted in colors to complement the relationship to the Lily Reid House. In order to create an appropriate back drop, or foil, for the Lily Reid Cottage the second and third levels of the new building are stepped back from the court and, with the exception of glass, will be delineated with matching dark colored mater- ials. Upper level building elements include glazing members, rails and planters, wall surface, soffit and fascia surfaces. C. Scale drawings of the proposed development in relation to any existing structure: Reductions of the architectural plans of the proposal are included following page 2. Full-size drawings are being submitted separately. 16 f] P D. The effect of the details of the proposed development on the original design of the historic structure and character of the neighborhood. The Lily Reid project offers a unique opportunity to truly enhance the visual character of downtown Aspen. The site is an entrance and point of transition in the approach to downtown, in terms of zoning, open space and architectural character. To the north and west of the site are Bass and Paepcke parks and wood frame residences with lawns which are characteristic of Aspen's Victorian residential neighborhoods. To the east and south are typical downtown core buildings - vertical brick facades, 30 feet or more in height, flat -roofed and fronting directly on the sidewalk. The concept for the project creates a true "gateway" to the downtown, and improves the transition from residential to commercial in the following ways: 1. The Lily Reid Cottage is presently hemmed in by bigger, dominating buildings. It will be relocated to the corner, freeing it and creating a focal point in the approach to downtown from the west and north. The house will be fully ' Hopkins. It restored to echo and complement the houses along ' will be set in a landscaped garden to enhance its historic, residential character. 17 ' 2. The new building provides a backdrop to the Lily ' Reid Cottage, wrapping around and behind the historic structure in an "L" shape. The two end facades of the new structure relate very directly to their immediate downtown neighbors - :Mill Street Plaza, Crystal Palace and Wheeler Opera House and echo the period character of the core area in general. Facades are red brick with sandstone banding, echoing the typical brick/sandstone facades in the downtown. Street -front facades are two stories in ' height, lower than the adjacent neighbors, while the stepped back third floor relates to the upper level of these same projects in height. In the center of the site, directly behind the cottage, is a paved courtyard and public space to provide access and to enhance the more urban character of the new building. Portions of the plaza will be snowmelted as required. At each of the corners are exterior stairs, providing access to upper level roof terraces, and making a transition to a more subdued facade ' which could best be described as a "backdrop" to the cottage. ' This facade steps back at each upper level, thus reducing the mass and improving the view Plane to Aspen Mountain. By relocating the important historic residence ' within the site, restoring it, and giving it a meaningful. ' visually prominent, environment, this project will give the Lily Reid Cottage a true and historically appropriate presence in the 18 • 0 downtown, and provide a much improved "edge" to the downtown core. It is an opportunity to let the historic building live expresively, rather than subordinate without expression between two larger commercial structures on each side of its current location. E. Conformance of the Final Development Plan with the represen- tations made during the conceptual review and with any conditions of approval. The conditions of the prior approvals granted by HPC are discussed below: 1. Conceptual Development Plan: Conceptual Development Plan was approved by HPC subject to the following conditions: a. Detailed elevations, site, roof and landscape plans. Full-size drawings are being provided separately. Reductions of these 1/8" and 1/4" scale drawings are included in this application following page 2. b. Massing model. A more detailed massing model of the project has been completed and will be presented to the HPC at the nearing regarding the Final Development Plan. C. Complete, accurate restoration plan and detailed drawings for the historic cottage, including (but not limited to) partial demolition activities, front porch and window restoration, relocation methodology and protection during adjacent demolition, cleaning methods, foundation and excavation plan, measured drawings and photographs. Full-size drawings of the Lily Reid Cottage restoration plans are being provided separately. Reductions of these drawings are provided on Sheets 7 and 8, following page 2. As discussed in Section III, a decision has been made to temporarily store the cottage off -site during construction to avoid possible damage during construction. d. Performance Bond or Letter of Guarantee, approved by the City Attorney for relocation of the historic cottage. Ryberg House Movers has stated that providing a separate performance bond is totally unnecessary in light of the excellent insurance coverage which that company maintains. If the City does not agree, the Applicant will provide an instrument satisfactory to the City Attorney. e. Project phasing report. It is presently anticipated that upon final approval, the Lily Reid Cottage would first be relocated to the proposed temporary storage site on Main Street by Ryberg House Movers. The newer commercial building remaining on the site would then be demolished, site excavation would be undertaken and 20 construction of the new commercial building would proceed in a ' single phase. Once the plaza level is completed and construction staging permits a safe relocation, the Lily Reid Cottage will be ' in returned to the site by Ryberg and placed in its new location the northwest corner of the site. f. Restudy of horizontal features of new ' construction. ' The elevations of the new structure have been restudied to not only emphasize the vertical elements of the building but also to detail the building in a manner which is ' compatible in scale with that typical of victorian commercial structures in the area. ' g. Accurate representation of building materials. ' Building materials are discussed above in Section ' IIB, page 15. h. Information to support Demolition Standard B. r The Planning Office has stated previously that the newer commerical building on the site proposed for demolition is not an ' important architectural contribution to the Commercial Core Historic District, and that the request for demolition is ' generally appropriate, considering the scope of the parcel's redevelopment plan. 21 �J Subsequent to HPC's consideration of the conceptual application for the project, HPC has had several Code discussions regarding problems in present Code language, includ- ing the apparent confusion in the demolition standards which requires that a finding be made that a building is not structurally sound in order to approve demolition regardless of the historic significance of the structure in question. HPC has recommended that this provision be amended to allow demolition if a finding is made that the structure in question is "non- contributing." The structure on the site which is proposed to be demolished is not identified in the Historic Inventory as a contributing structure, and therefore would be eligible for demolition once this provision is amended. i. The structure proposed for demolition is not structur- ally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure. If the HPC takes into account the project approved for the site, the structure to be demolished is not structurally sound, because in order to implement that plan, it is not possible to utilize the structural system of the existing building. In other words, the present building is not "structurally sound" for the use envisioned for the property. 22 ' ii. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on -site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property. The reuse of the existing non-contributing structure would prevent implementation of the plan approved to enhance the prominence of the contributing structure on the site. iii. The structure cannot be practicably moved to another ' site in Aspen. ' There are no available sites to relocate the existing structure, nor is the building suitable for such an effort. iv. The applicant demonstrates that the proposal mitigates to the greatest extent practical, the following: (a) Any impacts that occur to the character of the neighborhood where demolition is proposed to occur. ' The impacts of the project on the character of the neighborhood are positive. (b) Any impact on the historic importance of the ' structure or structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcles. The impacts of the project on the historic importance of strucures on- and off -site are positive. (c) Any impact to the architectural integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcels. The impacts of the project on the architectural integrity of structures on -and off -site are positive. 23 0 • 1 i. Restudy setbacks of relocated cottage. There was some discussion among HPC members and staff about precisely where the Lily Reid Cottage should be located. For instance, the minutes reflect that Roxanne Eflin suggested that the house should be moved back into the courtyard further; Glen Rappaport felt it should be moved forward toward the sidewalk. The Commission did not make a final determination on this issue, requesting instead that the architects consider the specific placement of the historic structure for Final Submission. After further consideration of the design issues, a decision has been made by the architects to place the cottage as shown on the architectural drawings. The issues which have been considered, in order of priority, are the relationship to the victorian house across Hopkins Avenue, the relationship to the project courtyard (which we believe will become an important public space in its own right), and the relationship to the Mill Street Plaza Building to the east. In addition, the historic guidelines suggest that buildings in the commercial core should be built out to the sidewalk, but residential structures usually, if not always, were built with a small front yard. I The victorian residence across the street is rectangular in shape and is set back approximately 7 feet from 24 ' Hopkins Street and 8 feet from [Monarch Street. The Lily Reid Cottage is an L-shaped structure with a porch built into the notch in the L and a shed roofed element in the rear. The proposed setback along Hopkins is between 5 and 10 feet and along Monarch it ranges from 4 to 10 feet. This places the cottage in front of the nearest facade of the mill Street Plaza, which is set back 10 feet, but still preserves a small landscaped area between the building and the sidewalk. Shifting the cottage further to the east and south would have a 1 negative impact on the plaza area. j. Specific information on variations requested. ' The only variations required are with regard to parking and open space, as addressed below: ' (i) Parking: Under the provisions of §8-104(B)(1)(c), Enlargement of an Historic Landmark_, parking shall be provided according to the standards of Article 5, Divisions 2 and 3, if HPC determines that it can be provided on the site's surface, and be consistent with the review standards ' of Article 7, Division 6. The parking requirement in the CC Zone is 2 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. of net leasable. Based on the final program for the project, a total of 22 spaces would be required, but only if HPC determines that it can be provided on the site's surface. 25 IIn order to preserve as much open space as possible around the Victorian and still maintain a reasonable amount of ground floor commercial space, surface parking has been limited to only three spaces. Limiting the off-street parking is necessary for the viability of the project, and for compliance with HPC's review standards. The Applicant therefore requests HPC's approval of the off-street parking proposal and a waiver of payment in lieu fees for the balance of 19 spaces. (ii) Open Space: The open space requirement for tthe project is 25% of the total site square footage, or 2,250 sq.ft. Approximately 2,300 sq.ft. of the site is devoted to the plaza, but because the open space definition now requires that open space areas be a minimum of ten feet in depth and extend at least 50% of the length of the lot frontage, none of the open space along Monarch can be counted in open space calculations. Therefore only 1,650 sq. ft. of the open space within the project complies with all aspects of this definition. Under the provisions of Special Review (§7-404(A)(3)), when the H.P.C. approves the on -site relocation of an Historic Landmark into required open space, such that the amount of open space on -site is reduced below that required by this Code, the requirements of this section shall be waived. IDuring conceptual review, the H.P.C. deferred 1 until Final Development Plan review a decision regarding the 1 26 L r] extent of the open space waiver required for the project, pending a final decision regarding the siting of the Lily Reid Cottage. In Section IV (page 37), the Applicant is requesting Special Review approval of the siting of the cottage as shown and a waiver of 600 sq.ft. of required open space. Open space is being provided equal to the square footage required. However, the placement of the house is more important than the technical compliance with the open space measuring criteria. 2. Demolition and Partial Demolition. I Approval of demolition and partial demolition involving an historic landmark was granted by HPC subject to the following conditions: Ia. That the Applicant address Standard B of §7-602. See Section II(E)(1)(h), page 22. b. That subsequent drawings and the architectural model reflect the actual conditions of the existing structure, including but not limited to the cross gable. The architectural drawings submitted with this application and the model to be presented at the H.P.C. hearing accurately reflect the existing historic structure, including the cross -gable which will be preserved. As Sheets 7 and 8 indicate, certain non -original elements (including the bay window, porch enclosure and storage shed which was added to the rear of the 27 11 building) will be removed and restored in a manner more typical of the original structure. 1 3. Relocation. Relocation of the Lily Reid Cottage within the site was approved by HPC subject to the following condition: a. Further study of setbacks and precise siting of the historic building. IRefer to Section II(E)(1), Condition "i", page 24. I F. Development Plan Review Standards For All Development Involving Historic Landmarks: The proposal complies with HPC's review standards, as follows: 1. Compatibility: "The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel, and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay district, or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development ' would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot, or exceed the allowed floor area, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements." The design of the proposed commercial building is intended to provide an architecturally understated backdrop to the small 28 J victorian cottage in order to give visual prominence to its scale, form and detail at its new corner location. The exterior materials and detail of the commercial building are similar to neighboring buildings in order to provide continuity and compatibility with the immediate built environment. Massing, setbacks and building facades are also configured to assure a compatible relationship to neighboring structures, as well as to provide a transition in scale to nearby residential areas. 2. Neighborhood Character: "The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development." ' The proposal provides for a suitable transition from the scale of the buildings in the commercial core to that of the residential areas to the west, and creates a visual relationship with the victorian house at the corner location across the street. The project also provides a necessary transition between contemporary structures on the block and Victorian structures in the neighborhood. 3. Cultural Value: "The proposal enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development of adjacent parcels." F The proposal enhances scale transition in the neighborhood from commercial to residential, both in terms of architectural massing and proposed uses. The design character of Aspen's commercial core is reflected in the materials and period character of the project's architecture. 4. Architectural Integrity of Historic Structures: "The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof." By relocating the historic Lily Reid Cottage within the site, and providing an open space buffer around the structure, the new location for the building will much more closely tapproximate its historic setting, and will permit a view of its form and detail on all four sides. In its present location, the Lily Reid Cottage is ungraciously located between larger commercial buildings and only one facade can be readily seen. The new location and historic renovation will restore architectural integrity to the Lily Reid Cottage and all four sides of the building will be visible. ' 30 11 I III. REQUEST FOR HPC APPROVAL TO TEMPORARILY RELOCATE AN HISTORIC LANDMARK WITHIN THE SITE (§7-602) Following approval of Landmark designation, the Applicant has worked closely with the architects and contractor regarding construction phasing of the project. As a result of that planning, a decision has been made to temporarily relocate the Lily Reid Cottage to an off -site location at Seventh and Main Street. Temporary relocation is necessary to protect the structure from possible damage during the construction effort. The concept established for the project is clearly dependent on the successful relocation of the Lily Reid house and it is important to take every precaution to protect the building during this effort. A. Standards for Review of Relocation (§7-602(D)). i Approval for relocation may be granted if the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: 1 1. "The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on its original site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property." The Applicant proposes to temporarily relocate the historic structure off -site during the construction phase. Once 31 construction staging permits, the structure will be returned to the site and placed in its approved location. 2. "The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighbor- hood and ajacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation." The Applicant has continued to consult with Ryberg Construction Company, structure Moving Contractors, who have moved numerous small residential structures such as this. The company anticipates that the structure can be relocated without ' historically significant alteration to its integrity. 3. "The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re -siting." The ability of the structure to withstand relocation has previously been addressed in letters from Ryberg Construction Company and Integrated Engineering Consultants; these were included in the Conceptual Development Plan application. 4. "A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond with the Engineering Department, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation." It has been concluded that demolition of the existing commercial building to the west of the Lily Reid Cottage and subsequent subgrade construction poses a possible hazard to the 32 Lily Reid Cottage. The Applicant has received written permission from the owners of a parcel at Seventh and Main (see Exhibit D) to temporarily store the cottage on their property. I Ryberg House Movers will move the cottage to the rain Street site where it will be stored on steel beams and then moved into its permanent location as soon as construction of the new struc- ture on the eastern and southern portion of the lot permits. ' "The is in nature to the 5. receiving site compatible structure or structures proposed to be moved, the character of the neighborhood is consistent with the architectural integrity 1 of the structure, and the relocation of the historic structure would not diminish the integrity or character of the neighborhood of the receiving site. An accceptance letter from the property owner of the receiving site shall be submitted." The temporary receiving site on Lots A through C, Block 19, is within the Main Street Historic District. It is presently anticipated that the cottage will be stored on the site for no more than six months. An acceptance letter from the property in D. owners of the temporary receiving site is included Exhibit I B. Application Requirements for Relocation. A Development Application for Relocation shall include the following: 33 1. General Application Requirements: The general application requirements of §6-202 have been aaddressed previously in Section II, beginning on page 14. 2. Name of Structure: 1 The name of the structure proposed for relocation is the Lily Reid Cottage. 1 3. "A written description of the structure proposed for relocation, and its year of construction." IThe existing Lily Reid Cottage is a brick masonary structure with wood trim and a metal roof, originally constructed around 1889. This former residential structure is representative 1 of Aspen's Mining Era, and illustrates the home environment and lifestyle of some of the residents of Aspen at the time. An unusual feature of the house is that it is constructed of brick. In those days, brick was considered a more elaborate building material because of its greater cost and longer life. Therefore, ' some status or stability is represented by this Victorian Miner's Cottage. 4. "A report from a licensed engineer or architect regard- ing the soundness of the structure, and its suitability for ' rehabilitation." ' Lawrence Doble, of Integrated Engineering Consultants, has previously evaluated the historic structure and has concluded 34 11 I 1 that, using proper moving techniques, the structure can be safely relocated (see conceptual application). 5. An economic feasibility report that provides: a. "Estimated market value of the property on which the structure lies, in its current condition, and after relocation." Mollica & Associates, Inc. previously completed a "Limited Appraisal Assignment" for Lot C in April, 1990 (see conceptual application). In Mollica & Associates' opinion, the existing building tends to damage the value of the property and the proposal to permanently relocate the existing house to the northwest corner of Lot A would substantially enhance the Victorian character of the structure. b. "Estimates from an architect, developer, real estate agent or appraiser, experienced in rehabilitation, addressing the economic feasibility of rehabilitation or reuse of the structure proposed for relocation." Mollica & Associates concluded that by relocating the structure to the corner of the site, the Victorian appeal of the Lily Reid Cottage will be enhanced, and a buffer will be provided between it and the new structure to be built behind it. C. "All appraisals made of the property on which the structure is located made within the previous two years." The Limited Appraisal Assignment included with the conceptual application is the only appraisal of the subject property in the past two years. 35 t • • I d. "Any other information considered necessary to ' make a determination whether the property does yield or may yield a reasonable return on investment." "As is", the existing structure was not expected to generate net operating income to support its appraised value, because the site is considerably underdeveloped relative to its ' present zoning. An addition to the rear of the building would be very expensive, and would not provide prime retail space. r Mollica & Associates concluded that by relocating the its Lily Reid Cottage, the building will be preserved near ' original location, but will be exposed more fully to view, creating prime retail space, and acting as a drawing card to the ' remainder of the building rebuilt around the Victorian 1 structure. 6. "A development plan and a statement of the effect of the proposed development on the other structures on the property, and the character of the neighborhood around the property shall be submitted in cases when the HPC requires a development plan to evaluate the appropriateness of demolition, or when the applicant r believes the submission of a development plan will assist in the evluation of the proposed demolition." Demolition is not contemplated for any buildings or 1 building elements with any historic significance. � 3s 1 IIV. REQUEST FOR SPECIAL REVIEW (Article 7, Division 4) Approval of development subject to Special Review is permit- ted upon a determination by the Planning and Zoning Commission that the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the request. As discussed below, the Applicant is requesting Special Review approval of a reduction in the Utility/Trash Service Areas as well as a reduction in required ' open space. I A. Special Review For Reduction In Utility/Trash Service Area Under the provisions of §5-211(a)(6), a utility/trash service area of 200 sq.ft. is required in the CC zone district for up to 6,000 sq.ft. of net leasable floor area; an additional area of 10 sq.ft. for each 1,200 sq.ft. of additional net leasable is required, unless reduced by P&Z by Special Review. The amount of trash service area required for the project is 306 sq.ft. The Applicant proposes to reduce the amount of trash service area needed for the project by providing a trash compactor sized to meet the needs of the project. 37 ' In order to qualify for Special Review approval for a reduction in the service area, an applicant must demonstrate compliance with the following criteria: 1. "Given the nature of the potential uses of the building and its total square footage, the utility/trash service area proposed to be provided will be adequate." The applicant proposes to provide a 110 sq.ft. trash service area with a trash compactor on the parcel to serve the project. BFI personnel have recommended the use of a compactor similar to the the trash is one used at the Ute City Banque Building; where compacted and then pushed into a standard dumpster to simplify collection. 2. "Access to the utility/trash service area is adequate." Access to the service area is directly off of the alley. ' 3. "Measures are provided for enclosing trash bins and making them easily movable by trash personnel." In discussing the design of the trash area with BFI personnel, if a system similar to the one described above is used, ease of trash collection will not be a problem. The trash storage and parking area is well organized, protected from the elements and elevated slightly to minimize ice buildup. 38 t • • 4. "When appropriate, provisions for trash compaction are provided by the proposed development and measures are taken to encourage trash compaction by other developments on the block." The applicant has agreed to install a trash compactor to minimize the space to be allocated to trash storage. The alley serving the block is one of the cleanest and best organized in the commercial core. 5. "The area for public utility placement and maintenance is adequate and safe for the placement of utilities." ' Meters are to be located at the southeast corner of the building ' for easy access. An area of approximately 70 sq.ft. is provided along the east wall of the project. The majority of mechanical and electrical equipment will be located in the basement. 6. "Adequate provisions are incorporated to ensure the con- struction of the access area." rConstruction of the utility/trash service area will be a condition of approval. The applicant will be unable to secure a building permit for the project unless the trash area is included I in the construction documents. IB. Special Review of A Reduction Required Open Space. I The open space requirement in the CC zone is 25% of the lot area, or 2,250 sq.ft. for the project site. Approximately 2,300 sq.ft. of open area is provided in the plaza area; however, only 1,650 sq.ft. of this area meets the definition of open space which 39 1 6 0 I 1 requires that open space be a minimum of 10 feet in depth for a distance of at least 50 percent of the lot frontage. Under the provisions of Special Review (Article 7, Division 4), when the HPC approves the on -site relocation of an Historic Landmark into required open space such that the amount of open space is reduced below that required, the open space payment -in - lieu is waived. In Section II, the Applicant is requesting HPC approval to relocate the Lily Reid Cottage into required open space. C. Special Review Application Requirements Include: 1. The general application information required under Section 6-202. General application requirements have been addressed in Section II, beginning on page 14. 2. A sketch plan showing the configuration of the development on the lot and those features of the site which are relevant to the Special Review application. Refer to Sheet 3 of the attached architectural drawings, follow- ing page 2, for the layout of the trash service area and open space areas. 3. An analysis of the characteristics of similarly situated properties in the same Zone District and of neighboring parcels with respect to whether these properties comply with the dimensional, off-street parking or trash/utility service area requirement which is subject to Special Review. 40 • 0 1 u 1 In general, virtually all applicants for expansion of commercial projects have sought some variation in the requirements of the trash storage in the CC zone. The alley which serves this site is among the best organized for trash service in the Commerical Core. This application seeks to comply with the trash storage requirements by providing a trash compactor sized to meet the needs of the project. There is adequate usable open space within the site to meet the requirement; however, some of these open areas fail to meet the definition. The definition does not account for corner lots, where it would be very difficult to comply along both lot lines. 41 V. REQUEST FOR GMQS EXEMPTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF AN HISTORIC LANDMARK: (§8-104(B)(1)(c)) The Applicant requests approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission of GMQS Exemption for the enlargement of an Historic Landmark intended to be used as a commercial or office development which increases the building's existing floor area Iratio and its net leasable square footage. IA. Mitigation of Impacts: 11 In order to be eligible for exemption under the provisions of §8-104(B)(1)(c), the Applicant is required to demonstrate that as a result of the development, mitigation of the project's community impacts will be addressed, as follows: 1. For an enlargement at the maximum floor area permitted under the external floor area ratio of the applicable zone district (excluding any bonus floor area permitted by special review), the applicant shall provide affordable housing at 100% of the level which would meet the threshold required in §8-106 for the applicable use. For each 1% reduction in floor area below the maximum permitted under the external floor area ratio for the applicable zone district (excluding any bonus floor area permitted by special review), the affordable housing requirement shall be reduced by 1%. "The applicant shall place a restriction of the property, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, requiring that if, in the future, additional floor area is requested, the owner shall pro- vide affordable housing impact mitigation at the then current standards. Any affordable housing provided by the applicant shall be restricted to the housing designee's moderate -income price and occupancy guidelines." 42 ' The project includes 13,200 sq.ft. of FAR floor area; at 1.5:1, ' the maximum floor area permitted (excluding any bonus floor area) is 13,500 sq.ft. The affordable housing requirement for the enlargement is therefore 97.8% of the applicable threshold requirement of §8-106. The existing structures include 6,200 sq.ft. of floor area which is devoted entirely to retail uses. Therefore, the project ' represents an enlargement of 7,000 FAR sq.ft. on the upper three levels. This enlarged FAR includes 3,463 sq.ft. of new net leasable commercial space, 1,506 sq.ft. of affordable housing and ' 2,012 sq.ft. of accessory space and other non -leasable areas which count in FAR. The applicant proposes to use a generation factor of 3.7 employees/1,000 sq.ft. of net leasable for the expansion; the ' employee generation for the new space is therefore 12.81 employees. At a threshold requirement 97.8% x 60% x 12.81, 7.52 ' employees must be housed. The Applicant proposes to house eight employees on -site in a ' dormitory facility on the second floor of the new buiding as illustrated on the architectural drawings following page 2. 43 IBecause a dorm is proposed, the Applicant commits to the ' low-income rental structure for dorm units, even though the regulations permit Landmark projects to utilize the moderate - income guidelines. The Applicant requests the right to house employees of the project at low-income rental rates even though their incomes may exceed low-income guidelines. 2. "Parking shall be provided according to the standards of Article 5, Division 2 and Division 3, if HPC determines that it can be provided on the site's surface and be consistent with the review standards of Article 7, Division 6. Any parking which cannot be located on -site and which would therefore be required to be provided via a cash -in -lieu payment shall be waived." Under the Code provisions for GMQS Exemption for Expansion of Historic Landmarks, 2 off-street parking spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. of net leasable must be provided only if HPC finds that surface parking can be provided which is consistent with HPC's review standards for development involving an Historic Landmark (Article 7, Division 6). The payment -in -lieu fee for the balance of required spaces is waived upon such a finding by HPC. Because the project is built on the concept of retaining a large open area around the Lily Reid Cottage, only 3 surface spaces can be provided (see architectural drawings following page 2). The Applicant requests HPC approval of the parking plan as proposed. 44 J ' treatment, 3. The development's water supply, sewage tr , solid waste disposal, drainage control, transportation and fire ' protection impacts shall be mitigated to the satisfaction of the Commission." Necessary utilities are available immediately adjacent ' to the site. Storm drainage improvements will be engineered in accordance with the City's regulations. Bus service and fire protection is in close proximity to the site. 1 I 4. "The compatibility of the project's site design with surrounding projects and its appropriateness for the site shall be demonstrated, including but not limited to consideration of the quality and character of proposed landscaping and open space, the amount of site coverage by buildings, any amenities provided for users and residents of the site, and the efficiency and effectiveness of the service delivery area." The project's compatibility with surrounding projects and other design characteristics is discussed in Section II, beginning on page 14. Service to the site will be from the alley to the south of the site. 45 ' VI. REQUEST FOR GMQS EXEMPTION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING (§8-104(C)(1)(C)) All housing deed restricted in accordance with the housing guide- lines is eligible for exemption by the City Council. The ' Applicant requests approval by City Council of a GMQS Exemption to construct a dormitory facility of 1,500 sq.ft. housing 8 ' employees to be restricted to the low-income guidelines. The dormitory facility will be retained as a rental facility; the ' Applicant requests a right of first refusal to place eligible employees of the project in the dorm units. Additional storage ' for the dorm tenants will be provided in the basement. 1 The review of any request for exemption of housing pursuant to this section shall include a determination of the City's need for such housing, considering the proposed development's compliance with an adopted housing plan, the number of dwelling units proposed and their location, the type of dwelling units proposed, specifically regarding the number of bedrooms in each unit, the size of the dwelling unit, the rental/sale mix of the proposed development, and the proposed price categories to which the dwelling units are to be deed restricted. 11 1 • • I EXHIBITS r� 1 1 1 1 EXHIBIT A • General Application Information (§6-202) 1. Application Form 2. Applicant's Letter of Authorization 3. Disclosure of Ownership 4. Certificate of Limited Partnership I STEWART'PITLE OF ASPEN, INC. • OWNERSH, AND ENCUMBRANCE REPORT PREPARED FOR: Holland & Hart ORDER NO.:00017161 HEREBY CERTIFIES from a search of the books in this office that the owner of Lots A and B, Block 81, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Situated in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, appears to be vested in the name of ASPEN ARCADE LIMITED and that the above described property appears to be subject to the following: A Deed of Trust dated December 1, 1982, executed by Aspen Arcade Limited, a Colorado Limited Partnership, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin Countv, to secure an indebtedness of �520,000.00, in favor of Modern rietnod Corpo.LaLioc,, recorded December 1, 1982 in Book 436 at Page 587 as Reception No. 246013. Note: Said Deed of Trust has been subordinated to the Deed of Trust recorded July 5, 1985 in Book 489 at Page 278 as Reception No. 269435, by Subordination .Agreement recorded July 5, 1985 in Book 489 at Page 284 as Reception No. 269436. NOTE: Said Deed of Trust has been subordinated to the Deed of Trust recorded April 12, 1989 in Book 589 at Page 880 as Reception No. 310523, by Subordination Agreement recorded April 12, 1989 in Book 589 at Page 885 as Reception No. 310524. A Deed of Trust dated July 3, 1985, executed by Aspen Arcade Limited, bv_ Lawrence H. Brooks, General Partner, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin Countv, to secure an indebtedness of. $350,000.00, in favor of First '_National Bank in Aspen, recorded July 5, 1985 in Book 489 at Page 278 as Reception No. 269435. A Deed of Trust dated March 1, 1989, executed by Aspen Arcade Limited, a Colorado Limited Partnership, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County, to secure an indebtedness of $100,000.00, in favor of Janet Horowitz, recorded April 12, 1989 in Book 589 at Page 880 as Reception No. 310523. EXCEPT all easements, rights -of -ways, restrictions and reservations of record. EXCEPT anv and all unpaid taxes and assessments. IThis report does not reflect any of the following matters: STENVART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY EXHIBIT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1 1) Project Name ASPEN ARCADE BUILDING/LILY REID HOUSE 2) Project Location 200 South Monarch Street, Aspen, Colorado; 1 Lots A, B and C, Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen 3) Present Zoning CC 4) Lot Size 90x100 - 9,000 sq.ft._ 5) applicant's Name, ,Address & Phone # 'sir. Larry Brooks, General Partner, Aspen Arcade, Ltd., 1148 Fourth St., Santa Monica, CA 90403 (213)394-4938 6) Representative's dame, Address & Phone # Joseph Wells, AICP 602 Midland Park Place, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303)925-8080 7) 'Hype of Application (please check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual Historic Dev. Special Review Final SPA X Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Final DUD Historic Demolition Mountain View Plane Subdivision Historic Designation Exemption Hallam Lake ESA Text/Map Amendment GMQS Allotment Condominiumization • X �1QS Exemption Lot Split/Lot Line Adjustment 3) Description of Existing Uses (number and type of existing structures; appro- ximate sq.ft.; number of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the ?roperty). Brick masonry, one-story Victorian miner's cottage of approximately 900 sq.ft., built around 1389, and an approximately 5,325 sq.ft. one-story masonry, flat -roofed building with glass storefront. Both structures are _presently occupied by retail tenants. ' 9) Description of Development Application Restoration of miner's cottage on northwesterly portion of site, and construction of new three-story building for retail, office, and afford- able housing uses to the south and east of the site. Total of 13,200 FAR sq.ft. proposed. 10) Have you attached the following: X Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents T- Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents -= Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application 1 1 I 1 I • ASPEN ARCADE LIMITED EXHIBIT 2 January 10, 1991 • RE: Land Use Submissions to the City of Aspen for Lots A, B and C, Block 81, Aspen Townsite To Whom It May Concern: I am the general partner of Aspen Arcade, Ltd., owner Lots A, B and C, Block 81, Aspen, Colorado, also known as 200 South Monarch Street. I hereby authorize Joseph Wells, 602 Midland Park Place, Aspen, Colorado (925-8080), to submit the attached application for final Development plan review by HPC and GMOS Exemption review by P&Z. Yours truly, C—ra--wrence H. Brook General Partner Aspen Arcade, Ltd. 1 1 148 Fourth Street Santa Monica, California 90403 (213) 394-4938 I I IL � Lwers itle EXHIBIT "3"y Insurance 6Poration NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS RICHMOND. VIRGINIA PofiCy Numter 85-01-097845 SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE. THE EXCEPTIONS CONTAINED IN SCHEDULE B AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS HEREOF, LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION, a Virginia corporation. herein called the Company, insures. as of Date of Policy shown in Schedule A, against loss or damage, not exceeding the amount of insurance stated in Schedule A. and costs. attorneys' fees and expenses, which the Company may become obligated to pay hereunder, sustained or incurred by the insured by reason of: 1. Title to the estate or interest described in Schedule A being vested otherwise than as stated therein; 2. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on such title; 3. Lack of a right of access to and from the land: or 4. Unmarketability of such title. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Company has caused this policy to be signed and sealed, to be valid when Schedule A is I countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company, all in accordance with its By -Laws. LawyersTitle Ins e Crporation By. 67Je-j(-C- aN/�6y� President Attest: • J Secretary. IIIC LIl(` LIIC'!L11r!_LT11C Li1C lI1G.Li1C_117C 17t6 lice LIIG L776 tI1C.Li1G LI1G 13Z LIIG�IiIE tS1G Lilt lI1G tI1C l]lG LI1G tSIC. Li1C LIIC t1tG LIIG 1 �cXCLUS10NS FROM COVERAGE . The following matters are expressly excluded from Orcoverage coverage of this policy: (a) iovernmental police power. .(b) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation relating to environmental protection. (c) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning ordinances) restricting or regulating or prohibiting the occupancy, use or enjoyment of the land, or regulating the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land, or prohibiting a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part. (d) The effect of any violation of the matters excluded under (a), (b), or (c) above, unless notice of a defect. lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation has been recorded at Date of Policy in those records in which under state statutes deeds, mortgages. Iis pendens, liens or other title encumbrances must be recorded in order to impart constructive notice to purchasers of the land for value and without knowledge; provided, however, that without limitation, such records shall not be construed to include records in any of the offices of federal, state or local environmental protection, zoning, building, health or public safety authorities. 2 Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise of such rights appears in the public records at Date of Policy. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (a) created. suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant: (b) not known to the Company and not shown by the public records but known to the insured claimant either at Date of Policy or at the date such 9* claimant acquired an estate or interest insured by this policy and not disclosed in writing by the insured claimant to the Company prior to an insured hereunder: (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant: (d) attaching or the date such insured claimant became created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the estate or interest insured by this policy. CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS 'Definition of Terms (c) The Company shall have the right at its own cost to institute and The following terms when used in this policy mean: without undue delay prosecute any action or proceeding or to do any "insured the insured named in Schedule A. and, subject to any other act which in its opinion may be necessary or desirable to is or defenses the Company may have had against the named establish the title to the estate or interest as insured, and the Company gyred. those who succeed to the interest of such insured by operation may take any appropriate action under the terms of this policy, law as distinguished from purchase including, but not limited to, whether or not it shall be liable thereunder. and shall not thereby �trs, distributees, devisees, survivors. personal representatives, next concede liability or waive any provision of this policy. n, or corporate or fiduciary successors. (d) Whenever the Company, shall have brought any action or ) "insured claimant': an insured claiming loss or damage _ ^ interposed a defense as required or permitted by the provision of this eunder. policy, . the Company may pursue any such litigation to final (c) "knowledge actual knowledge, not constructive knowledge or determination by a court of competent jurisdiction and expressly Mice which maybe imputed to an insured by reason of any public reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to appeal from any adverse ords. - judgment or order. d) "land the land described, specifically or by reference in (e) In all cases where this policy permits or requires the Company to iedule A. and improvements affixed thereto which by law constitute prosecute or provide for the defense of any action or proceeding, the al property; provided, however, the term "land"' does not include any insured her shall secure to the Company the right to so operty beyond the lines of the area specifically described or referred prosecute or provide defense in such action or proceeding, and - all lin Schedule A. nor any right, title. interest, estate or easement in appeals therein, and permit the Company to use, at its option, the tting streets, roads, avenues, alleys, lanes. ways or waterways, but' name of such insured for such purpose. Whenever requested by the king herein shall modify or limit the extent to which a right of7 Company, such insured shall give the Company all reasonable aid in :cess to and from the land is insured by this policy. _ ; ^: .any such action or proceeding, in effecting settlement, Securing lel "mortgage mortgage. deed or trust, trust deed, or other t evidence, obtaining witnesses. or prosecuting or defending such action Ifurity instrument. or proceeding, and the Company shall reimburse such insured for any ) "'public records": those records which by lavv impart constructive; :',expense so incurred. ice of matters relating to said land. , r 4. Notice of Loss —Limitation of Action Continuation of Insurance after Conveyance of Title he Coverage of this policy shall continue in force as of Date of Policy i favor of an insured so long as such insured retains an estate or Merest in the land• or holds an indebtedness secured by a purchase ian ey mortgage given by a purchaser from such insured. or so long as ch insured shall have liability by reason of covenants of warranty de by such insured in any transfer or conveyance of such estate or terest: provided, however, this policy shall not continue in force in ,vor of any purchaser from such insured of either said estate or serest or the indebtedness secured by a purchase money mortgage 'yen to such insured. Defense and Prosecution of Actions —Notice of Claim to be lvan by an Insured Claimant (a) The Company at its own cost and without undue delay, shall ovtde for the defense of an insured in all litigation consisting of ctions or proceedings commenced against such insured or a defense tterposed against an insured in an action to enforce a contract for a Ile of the estate or interest in said land• to the extent that such igatton is founded upon an alleged defect, lien, encumbrance, or ner matter insured against by this policy. t (b) The insured shall notify the Company promptly in writing (i) to 3se any action or proceeding is begun or defense is interposed as set tthe th in (a) above• (ii) in case knowledge shall come to an insured reunder of any claim of title or interest which is adverse to the title estate or interest. as insured. and which might cause loss or image for which the Company may be liable by virtue of this policy, or it if title to the estate or interest, as insured. is rejected as Inmarketable. If such prompt notice shall not be given to the Company, en as to such insured all liability of the Company shall cease and rminate in regard to the matter or matters for which such prompt ,otice is reatured: provided, however, that failure to notify shall in no ase prejadtce the rights of any such insured under this policy unless -,a rmmnanv shall be prejudiced by such failure and then only to the i In addition to the notices required under paragraph 3(b) of these Conditions and Stipulations. a statement in writing of any loss or damage for which it is claimed the Company is liable under this policy shall be furnished to the Company within 90 days after such loss or damage shall have been determined and no right of action shall accrue to an insured claimant until 30 days after such statement shall have been furnished. Failure to furnish such statement of loss or damage shall terminate any liability of the Company under this policy as to such toss or damage. 5. Options to Pay or Otherwise Settle Claims The Company shall have the option to pay or otherwise settle for or in the name of an insured claimant any claim insured against or to terminate all liability and obligations of the Company hereunder by paying or tendering payment of the amount of insurance under this policy together with any costs. attorneys' fees and expenses incurred up to the time of such payment or tender of payment, by the insured claimant and authorized by the Company. 6. Determination and Payment of Loss (a) The liability of the Company under this policy shall in no case exceed the least of: 0) the actual loss of the insured claimant: or 00 the amount of insurance stated in Schedule A. (b) The Company will pay, in addition to any loss insured against by this policy, all costs imposed upon an insured in litigation carried on by the Company for such insured. and all costs, attorneys' fees and expenses in litigation carried on by such insured with the written authorization of the Company. (c) When liability has been definitely fixed in accordance with the conditions of this policy, the loss or damage shall be payable within 30 days thereafter. 1 1 u ICONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS —CONTINUED of Liability ,Limitation No claim shall arise or be maintainable under this policy (a) if the mpany, after having received notice of an alleged defect. lien or cumbrance insured against hereunder, by litigation or otherwise. moves such defect, lien or encumbrance or establishes the title, as ,sured, within a reasonable time after receipt of such notice: (b) in the tnt of litigation until there has been a final determination by a court of mpetent jurisdiction, and disposition of all appeals therefrom, adverse he title. as insured. as provided in paragraph 3 hereof: or (c) for liability )luntarily assumed by an insured in settling any claim or suit without for written consent of the Company. Reduction of Liability All payments under this policy, except payments made for costs. torneys fees and expenses. shall reduce the amount of the insurance o tanto. No payment shall be made without producing this policy for J,dorsement of such payment unless the policy be lost or destroyed, in ch case proof of such loss or destruction shall be furnished to the ttsfactton of the Company. Liability Noncumulative It is expressly understood that the amount of insurance under licy shall be reduced by any amount the Company may pay under any licy insuring either (a) a mortgage shown or referred to in Schedule B ?reof which is a lien on the estate or interest covered by this policy, cr (b) mortgage hereafter executed by an insured which is a charge or lienon e estate or interest described or referred to in Schedule A, and the nount so paid shall be deemed a payment under this policy.. The Impany shall have the option to apply to the payment of any such ortgages any amount that otherwise would be payable hereunder to the cured owner of the estate or interest covered by this policy and the ount so paid shall be deemed a payment under this policy to said tired owner. 0. Apportionment If the land described in Schedule A consists of two or more parcels rich are not used as a single site, and a loss is established affecting one more of said parcels but not all, the loss shall be computed and settled I a pro rata basis as if the amount of insurance under this policy was vided pro rata as to the value on Date of Policy of each separate parcel to e whole. exclusive of any improvements made subsequent to Date of licy, unless a liability or value has otherwise been agreed upon as to cm such parcel by the Company and the insured at the time of the nuance of this policy and shown by an express statement herein or by an �corsement attached hereto. 11. Subrogation Upon Payment or Settlement Whenever the Company shall have settled a claim under this policy, all right of subrogation shall vest in the Company unaffected by any act of the insured claimant. The Company shall be subrogated to and be entitled to all rights and remedies which such insured claimant would have had against any person or property in respect to such claim had this policy not been issued. and if requested by the Company, such insured claimant shall transfer to the Company all rights and remedies against any person or property necessary in order to perfect such right of subrogation and shall permit the Company to use the name of such insured claimant to any transaction or litigation involving such rights or remedies. If the payment does not cover the loss of such insured claimant. the Company shall be subrogated to such rights and remedies in the proportion which said payment bears to the amount of said loss. If loss should result from any act of such insured claimant, such act shall not void this policy, but the Company, in that event. shall be required to pay only that part of any losses insured against hereunder which shall exceed the amount. if any, lost to the Company be reason of the impairment of the right of subrogation. 12. Liability Limited to this Policy This instrument together with all endorsements and other instruments. rf aM, attached hereto by the Company is the enure policy and contract between the insured and the Company. Any claim of loss or damage, whether or not based on negligence. and which arises out of the status of the title to the estate or interest covered hereby or any action asserting such claim, shall be restricted to the prowstons and conditions and stipulations of this policy. No amendment of or endorsement to this policy can be made except by writing endorsed hereon or attached hereto signed by either the President, a Vice President. the Secretary, an Assistant Secretary, or validating officer or authorized signatory of the Company. 13. Notices. Where Sent All notices required to be given the Comoanv and any statement in writing required to be furnished the Company shall include the number of this policy and shall be addressed to its Corporate Headquarters, 6630 West Broad Street. Richmond, Virginia, mailing address: P.O. Box 27567, Richmond, Virginia 23261. Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation National Headquarters — Richmond, Virginia CASE NUMBER PCT-3150 NAME OF INSURED: LawyersTitle Insurance C oration NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS RICHMOND, VIRGINIA SCF-ED' ULL. A -OWNER'S POLICY DATE OF POLICY AMOUNT OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER 05/01/89 @ 10:54 A.M. $ 85-01-097845 IASP-rN ARCADE LL%aTED , A CALIFORNIA LIMITS PARTNERSHIP 2. Tom' ESTATE OR Il�TE�'WST IN Tl=- LAND F—=WIN AND 4TTTCH IS COVERED 5Y TT�S POLICY IS: IN FEE SIMPLE 3. --w-r ESTATE' CIR T-.%7r.RE.ST RE - TO F-E. E21 IS AT DATE OF POLICY VESTED IN: ASPS ARCADE L211TED, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP r ,-4 . T u' LAND REFERRED TO IN T11 IS POLICY IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOT C, BLOCK 81, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASP'-=*1. COUNTY OF PT_T-ffN, STATE OF COLORADO 1 I 1 W,/-. �. Couneerkjga6d[Autlforized Agent Pn= COUNTY TITLE, INC. 601 E . EOP.VS AVE. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-1766 TIME POLICY NUMBER SHOWN ON =-S SCFEDULE MUST AGREE WITH = PREPRINTED NUMBER ON T?v COVER SF= . RJ1G Id1C►LIIC 171C. UlC LTIC IiIC LTII 1_f►C LTIC: t`Ill' LTIC 1_TIC LTIC 1_TIG I_IIG lI1C lI1C ISIC IJII' t IIG 11I1 1_Ill' till' t_fIC t_TIC LTIC 1_IIC t.TIC LTIC LTIC 1 11 1 qw ensT1A eV y jnsurance 6 ration NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS RICHMONO, VIRGINIA SCI%E= B-CWURS NUMBER DATE OF POLICY POLICY NU:`�F_'R PCT-3150 05/01/89 a 10:54 A.M. 85-01-097845 THIS POLICY DOES NOT INSURE AGA.II`1ST LOSS OR DAMAGE BY REASON OF T:� FOLLOWING: _. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct sur,-ey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or rift to a lien, for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereto - after furnished, i.Tposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Unpatented mining claims, reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authoriz- ing the issuance thereof: water rights, claims or title to water. ,6. Taxes for the year 1989 not yet due or payable. .7. Rese:vatiors and exceptions as contained in the Deed from the City of Aspen recorded in Book 59 at Page 4 providing as follows: That, no title shall be hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar or copper or to any valid.mining claim or possession held under existing lazes. Ter^:s, conditions and p='visions of Notice of i:_storic Designation, recorded Book 295 at Page 515. 9. Deed of Trust from : ASPEN ARCADE LIMIT= . A CALIFORNIA LIMI^_'� PARTNERSHIP to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County for the use of CENTRAL BANK OF ASPEN, N.A., IT'S SUCCESSORS AND/OR ASSIGNS to secure dated : APRIL 25, 1989 recorded MAY 01. 1989 IN BOOK 591 AT PACE 369 reception no. 311042 EXCEPT -IONS NUMBERED NONE ARE FIEF= OMITTED. 1161 IJIC IJIC Li1C LTIC UIt IJI(. L11C IJIC LTIC UIG LIII: IJIC Li1C 1_TIC C11C IIIC LTIC 1_TIC LTIC IJII; IJIt' LTIC lTll' Li1C LTIC LTIC LTIC Li1C LTIC If IC 1 1 r ... :1q,wyers�itle Insurance Corporation NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS RICHMOND, VIRGINIA ENDORSEI1NT FORM 110.1 A'i 1'AC:*.._.' TO AND MADE A PART OF = TITLE M SURANCE CORPCRATICN 110. 85-01-097845 The aforementioned policy is hereby amended by deleting paragraphs 1, 2, 3. 4 of Schedule B, Exceptions. This endorsement is made a part of the policy or commitment and is subject to all the terms and provisions thereof and of any prior endorsements thereto. Except to the extent expressly stated, it neither modifies any of the terms and provisions of the policy or commitment and prior endorsements, if any, nor does extend the effective date of the policy or commitment and prior endorsements or increase the face amount thereof. IN WITNESS M=OF, the Company has caused this Endorsement to be signed and sealed and to be valid when countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company, all in accordance with its By -Laws. ISSUED AT PITKIN CO TLE, C., 601 E. HOP..K= AVE., ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 AUTHOD UFFFCERI OR AGENT CATED:05/01/89 @ 10:54 A.M. HaITII+ LT16.LTIG•UIC.U10 U1O IJIC UIC L11C.UIGUIC uIC.I.TICA11C IJIC UIC UIC IJIC 1.11L I.TIC (_TIC LTIC LTIC LTIC t.11C I,TI(' I_flC IJIG LTIC L11I' oY'A.ra &_ 1 1 1 L_" II I'_. "Ji II"lI I\iL IIIPUlIIf i,JJ iJuIiU.3 qW 1 Commitment for Title Insurance SW USLIFE Title Insurance Company of Dallas. herein called the Company, for valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance. as identified in Schedule A. in favor of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or ' interest covered hereby in the laird descr,bed or referred to in Schedule A. upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof. This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A heteof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of this Commitment or by subsequent endorsement. This Commitment is preliminary to the Issuance of such policy or policies of title Insurance and all liability and obligations hereunder shell cease and terminate six (6) months after the effective date hereol or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to Issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. This Commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by an authunrcd officer or agent ' Schcdulr n ASPEN TITLE COMPANY, LTD. I Effective date November 1, 1982 Case No A82-365 Inquiries directed to-- 925-4444 7 Policy or polrc,cs to he issurd at 8:00 A.M. A Al. IA DIVoef S Policy Ptolnrsi tl Insured Amount S _. .. _ Premium $_— Tax Certificate LARRY BROOKS a 1 B ALTA Loan Policy Proposed lnsuted MODERN METHOD CORPORATION, a Colorado Corporation C Amnunt S Amount S Premiums. - Premium 3 The, estate or merest in it- kind described or referred to in this convriument and covered herein is lee simple and title thereto is at the eflec uve dale heivol vctiird nr MODERN METHOD CORPORATION, a Colorado Corporation J the land referred to in Iles i mmoitnienl is described as follows Lots A and B Block 81 CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Pitkin County, Colorado Schedule B—Section I Requitement% The followinil are the urqunrnn its In he conilAwd with. Item (a) Paynurrlt to or for the. .❑ t aunt of the e3raoturs of 111011(l iflufs of the full 1 onsideratfon for the estate or interest to be insured. 111.111 (b) Ptopei a»u unu ntl•.1 t n••Ihn(1 the estate of interest to be insured must bo executed and duly filed for record, to -wit. PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED TO AND MADE A PART HEREOF t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED TO AND MADE A PART HEREOF #A82-365 REQUIREMENTS (continued) 1. Deed from Modern Method Corporation,a Colorado Corporation, vesting fee simple title in Larry Brooks. 2. Deed of Trust from Larry Brooks to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County, Colorado for the use of Modern Method Corporation to secure 3. Furnish this Company with a copy of the Resolution by the Borad of Directors of Modern Method Corporation, a Colorado Corporation, naming the officers authorized to execute the necessary instruments. 4. Furnish this Company wit1h evidence that Modern Method Corporation is in good standing in the State of its incorporation. 5. Evidence of compliance with the provisions of the Real Estate Transfer Tax, Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979). 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Certificate that Taxes are Paid to Date :s,rATE OF COLORADO ss. Pitkin County � •-....• .':............. ..........., the underscg�ced.. .......... 11:a...2.i ;.::''.... 0 7'azes due and unpaid upon the lands described below, do hereby certify that there are n and no Tax Sales of said land unrcdecined, except as below stated: TAX LIENS WHEN SOLD 11 AMOUNT SOLD FOR Section or Town Rap xAnfe or Der Month I Ye" Dollen Cts. PART of SECTIONS OR LOT Lot or Block Adf'rt�'°"1 LI 1 r . -. _ ) AMOUNT NSCF'SSARY TO RRDZZU Down I Cta. ii�itncss illy huncl, llr.i,�...........: �:.:�.....------..../daJ oj........^ 1. :_C�V .v..................19.s�.:... county r casu cr. ....... ...... ... ................. :',' �y ti�ilr. l�t�:,i�u�+'t1.Y.i�•1 �':. _. .�+. !`..._ar,.'1 �. 'str.l '�: .iJ` . t. �.r: t Lu.y➢elv�,' " •tr...:i.L_t, la.'.; tt :.r. .. R t.3�...ri t -h 1t;441 6•rn.. . Y sw Lots A & B, Block 81}. Aspen Modern Method Corporatio Endorsement Larry Brooks Attached to and forming a pert of Commitment No. A82-365 Issued by ASPEN TITLE COMPANY, LTD. USLIFE Title Insurance Company of Dallas I r ' Schedule A, Item 2.A. ALTA Owner's Policy Amount is hereby amended r ' to read: $500,000.00 Premium ' Schedule A, Item 2.B. ALTA Loan Policy Amount is hereby amdended to read: $520,000.00 Premium J•'Mcr co This endorsement is made a part of the policy or commitment and is subject to all the terms and provisions thereof and of any prior endorsements thereto. Except to the extent expressly stated, it neither modifies . r • any of the terms and provisions of the policy or commitment and prior endorsements, if any, nor does it rBE1LL) o extend the effective date of the policy or commitment and prior endorsements or increase the face amount +_,•.Pes_� �� thereof. ^ •'' Dated: November 24, 1982 USLIFE Title Insurance Company of Dallas President A Chief Executive Officer Arrest Executive V¢e•Presrdent. Secretary and Treasurer ' Issued a( Aspen, Colorado Authorized Countersignature FamwtvDALLAS TITLE AND GUARANTY COMPANY FORM S 10 40M SETS 378H -! _'i T 0'r ST;,; C CERTIFICATE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ' Si.., E Or C0LCR: CO , OF ASPEN AIC1�G L1M1'1'ID ( ;: ', C, 0 The undersigned, desiring to form a limited partnership ' pursuant to the Colorado Uniform Limited Partnership Law of 1981, being severally duly sworn, swear and state as follows: 1. NAME The name of the limited partnership is ASPEN AFC- 1DE LIMITED, (hereafter called the "Partnership"). 2. CHARACTER OF THE BUSINESS OF THE PARTNERSHIP; ' AUTHORITY OF THE GENERAL PARTNER 2.1. Bus=icess and Purpose of the Partnership: The business and purpose of the partnership shall be to acquire, hold, manage, and invest in ' real and personal property and engage in retail sales in the State of Colorado. 2.2. Authority of the General Partner: Any person dealing with the Partnership or its properties shall be entitled to rely fully on any bill of sale, contract, note or other written instrument signed by the General Partner in the name and/or on behalf of the Partnership. 3. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS; OFFICE FOR LOCATION OF RECORDS; NAME OF AGENT :0^ SERVICE OF PROCESS . 3.1. Principal Place of Business: The principal place of business of the Part- nership in the State of Colorado shall be 301 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611. The Partnership may have such other offices and places of business in or out of the State of Colorado as the General Partner may determine. ' 3.2. Loca;:ion of Records: The office in the State of Colorado at which Sections 7-62-)04(1)(a) and 7-62-105 of the Colo - Certificate of Limited Partnership - Page 1 u E 11 u rado Uniform Linited Partnership Law of 1981 re- quire Partnership records to be kept is located at 525 East Cooper, Aspen, Colorado 81611. 3.3. Agent for Service of Process: The name and address of the agent required by Sections 7-62-104(1)(b) of the Colorado Uniform Limited Partnership Law of 1981 for service of process on the Partnership is Charles Besanty, 525 East Cooper, Aspen, Colorado 81612. 4. NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS OF EACH PARTNER 4.1. General Partner: The name and mailing address of the General Partner is: Larry Brooks, 301 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611. 4.2. Limited Partners: The name and mailing address of the Limited Partners of the Partnership are: Rita Zeitlin 410 Formosa Avenue Los Angeles California 90036 Larry Brooks 301 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 5. COIITRIBUTI03 OF THE PARTNERS 5.1. Contributions by Limited Partner: The aggregate net agreed value of the property to be contributed by the Limited Partners to the capital of the Partnership, are Rita Zeitlin, and Larry Brooks, 5.2 Contributions of the General Partner: The General Partner will contribute services worth ,1�.. Certificate of Limited Partnership - Page 2 1 r4o.o.v 0 • u ri 5.3. Contributed Services: The General Partner has agreed to render services to the Partnership as part of his contribution to the capital of the Partnership to acquire his partnership interest. For any services rendered to the Partnership in excess of this amount he shall receive full and adequate compensation in cash for the services rendered. 5.4. Partners• No Additional Contributions from Limited No Limited Partner shall be required to make any additional contributions to the Partnership. 6. RIGHT OF A LIMITED PARTNER TO SUBSTITUTE AN ASSIGNEE IN HIS PLACE No assignee of a Limited Partner shall become, or have the right to become, a substituted limited partner in the place of his assignor, except upon the consent of the General Partner, which consent shall be evidenced by his execution of an amendment to this Certificate to admit' any assignee as a substitute Limited Partner. 7. RIGHT OF PARTNERS TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL LIMITED PARTNERS ' The General Partner, with the consent of a majority in interest of the then Limited Partners in the capital of the Partnership, has the right to admit additional Limited Partners. The consent ' provided for in the preceding sentence shall be evidenced by execution by the Limited Partners or their attorney -in -fact of an amendment to this Certificate to admit additional Limited Partners. 8. EVENTS THAT WILL PERMIT A PARTNER TO TERMINATE HIS MEMBERSHIP IN THE PARTNERSHIP AND THE METHOD OF DETERMINING THE DISTRIBUTIONS TO A TERMINATING PARTNER If a Partner desires to terminate his interest In the Partnership, he shall notify the General Partner of his desire. The General Partner is em- powered, '-ut not required, to acccapli.: the termi- nation of the partnership interest of a Limited Partner who desires to terminate his interest; and, ' Certificate of Limited Partnership - Page 3 ' [40.0.9J ' f the-General-parin -agrees he termination of such partnership interest, the General Partner shall accomplish such termination by distributing ' to the terminating Partner such cash and/or Partnership property as the General Partner may detemrine to be requried to liquidate the termi- nating Partner's Partnership interest and capital account. 9. RIGHT OF A PARTNER TO DEMAND AND RECEIVE PROPERTY ' OTHER THAN CASH IN RETURN FOR HIS CONTRIBUTION No Partner shall have aijy right to demand and ' receive property other than cash in return for his contribution to the capital of the Partnership. ' 10. SHARING OF PROFITS; RIGHT OF A PARTNER TO RECEIVE, OR OF A GENERAL PARTNER TO MAKE DISTRIBUTIONS, WHICH INCLUDE A RETURN OF ALL OR ANY PORTION OF THE PARTNER'S CONTRIBUTIONS 10.1. Partners' share of the profits. ' The net profits 'of the Partnership, in- cluding gain from the sale of Partnership assets, shall be allocated to the Limited Partners in proportion to their contributions to the capital of the Partnership and to the General Partner. 11 10.2. Return of Contributions: There is no set date for the return to any Limited Partner of his capital contributions to the Partnership. After reduction for losses in- curred and distributions theretofore made, the capital contributions of each Limited and General Partner shall be returned to him upon the termi- nation and winding up of the Partnership. 10.3. No Priority Among Partners: No Partner shall have priority over any other Partner as to (a) the return of capital con- tributions; (b) compensation by way of income; (c) sharing of net profits and losses, (d) distri- butions of net profits or income, or (e) payment of interest on capital accounts. 10.4. Partners' Capital Accounts: Certificate of Limited Partnership - Page 4 • • 1 �I 1 The Partnership s(�all establis�i and mnintain a capital account for each Partner. If any person shall be both a General Partner and a Limited Partner, a separate capital account shall be maintained for him in each capacity. Each Partner's capital account shall be (a) credited with (i) his contributions to the capital of the Partnership as reported in this certificate and any amendment thereof and (ii) his share of the Partnership's net profits and (b) charged with (i) his share of the Partnership's losses and (ii) all distributions made to him. 11. TERM OF THE PARTNERSHIP; EVENTS THAT CAUSE THE PARTNERSHIP TO BE DISSOLVED 11.1. Term of the Partnership: The term of the Partnership shall com- mence on the day on which this Certificate is first duly filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Colorado and shall continue until it is wound up after dissolution. 11.2. Events That Cause Dissolution: The Partnership shall be dissolved upon the first to occur of (a) the death, legal inca- pacity, bankruptcy, retirement, merger, liquid- ation, dissolution, or withdrawal of a General Partner; (b) the distribution to the Partners of all or substantially all of the properties of the Partnership; (c) December 31, 2012; or (d) the oc- currence of any other event that, under the law of the State of Colorado, causes the dissolution of a limited partnership. 12. SUCCESSOR GENERAL PARTNER; RIGHT TO CONTINUE THE PARTNERSHIP; WINDING UP THE PARTNERSHIP 12.1. Successor General Partner: If the General Partner shall die, retire, withdraw, or become bankrupt, legally incapaci- tated, or insane, a majority in interest of the then Limited Partners in the capital of the Partnership shall have the right, but not the obligation, to determine (a) who shall become suc- cessor General Partner, and (b) what interest, ' Certificate of Limited Partnership - Page 5 (40.0.9] which shall not be less than one percent, the suc- cessor General Partner shall have in the Partner- ship. 12.2. Right to Continue the Partnership: The successor General Partner may elect to continue the Partnership by notifying the then ' Limited Partners and by filing an amendment to this Certificate to reflect his becoming successor General Partner and his election to continue the Partnership. 12.3. Winding up the Partnership: ' The winding up of the affairs of the Partnership upon the dissolution of the Partnership shall be conducted by the General Partner or the ' successor General Partner, or, if neither is will- ing or able to serve, by another person selected by the holders of a majority in interest of the then ' Limited Partners in the capital of the Partnership. 13. POWER OF ATTORNEY The Limited Partners named in this Certificate, namely, Rita Zeitlin and Larry Brooks, each by his or her execution of this Certificate does irrevocably constitute and ' appoint, the General Partner of the Partnership, and each of them individually, with full power of substitution, as his true and lawful attorney, in his name, place, and stead to execute, acknowledge, swear to, and file (a) any and all ' amendments to this Certificate as may be required by law or by the provisions of the Limited Partnership Agreement, including amendments to admit or substitute additional ' limited partners approved by the Limited partners as provided for in paragraph 7 of this Certificate; (b) all certificates. and other instruments necessary or appropriate to qualify or continue the Partnership as a limited partnership in the states in which the Partnership may be doing business; (c) all the instruments that effect a change or modification of the Partnership in accordance with the Limited Partnership Agreement; (d) amendments to the Limited Partnership Agree- ment that are inconsequential in nature and do not affect the ' rights of the limited partners in any material respect or are required or contemplated by the Limited Partnership Agreement or are, in the opinion of counsel to the Partnership, neces- sary to maintain the status of the Partnership as a limited ' partnership; and (e) all instruments, including a Certificate of Cancellation of this Certificate, necessary to effect the ICertificate of Limited Partnership - Page 6 I [40.0.9] LI dissolution, winding up, and termination of the Partnership. ' The Power of Attorney granted in this Certificate is coupled with an interest, shall be irrevocat,le, and shall survive the bankruptcy, incompetency, dissolution or merger ' of the undersigned Limited Partner. . DATED 1 r 7/ ' As General Partner: Larry rod s ' As Limited Partners: ' Rita Zeitli / Larry rooks 1 I ' Certificate of Limited Partnership — Page 7 I run n of STATE OF ���:l;f -84c ' COUNTY ss. OFr f-4�7 jtr1.L - The foregoing instrument, namely the Certificate of rtn rship of Aspen. Limited was acknowledged before Limited �ay1982, by Larry Brooks in me this of ,I�,�:vz�til� ti his separate capacities as General and Limited Partner. who came before me and after being first duly sworn affirmed ' under the penalties of perjury that the facts stated in the Certificate of Limited Partnership of Aspen Arcade Limited ' are true and correct. NITNESSETH: my hand and official seal. ' My Commission Expires: Notary Public ' Address: _CF7!CI!aL SEAL IC�.�OLYN J 5' ',TH �� � Los ANGE:-s rr my _mm. ez;i:es SEP 25, 1994 � STATE OF (d tcJ±jwr COUNTY OF / ss. The foregoing instrument. namely the Certificate of Limited Partnership of Aspen Arcade Limited , was acknowledged before me this L" day of tti- 4 . 1982. by Rita Zeitlin in her capacity as Limited Partner, who came ' before me and after being first duly sworn affirmed under the penalties of perjury that the facts stated in the Certificate ' Certificate of Limited Partnership - Page 8 I [40.0.91 of Limited Partnership of Aspen Arcade Limited are true and wrrect. - WITNESSETH: my hand and official seal. My Commission Expires: , jr - - J 7�`AL Cnn Pt�tary ublic i-;rV .;, 1�345Ad ess: 4 44 c;rIM. esai;es �CP 23, 1984 I 1 1 Certificate of Limited Partnership - Page 9 [L0.0.9J 11 0dI1r,rUPki L:lL'S Wt11..:i1, l CUM idl,C vi aau jL CU. :dt.a.ld(1 �l i 11C i,o-)6 : ' recent bankruptcies, •-,tedate the report by morE•han fourteen (14) vears. 2) Suits and judgements which, from date of entry, antedate the report by more than seven (7) years or until the governing statue of limitations has expired, whichever is the longer period. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3) Unpaid tax liens which, from date of payment, antedate the report by more than seven (7) years. Although we believe the facts stated are true, this Certificate is not to be constructed as an abstract of title, nor an opinion of title, nor a guaranty of title, and it is understood and agreed that Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc., neither assumes, nor will be charged with any financial obligation or liability whatever on any statement contained herein. Dated at Aspen, Colorado, this 5th day of December, 1989 A.D. BY: Authorized Signa re STEWART TITLE GUARANTT COMPANY 1 0 q 1 EXHIBIT B Minutes of Prior Land -Use Actions Regarding the Lily Reid Site 1. Minutes of January 10, 1990 HPC MeetingGranting Conceptual g P Development Plan Approval, Approval of On -Site Relocation of the Lily Reid House, Approval of Demolition and Partial Demolition within the Commercial Core Historic District and Recommending Landmark Designation of Lots A, B and C, Block 81. 2. Minutes of April 3, 1990 Planningand Zoning Commission Meeting g g Recommending Approval of Landmark Designation of the Lily Reid Site (Lots A, B and C, Block 81). 3. Minutes of May 14, 1990 (First Reading) and July 9, 1990 (Public Hearing) of City Council Approving Ordinance 36 (Series of 1990). 4. Ordinance 36, Series of 1990 - An Ordinance Designating 200 South Monarch Street/309 East Hopkins Avenue (Lots A, B and C, Block 81) As H, Historic Landmark Pursuant to Division 7, Section 7-701 of the Land Use Code. n Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 10, 1990 a Larry: We are getting ettin rid of the existing addition and adding new addition. tends to draw a lot Don: C solution seems to be the best as B of attention. Les: Because of the verticality it balances everything off. Glenn: I feel there will be a problem with the snow. Charles: Possibly there is another way to make the gable come down and not come into the intersection of the roof. I would like to see a version of C with a reduced gable. MOTION: Don made the motion to grant final developmentapproval extension for 334 W. Hallam. That scheme C be approved he provision that the height of the gable and on the second floor be lowered below the top roof height and therefore reducing the size to dissipate of the gable and giving more room for a roof eave into the original building. The approval for snow before it runs the windows as shown in C also. Joe second. All approved. 309 E. HOPKINS & 200 S. MONARCH, LANDMARK DESIGNATION, DEMOLITION, RELOCATION AND CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL LCharles stepped down. Bill reseated. r Roxanne: The applicant is requesting variations from the HPC on parking and open space.- The applicant is requesting landmark the designation for the entire demolition of the cleaners 9,000 sq. building on ft. parcel and also the corner and relocation from its location on lot C of the Lily Reid Cottage to the corner and conceptual development. LANDMARK DESIGNATION: Staff finds that the entire parcel does not meet the standards and therefore the code does not allow for a designation of the entire parcel. It does allow for designation of the cottage. Standards should be discussed and how they apply or not apply to the parcel. Landmark designation states that any structure that meets one or more of the standards maybe designated. A, the first standard is historic (6) importance and the cottage meets that standard due to the association of Franz Berko, Aspen photographer. The rest of the parcel does not. B, Architectural Important; this is the last brick cross gable cottage in the commercial core district and meets the standard. The existing building on the corner is new ' 2 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 10, 1990 ' but is proposed to be demolished so we would be looking at new development and we do not designate structures that are not yet built. C & D, Architectural Importance; this does not apply. E, Neighborhood Character; this does apply to the importance of the neighborhood. F, Community Character; The Lily Reid cottage does meet this criteria. We support landmark designation for the cottage and also for the 3,000 sq. ft. that it is immediately associated with finding that it meets standards A,B, E and F. We find that the remainder of the parcel does not meet the criteria. We are recommending that HPC recommend landmark designation for 1/3 of the parcel. Landmark designation would allow them to not have to compete under GMQS and would allow them a number of benefits that they are seeking. Gideon Kaufman, attorney: I will speak on designation only. The standards state that any structure or site that meets one or more of the following standards. We feel it meets Standard F, community character. The code defines a site as one or more parcels with one or more parcels. The relocation of the Lily Reid gives a one time opportunity for the community to highlight a small building in the core area. There is nothing like it in the core area. Because of the community character we should be allowed designation of the whole site. The designation of the entire site is critical to the project. Designation would not change the employee housing requirements at all. If designated enables us to do the project now and not compete in the growth management and it gives us a break on certain parking requirements. Larry has to tear down a good existing building in order that the Lily Reid site can be made prominent. When an owner comes in and tries to help solve a problem that the community has (which is a building that is surrounded by two large buildings) and is willing to tear down his own building to put this in a prominent location what is the community willing to do back in return. Jay Ordan, owner of the dry cleaners is in support of designation. If we stretch a little it allows for the preservation of an unique cottage, allows for the preservation of the site and the unique character of the neighborhood. It offers ' a clear opportunity to businesses that exist there to continue to exist in Aspen at a reasonable price. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Joe: I like this project because the historic house is going to be saved, accented and have a new location. The language in the code E & F could also apply. 1 3 1 �- Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 10, 1990 i Don: We have a developer that has acquired 9,000 sq. ft. and ft. in that same what if a developer had acquired 20,000 sq. that whole 20,000 as block, is it within our menu to designate historically significant and give it historic designation because is this one house. Nobody in this room arguing we want to save against the quality of the project or the value of house. My do or problem is precedent setting whether we as a committee can should do that. Glenn••This is a good project and the issue is as Don said is is that it in our menu to designate the whole parcel. My concern of and not something the Berko House get a high volume people into. We also need to tighten up our that no one ever goes language and I am in favor of the project. Les: My primary concern is saving the building and I do like also very large. the project. The benefits to the developer are Bill: I have also reviewed this extensively and I relocatinhink it ls City by g it great opportunity to get something for the of the parcel. The City would get a and getting it to the corner it would tie together better with the better streetscape and other buildings across the street more prominently than if we had feel the let it in the middle. It would complete the block. I site. If we want to get �- code says we can designate the whole this project renovated why would be set a site size. I am in favor of designating the whole site. Roxanne: The issue is whether or not it meets the standards. recommend tabling If it is a clarification of language I would has made a determination. We can until the city Staff attorney designation of the cottage and grant them benefits that are grant immediately associated with the parcel and the structure. Lets it. We say a 3,000 sq. ft. parcel would have 4 parking spaces on a variation for that if it is found have the ability to grant be on site. Parking spaces/cash in lieu t n the they cannot met net downtown core are two spaces per one thousand sq. lieu is $15, 000 per r leasable is required. Parking spaces/cash in of four parking spaces and space. We could grant a variation that would be equal to $60,000. That equals more than the cost in of relocating the cottage and certainly goes a long way Standard E says helping its restoration. That is one example. is a significant component of an that the structure or site historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that talking about new neighborhood character. We are not talking about preservation. That is very t construction, we are and standard E does not deal with new construction. clear Standard F structure or site (historic structure or site) is 4 11 Historic Preservation committee Minutes of January 10, 1990 critical to the preservation of the character. New construction is not preservation of character. Historic older buildings are. How does the new construction relate to other structures of historical significance, I don't see that it does. The cottage clearly does. Joe: On F, I do not read structure I read that the site is its critical to the preservation of the community because of relationship in terms of it size and location to other structures. We need that Fite to preserve that structure. Bill: No matter where we put the building on the site it has to do with the 9,000 sq. ft. It is important to the whole community rto move that building to the corner. Roxanne: You are talking about the development of the site. Site in this paragraph means a site such as an archeological this site, open space site. That is the intent of particulaL standard. Gideon Kaufman: We are not asking for the new structures to be designated we are asking you to find the site where the Lily Reid house is going to be moved and that site to be designated historical. Once that is done then there is another process to go through for the building of the building. Amy Margerum, Planning Director: Our concern is how do we know the that the new 7,000 sq. ft. is critical to the preservation of Berko building. I am worried about setting a precedent. Larry Brooks,owner; explained the history of the purchasing and development of the parcel. Bill: Every project is treated on an individual basis and on this site we want a preserved building. This is a positive project. designated Joe Wells: I see no way if we have 1/3 of this site that we could be granted GMQS exemption for the balance of the site. I don't believe the code will do that. Larry: If we only get 1/3 designated why should we tear down a 6200 sq. ft. building and why not just go into GMQ for a second and third floor addition. It is about the whole parcel. Glenn: If we say that we are encouraging it but we don't want to ( set a precedent then we are hedging on ourselves and that is an important perception for the general lay person. 5 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 10, 1990 Roxanne: Take 1/3 of the parcel and transfer the benefit that the they would receive from designating that parcel onto 15 remainder of the parcel. They need a variation of parking their impact spaces ($225,000) which normally would have been fees, cash -in -lieu. Take 1/3 of those and give them as a immediately variation. That would actually be more than do associated with a 3,000 sq. ft. parcel. The only way we could overlay over that parcel and that is if there is some kind of PUD The Planning Office could do that. ' Joe: My analysis of this critical question is the entire use or the creative use of the entire site is critical to being able to preserve the character of this neighborhood. MOTION: Joe made the motion to approve landmark designation of the entire site at 200 S. Monarch and 309 E. Hopkins Lots A through C Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen. Glenn second. YES VOTE: Joe, Don, Bill Glenn. NO VOTE: Les. 4-1 Motion carries. DEMOLITION AND PARTIAL DEMOLITION: Roxanne: The code states that all the standards shall be met by all the ` the HPC and that a demolition cannot occur until 7-602 (B) "The structure - standards have been met. Section demolition is not structurally sound despite proposed for evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the building and there structure." We are talking about the corner stability. was no discussion in the application about structural B. In They need to provide information that addresses standard will need to be the future when we do a code revision the Board discussing non historic buildings within districts. We also need to discuss the partial demolition issue, the rear addition to the is icottage not being original and the character of the cottage not being diminished. Bill: It appears in the drawings that you are taking off the cross gable that goes to the east on the existing house. 1 Mark Henthorn, architect: The cross gable will remain, error in roof plan drawing. MOTION: Don made the motion that Lots A through C, Block 81 request for demolition and partial demolition be granted subject to conditions as noted in Staff's recommendations which are: 1. That the applicant address Standard B of Section 7-602. 2. That the drawings and model reflect actual conditions of the existing structure including but not limited to the cross gable and Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 10, 1990 subject to any additional conditions. Les second. All approved. ' RELOCATION: Roxanne: The siting with the setbacks on both sides is critical and we need to take into consideration what is historically correct and across the street in both directions. r BIll: This motion would allow it to move from its present site in to the corner site and then we deal with the specifics conceptual development of where that exact building will be. Gideon: None of us really know what the appropriate setbacks will be until we do a study. tMOTION: Joe made the motion that we approve on site relocation of the Lily Reid house on Lots A through C Block 81 subject to approval of the precise siting of the relocation and further study of setbacks. Don second. All approved. Glenn: They are showing it in the same setback position that it is in now on Hopkins. Mark: It is five feet forward then it presently is. Glenn: On the existing map it is lining up with the front of the Mill Street plaza. Mark: Yes and we are showing it five feet in front of that presently and we had specific reasons for doing that. Roxanne: I feel it needs pulled back. Glenn: I recommend that it be pushed forward. DEVELOPMENT: CONCEPTUAL Roxanne: The general concept does meet the standards and we ' suggest that HPC should carefully review the strong distinctive elements (6) that set the character of the new construction as attached in memo dated January 10, 1990 page 6. Photographs should be studied for porch detailing and other issues. We will need a complete report on the restoration. We are requesting detailed drawings. Mark Henthorn, architect: We will preserve the Lily Reid house as closely as possible to the original state. The basic concept is that the two facades relate to the street front character of 7 0 • '- Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 10, 1990 ' downtown Aspen. That they fit the urban context of Aspen. That to a neighborhood this is a transition from the urban context The Reid house is the pivot point in that transition. context. Similar materials would be used masonry, sandstone banding, to buildings. awnings, details and massing that are similar other materials will be softer and simpler. The height ' The courtyard of the building matches the height of the Mill Street Plaza• The of the building, they stairs simplify the circulation patterns third level terraces part of the urban space. make the second and rJoe: We need to see more details. I like the concept of how buildings on the other the new building relates to the commercial side. the Glenn: My major concern is the treatment of cour'.:yard. Les: It is important that an area be provided for people to sit in the courtyard. Bill: The horizontality needs studied. MOTION: Joe made the motion to grant conceptual development 81 subject to conditions: ra) approval for Lots A through C. Block site, roof and landscape plans. Detailed elevations, �. b) Massing model. c) Complete, accurate restoration plan and detailed drawings for to) the historic cottage, including (but not limited partial and window restoration, demolition activities, front porch methodology and protection during adjacent demolition, relocation cleaning methods, foundation and excavation plan, measured ' drawings and photographs. roved b the City- d) Performance Bond or Letter of Guarantee, approved Y Attorney for relocation of the historic cottage. e) Project phasing report. f) Restudy of horizontal features of new construction. g) Accurate representation of building materials. h) Information to support Demolition Standard A. cottage. i) Restudy setbacks of relocated j) Specific information on variations request. Don second. All approved, Motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk 8 i • • 1 PZM4.3.90 MINUTES FEBRUARY 20 AND MARCH 20 1990 ' Roger made a motion to adopt these minutes. Mari seconded the motion with all in favor. HISTORIC DESIGNATION 200 SOUTH MONARCH LILY REID/BERKO PUBLIC HEARING Jasmine opened the public hearin;. Roxanne made presentation as attached in record. Mari Peyton: The benefits would be transferable to the rest of the site or -- Roxanne: No. We don't have that provision in the code yet and to develop. In thinking that was something that we were trying if we designated 1/3 of the parcel then we could transfer that 1/3 of the benefits to the rest of the entire proposal. That is The code right now ' something that we were thinking of doing. that is certainly an option that could does not allow that. But - be considered. W Richard: That kind of an arrangement would seem reasonable for to be this kind of a design problem. Whereas now it seems rather than 1/3 of applicable to the cottage and the open space the development. Roger: I am very much favor of the relocation of this historic it brings it out into structure under these circumstances because right now the potential it is a beautiful prominent place where between 2 big buildings. I like this solution just stuck great for this entire site. My reservation is putting an historic designation on the entire that site and I guess the question is specifically what does site that we can't historic designation give them on the entire accomplish some other way. Roxanne: Timing --that they can submit a proposal at any time. And that they may be They are exempt from growth management. the variations and incentives that are allowed able to receive under designation --like parking. Roger: We can't address parking under any other mechanism other 2 I I F I _1 PZM4.3.90 than PUD? Roxanne: A PUD. Yes. Jasmine: But PUD wouldn't give them the growth management exemption. Roxanne: That's correct. Roger: This new structure --is there any more net leasable floor area than there was in the old structures? Roxanne: Yes, there is. Roger: Is there a way. of transferring what would be development rights in the historically designated area to the other structure? Without historic overlay or the historic designation. t set up any kind Roxanne: The code transfer and I right amtnow is certainly ointere interested to in allow r of a seeing that take place. Roger: That seems to me the kind of mechanism we need for something like this. Michael: I am not real comfortable substituting our judgement for something that is HPC's purview of something that they have already decided on. I would assume that since this is really their area and they have felt comfortable with that I 'am not comfortable not following that recommendation. I would assume by virtue of having to maintain this structure on the property that the owner -of the -entire parcel is losing a -lot of available FAR that would be available should that structure not be there. Is that correct? Roxanne: Very possibly. They are providing more open space than the code requires. Michael: We are imposing on the owner of the property a community concern to maintain and preserve something that we feel is a historic structure. I know that this has been a long drawn out process and if we are going to exact something it certainly makes me feel better to exact something we give them something back. I just don't see what is wrong with going along with giving the whole structure historic overlay to accomplish this. If the community had not rallied against that prior HPC approval then we might be seeing a totally different project sitting there. But they have responded somehow whether it is by virtue 3 i • • PZM4.3.90 of voluntary or involuntary to that community pressure to have And I come with the design that they have come up benefit to with now. the community by think there is probably a great virtue of this building sitting on the corner. Mari: Is there an analysis that you can give us comparing what kind of FAR would be allowed without the house being there be with the entire site compared to what they would getting designated? Gideon Kaufman, representative for applicant: The City code the states that any structure or site that meets one of more of be designated historic. We feel, and designation standards may the HPC strongly agreed with us, that not only the Lily Reid ' house but lots A, B and C, all 9,OOOsgft should be designated in the code. under the criteria that is contained Specifically the applicant and the HPC agreed that we met 2 ' standards --community as well as neighborhood character justifying the finding for historic designation for all 3 lots. The standard has nothing to do with new construction or non - as a historic existing buildings but deals with the whole site location for the Lily Reid house. In the Planning Office memo they say the word "site" means land immediately associated with historic structure. But I would _ argue that that is not what the, code says or reads. The code specifically says "One or more parcels with one or more it structures". The Lily Reid house sat on a 5-lot parcel when had its historic residential character including Lots A, B and C. When Hod Nicholson owned the property for over 3 decades all 3 :lots were under one ownership. Now that Larry Brooks owns the property, again all 3 lots are under one ownership. The property and to create was specifically purchased to reunite the 3 parcels this opportunity to preserve the Lily Reid house. Parry read 3 quotes from architects on HPC in favor of this project. Larry Yaw, architect for the applicant: Our design issue was the Lily set Reid up on this parcel to create a site plan that placed compatible cottage while at the same time creating a new and commercial building around the site. He then went a detailed presentation as to how the present plan came into being. The solution was to relocate the Lily Reid cottage into this 4 I ki I 1 PZM4.3.90 corner and to internalize the building at this part of the site. That puts it out into clearly a pedestrian space and surrounds it with grass and now the building can be seen completely renovated and in 4 dimensions and can be walked all around. This is a pedestrian plaza. In terms of the zone transition there are 2 things that this project helps. As we begin to identify this victorian with the one across the street we have created a gateway and part of the scale transition between the more residential scale here and the more residential scale or core scale here. Because we have had to use the whole site to create this solution we are asking that you consider giving landmark designation to the whole setting. To give this the soft setting background it should have we have stepped the building back which lets more sun in and also gives a much quieter background to the building. The HPC was enthusiastically behind us and we hope you are too. Gideon: The purpose of designation and exemption from GMP is to encourage creative preservation and restoration. This is the only opportunity in downtown for the preeminence and preservation .)f an existing building. We need the GMP exemption on the whole site to make it work. Jasmine: I think that judging from the remarks from other members of the Commission everybody is enthusiastic about the approach that you have taken and the results in terms of the physical appearance of the plan and the preservation of the house and giving it a more conspicuous location on the site.- I don't think there is any problem anybody has with the design solution you have adopted. our basic concerns which the Planning Office has enumerated have to do with what happens to other sites who may not come up with quite as sensitive or appropriate a plan what our goals should be Ls to find the appropriate solution to allow you to go ahead with the plan that everybody likes without causing problems for ourselves further down the road. :halt Nixon: I am here with my wife, Donna Norquist. We are proprietors of Uriah Heeps and we think that as an existing building that just can't be torn down. We are completely in favor of this and while it would inconvenience us for a couple of years we feel like it would be in the best interest of the community. 9 I PZM4.3.90 Bill Poss, Chairman of HPC: I am here to show our support for behalf of this project and its designation. I am also here on I in support of this myself as a public citizen to say that am interested in making and showing i because it shows that we are precedent for a good design solution. I think it is a good that and design solution. It was within the HPC's power to grant this designation and to show that the whole site was important to to get this design solution. I think it is an excellent design solution and I think we should be behind it to show that we are willing to take those steps. Larry Brooks, owner of the project: I have mixed emotions that I the time feel I need to get across. Before I bought what was at the Berko next door I tried to come up with a solution by going to many officials as I could. I asked for feedback on as public what they thought was appropriate use and an appropriate way to deal with the buildings. Far and away everyone's solution was to make it a jewel. But it would foolish for me to have gone ahead I and purchased the property not knowing what type of response was going to get out of the system. ' Now I am coming out of HPC who virtually gave us in an hour and a including Les Holst who 'r half of praise from every member there said he was in favor of the project even though he was the only dissenting vote. Now I am confused that we are here after a hundred plus by applicants before me have been approved by HPC and ratified be the precedent that you your Council and wondering why we would not ratify us when everyone is in agreement ' set in reverse and that it is a wonderful project for the house and the City. It is virtually with due respect staff opinion, which is one person's its designation opinion, that the house should maintain 1/3rd of here that when it was moved to and then there was a comment over does that mean all the open space would be the corner then designated area? I don't understand how HPC could say it would be the whole thing is for and we can expand and contract it to whatever convenient in favor of it and 1 US. I am confused as to how 4 people can be ' can be against and why you would side with that 1. Chuck Vicenti: I own A-1 Maintenance and do commercial cleaning it is just a for many of the buildings downtown. Very basically I am speaking for people who are really pretty project. so lot and I think that the corner if anyone droveby and downtown a -- of looked at it and looked at the proposal there why any us not want that? It just seems like the right thing to do. i� 6 ' PZM4.3.90 Walt Nixon: I was also concerned that if it is not approved as has been proposed then perhaps it would drive the rent up so much that we wouldn't be able to stay in there even if the project were completed. Jasmine: One of the points that Gideon made about the entire site having been historically part of the Lily Reid house -- Roxanne: When the structure was first built in 1885 apparently it had had 5 lots with it. The 1893 map indicates that it was built then. There was a hotel in fact on the site where the ' cleaners building is. It couldn't have been for more than 3 years that it had its 5 original lots that went along with it. Jasmine: It would just seem to me that there is in that case a historic justification for the entire parcel which would I think make --it certainly makes me feel more comfortable because I share a lot of concerns that the Planning Office has. At the same time I like this project and yet it seems to me that the fact that it was once historically one site even if it was not necessarily for ' a very long period of time that that seems to me to make that argument a much more convincing argument. ll Roxanne: Any original historic land that was associated with it ti is totally gone now and is not even a part of the parcel. Bruce: (to the applicant) Do you know what the use will be of the Reid structure? Brooks: We have been talking with Uriah Heaps, the Steak Pit, and the dry cleaner to occupy the bottom floor. We haven't come up with a configuration of who is going to use the Lily Reid house itself. We have been talking with Peter Guy as using each individual room as a dining room for the Steak Pit. These are the tenants we have been talking to. I might add that none of the tenants have been in Aspen less than 17 years with the Steak Pit over 30 and the dry cleaner over 30. Bruce: What disadvantages if any flow from designating the entire parcel as a historic parcel. What, if anything, is the applicant giving up down the road by having the entire parcel ' designated. Roxanne: Nothing. Designation is only a benefit to them. They will have to go through all the same review because they are located in a historic district. Bruce: My question relates to if years from now you wanted to do 7 something else with you into a certain otherwise be in if build whatever. PZM4.3.90 the big part of the building --does that kick kind of approval process that you might not you went through growth management and just Gideon: There is a difference between designated building and review by the HPC in a downtown area. You are scrutinized much more carefully when you have agreed to designate a building and just being in the downtown and having review in that context. Roxanne: Any historic building downtown is reviewed with more scrutiny than a non -historic building downtown. Roger: I am in favor of approving this project just as I see it right here. But the one problem I see with historic designation cn the entire site is that historic designation on the entire site exempts it from GMP in the future. so it is a land use issue. Now how do we get this thing approved with the codes as we have them or as we can modify them maybe. Because with the historic designation on the non -historic part of the development we are opening ourselves up to future changes in that structure which would have growth ramifications which we get no say-so over. So how do we accomplish that? Maybe in their deed restriction is to identify this is the building and any further changes would be subject to the growth management aspects. Brooks: The building looks bigger than it really is. The new building will be 12,600sgft. The existing building is 6,200sgft. When you take out the common area and you take out the employee housing then that addition on that entire site over what is there right now is just a little over 3,800sgft. In answer to your question I have been advised by the architect it i:3 not possible to build any more on that lot. We can't extend it out any further development. We can't go up because we would be above the adjoining buildings. Jasmine: What Roger is suggesting is that perhaps a condition of approval being that any further expansion of the commercial space on this parcel would then be subject to GMP. We would approve what was submitted here and that any further requests for any kind of additions or expansion would then be subject to GMP. Change in use would not really be. ' Michael: If it is designated historic it is subject to more restrictive scrutiny in the future than if it isn't. Roger: Not in terms of land use. 8 IPZM4.3.90 Mari:_ I still never did hear the numbers that we were talking about. , ' 1.means if wethat Joe Wells: The project lforroughly were have the same obligation affordable housing as going through competition. Mari: I am not talking about ratios. I am talking about absolute square footage. Joe: 13,500 is the square footage that is allowed without going to 1 or through special review for bonus square footage --up to 2 18,OOOsgft. Mari. Now, if there were no little house, what would be allowed on that entire site. Roxanne: Still the same. They would still be up to 1.5 to 1. if they were housing on site. They could go up to 18 providing ' Yaw: Under any scenario we are using the Lily Reid house within the FAR calculations and not outside of it. ' Mari: So they are not really getting FAR bonus out of this. All they are getting is the exemption from GMP and parking. ' 6Y Richard: Nor are they giving up•floor area. MOTION ,• Roger: I move to recommend landmark designation of the Lily Reid site. That landmark designation including the new development with a single condition that any further development from this ' point will be subject to GMP and those approvals. Bruce seconded the motion. Gideon: mumbled something here. Roger: The problem is the new building is on Lots A, B and C. Or ' have you re -designated the site. Brooks: The whole site is Lots A, B and C. Roxanne: Recommend landmark designation for the parcel which is A, B and C. Roger. Right. And that any further development beyond what is shown here will be subject to GMP. 9 ' PZM4.3.90 Bruce: I second that. Roger: I think as this goes beyond us here we should make it ' clear that this motion was a result --that this is a unique situation. For basically what everyone has conveyed to. us that there is a tremendous historic asset which is preserved and actually enhanced by this and that in effect it -- Jasmine: Do we want to do this as a resolution then? Then we could include a lot of the reasoning behind in the "whereases". Roger: I modify my motion to state that the request for the Planning office to make our motion in resolution form. ' Bruce modified his second. The purpose being to show that we really are not setting a precedent. Roger: Exactly. Richard: Regarding parking. That seems to be the one landuse ' impact that we are facing here. ' Roxanne: The code right now requires 2 spaces per 1,000sgft of net leasable. And this calculates out to 18 spaces needed on the parcel. They are going to be putting 3 spaces on so they are So it asking for variation of 15 spaces. That is $15,000 per. is a total of $225,000. Richard: So it is a question of whether we exempt them from that fee or not. ' Jasmine: And the landmark designation would automatically exempt them? Roxanne: Automatically the HPC would have to make that variation and find that it is more compatible and have to go through the ' lingo -- Jasmine: So in other words our recommendation for the landmark designation does not necessarily deal with the parking issue. Roxanne: Exactly. HPC will deal with that at final. rJasmine: That is not part of this motion. Roger: Now there is one major caution to the developer and that ' has to do with the use of the historic house. That is I heard that you were thinking of a restaurant. It is in the code that restaurants require direct access to the alley or off street ' 10 ' PZM4.3.90 servicing area. Now that can be accomplished through the new ' building but I caution you, have satisfactory service through that new building if you are going to plan on having a restaurant in the Lily Reid cottage. Jasmine: We have a motion on the floor and a second. ' Everyone voted in favor of the motion. Gideon: Could the Vice Chairman sign the resolution? MOTION Roger: I move to allow the Vice Chairman to sign the resolution. ' Michael seconded the motion with all in favor. ' Jasmine closed the public hearing. NEVMAN CONDITIONAL USE FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ' PUBLIC HEARING Jasmine opened the public hearing. Kim Johnson, Planning Dept: Made presentation as attached in "! record. r� We need to add one condition as follows: To comply with the definition and requirements of accessory dwelling units that the accessory dwelling in it be deed restricted to resident occupied ' unit with 6 month fees. Commissioners had no comments. ' Jasmine asked for public ccmments. There were none and she closed the public portion of the hearing. MOTION Micq-ael: I move that we recommend the conditional use with the 3 Office. (referenced ' conditions as suggested by the Planning above and attached in record) Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. GUIDO'S SWISS INN GMOS EXEMPTION CHANGE IN USE Tom Baker, Planning Dept: Made presentation as attached in ' � 11 0 • ' Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 14, 1990 PUD projects to come through with a total buildout scenario in ' order to identify the parking requirements, massing, impact, etc. Councilman Peters said this is not the proper way to allow PUDs to go forward. A certain amount of open space was considered as part ' of the original project; now there is a request for more parking. This is expanding the project beyond the parameters within which it was originally designed. ' Councilwoman Pendleton agreed with not going along with piecemeal amendments to PUDs. Councilman Gassman said he is not sure it makes sense to ask every condominium owner to plan exactly what they want to do in the future; life is not static. Councilman Gassman said as long as staff assesses the impact on the community when there is an incremental change, that may be all right. Mayor Stirling agreed there ought to be a market or enlarging family dynamic. Ms. Lamont said P & Z's recommendation ultimately was that the applicants come back with more overall conceptual plans on what can happen and what would be the total build out. Ms. ' Lamont said staff could then tell what the total FAR would be left and ask the applicants how they want to allocate it. Edwards said he does not see anything in the code requiring an applicant to come ' in with a final buildout. The code allows this type of piecemeal changes. ' _ + Mayor Stirling moved to direct staff to work with the applicant to resubmit the application to identify the ultimate buildout, design issues, parking issues, and bring it back through P & Z in a two ' step process; seconded by Councilman Tuite. Councilman Peters asked if this is expanding an non -conforming use. Edwards said they are not adding any more units and are not ' expanding the non -conformity. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Peters. Motion carried. Mayor Stirling moved to suspend the rules and extend the meet to 10:15; seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor, with the ' exception of Peters and Gassman. Motion carried. ORDINANCE 436 SERIES OF 1990 - Historic Designation 200 S. Monarch ' Gideon Kaufman questioned an ordinance designating "a portion of 200 South Monarch Street". Roxanne Eflin, planning office, said the title is incorrect and will be corrected. Ms. Eflin told Council the applicant is requesting historic designation for the entire parcel, which HPC and P & Z have recommended with condi- tions. Staff is recommending Council approve landmark designation for only that portion of the parcel with the relocated Reid cottage finding that the entire parcel does not meet the standards for ' - 20 ' Regular Meetinci Aspen City Council May 14, 1990 designation. The applicant is requesting designation to take ' advantage of the incentives offered for a designated landmark, primarily dealing with timing and exemption from GMP competition. ' Ms. Eflin said staff does not feel it is appropriate to use the landmark designation in this way and that a negative precedent will be set. Ms. Eflin pointed out in similar cases staff has recom- mended a portion of the site for designation. The, financial ' benefits if the entire parcel is designated are a parking variation up to 15 spaces or $225,000 and exemption from GMQS mpetition. Ms. Eflin told Council the HPC and P & Z felt ' strong com- munity benefits associated with designation far exceed in value the variations and exemptions being requested. The project is an excellent solution to preserving a significant historic resource. ' Staff agrees the community would be receiving substantial benefits; however, how would staff deny future applications when community benefits are not as substantial. Staff recommends landmark designation for the Reid cottage and the land immediately assoc- iated with it. The remainder of the parcel does not meet the criteria for designation. ' Kaufman said his client is tearing down a perfectly good building to relocate a historic structure, which no one else would be doing. HPC and P & Z felt there were a number of distinctions in this ' 4 application so that it will not be setting a precedent. Kaufman told Council HPC and P & Z strongly felt this application meets the criteria spelled out in the code specifically the neighborhood standard. The community character specifically states, "a struc- ture or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community". The HPC and P & Z feel the site is critical to the preservation of the Aspen community. Staff states site means land immediately associated with the historic structure. Kaufman quoted .from the code, "a site is defined as one or more. parcels with one or more structures". Kaufman said the Reid house in the 1890's sat on a 5 lot parcel when it had its historic structure on it, including lots.a, b, and c. The previous owner owned all three lots and now all 3 lots have been brought under one ownership. This is unique to this parcel; no one else has that ' situation. The property was specifically purchased to reunite the 3 parcels and to give a unique opportunity to give the Reid house prominence. Kaufman said the applicants have been working for over ' two years to find a way to preserve and enhance the Reid house. Kaufman pointed out the applicant is willing to tear down a perfectly good, recently renovated existing building to make the ' project work. This is a project the HPC is excited about; the HPC feels this is innovative, not dangerous. Kaufman requested Council confirm the action of the HPC. The HPC was confident in their ' ability to distinguish between projects. I — 21 .1 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 14, 1990 Larry Yaw, architect, told Council their design mission was to create a site concept that premiated the existing Reid building and also created a compatible commercial building. Yaw showed Council a model of the project. Yaw said this design gives the corner importance and gives the pedestrian importance. The design also works with the Victorian across the street in becoming a gateway or transition between the urban core and the residential area. Yaw said the building is less than the allowable FAR; it exceeds the open space requirement by 15 percent. The project provides 3 parking spaces, less than the requirement. The height is 10 feet less than it could be. Joe Wells said Guido's has been mentioned as being able to request the same thing. Wells pointed out Guido's just completed a lengthy review process and no designation of the entire site was requested. Another example was 17 Queen street, which was not rated at all until it was sold and given a rating of 4. There were no GMQS implications with this lot. Another example was 801 East Hyman, rated a 1; there were no GMQS implications on this parcel either. Another example is Asia, which was also being processed and requested full designation of the site. HPC gave a signal that Asia's request for full designation was not appropriate. Wells said the standards are flexible and each case has to be looked on its own merits. rLarry Brooks, applicant, told Council he has been working on this since 1987 and has talked to dozens of people to get their input. Brooks pointed out he has.unanimous approval from the committees ' he has met with as well as all the'people he has met with. This is the one way to make the Lily Reid cottage live and breath again. The only negative comments have been about possible other projects. Brooks reiterated he has been working on this since 1987. Anyone willing to -have that much tenacity should get approval. Councilman Tuite moved to read Ordinance #36, Series of 1990; seconded by Councilwoman Pendleton. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #36 (Series of 1990) AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING 200 SOUTH MONARCH STREET/309 EAST HOPKINS AVENUES AS H, HISTORIC LANDMARK PURSUANT TO DIVISION 7, SECTION 7-701 OF THE LAND USE CODE was read by the city clerk Councilwoman Pendleton moved to adopt Ordinance #36, Series of 1990, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Tuite. Councilman Peters agreed with staff. The design is a good design and a good solution for the Lily Reid house. Councilman Peters 22 • 0 i1 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 14, 1990 stated he does not agree with the concept that one can use a ' historic building and accumulate ownership of property and expand a historic designation to other properties. Councilman Gassman asked about the below grade floor area. Ms. Eflin said below grade FAR does not count in a designated structure. Brooks said one reason the whole property is involved in that the corner building is currently a usable building; there is no reason to tear it down. This involves an entire lot and tearing down a building to move the Reid cottage over. Yaw said the result of this is to rebuild 1200 square feet in order to achieve 3800 square feet of new space. Charles Cunniffee, HPC member, told Council this seems like the most creative and generous solution the HPC has seen. Ms. Eflin told Council the applicant would be requesting a waiver of 15 parking spaces from HPC. Kaufman told Council the applicant would have to provide all employee housing; the variation from GMQS is for the parking spaces. Kaufman pointed out sometimes the GMQS ' quota is so small that a building cannot be done with one year's quota. Kaufman said an alternative is to leave the Reid structure where it is and to build a second story on the existing commercial building. Amy Margerum, planning director, said staff's concern ' is using landmark designation in a way to get something everyone likes. This is a policy decision of Council; do they want to use landmark designation in this creative approach in getting good urban design for projects. Ms. Margerum said there is a PUD c;verlay which would allow close to the same project. The issues are the net leasable in the basement and the timing. Bill Poss, HPC chairman, said the Code allows an applicant to come to HPC and ask for designation to get something. There is an ability for HPC to work with the applicant. If the standards can be met, HPC can designate the site or portion thereof they find critical- to preserving the character. Mayor Stirling- said- a critical issue is saving and restoring the Reid cottage. In previous designs, the cottage may have been lost in between canyons of new buildings. Mayor Stirling said there is a coherence in this design that would not be if it were a traditional design. Mayor ' Stirling said urban design and creativity to solve some downtown problems is a laudable goal. Mayor Stirling said this could be a good precedent. Mayor Stirling said he is concerned about the parking; there is too little parking provided in this design. The housing proposal is the same either way. Mayor Stirling said he is willing to support this as there are some long term benefits. Councilmembers Tuite and Pendleton agreed about the parking concerns. Councilman Gassman said he has reservations about this but this deserves to go to public hearing. Councilwoman Pendleton asked staff to look at more parking on site before the public hearing. 1 23 IRegular Meeting Aspen City Council May 14, 1990 Roll call vote; Councilmembers Gassman, yes; Pendleton, yes; ' Peters, yes; Tuite, yes; Mayor Stirling, yes. Motion carried. Mayor Stirling moved to suspend the rules and meet to 11 p.m.; ' seconded by Councilman Tuite. Councilman Tuite and Mayor Stirling in favor; Councilmembers Peters, Gassman and ,per, opposed. Motion NOT carried. Council left the meeting at lq:50 p.m. Kathry S. Koch, City Clerk 1 1 24 0 • ' Regular Meetincf Aspen City Council July 9. 1990 CONSENT CALENDAR Councilwoman Pendleton moved to approve the minutes of June 13, 25, 1990; seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor, motion carried. LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY BUSINESS Councilman Peters moved to approve the transfer of La Cadeau to Omi and to approve the renewals of Downtown Sports Center and Syzygy; seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE i36, SERIES OF 1990 - Historic Designation 200 S. Monarch Roxanne Eflin, planning office, told Council this is historic designation of the entire parcel known as the Lily Reid parcel for the purpose of growth management quota exemption and parking variation for the new development. HPC and P & Z both have recommended designation for the entire parcel finding standard (f) has been met and that the benefit received by the community in the form of a restored historic cottage outweighs the gains to the d-veloper. P & Z conditioned their recommendation to require any further development be subject to GMP competition. Staff continues to recommend designation for only the portion of the parcel which would contain the relocated historic structure, finding that that is the parcel that any standard for designation would apply to. This request is for exemption from GMP and for parking variations. It is a very good project and does benefit the ' historic cottage by making it a show case and restoring it. Ms. Eflin pointed out the entire project is below the maximum FAR at 1.45:1 and will be providing all of the affordable housing on site. Ms. Eflin said she is concerned that Council's decision to designate the entire parcel will set a precedent for other cases. Ms. Eflin said staff would like a code amendment to define the word i site. i Ms. Eflin said there are other alternatives, such as allowing designation to occur so that growth management exemption and the M competition does not have to continue and that the parking variation should apply to the net leasable square footage of just the historic resource. Ms. Eflin said 18 spaces are required on site; the applicant proposes 3 parking spaces on site. The historic building would require about 2 parking spaces so a possibility is to have the applicant mitigate for the remaining 13 spaces. Cash -in -lieu parking is $15,000 per space or $195,000 total. The applicant should compete for any increase in floor area above the 13,200 that is currently being requested, including any net leasable below grade.' Ms. Eflin recommended designation apply ato the historic cottage and its relocated portion of land. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 9, 1990 Gideon Kaufman, representing the applicant, noted everyone has ' agreed that the applicant has created a rare historic opportunity and an excellent project. The only negative thing mentioned about the project is that it may set a dangerous precedent. Kaufman told ' Council the HPC was excited about the precedent and were all confident in their ability to distinguish between projects which had merit and those which did not. Kaufman reminded Council Larry Brooks, owner of adjacent property, acquired the Lily Reid house, a historic structure in a run down condition lost in a canyon effect. Brooks did this to reunite 3 parcels which have a long history of being in common ownership. Brooks is willing to tear down a new existing building in very good condition in order to move the Lily Reid structure to the corner, restore it and give it the pre-eminence it deserves. The structure will be moved to the most important place on the lot both visually and economically. Kaufman said the applicant feels technically entitled to designa- tion for the whole parcel. ' Kaufman said the city enacted incentives for historic buildings to encourage projects like this. Kaufman said not every piece of property can accommodate every need of the city. Council should ' ask themselves if this is the type of project they want on this corner. Larry Yaw, architect, presented a model of the project with the Lily Reid building on the corner. Yaw pointed out the Victorian on each corner are a gateway between the residential areas and the commercial areas. The commercial building has been stepped back to create a background for the Lily Reid building. rMayor Stirling opened the public hearing. Jim Gibbons told Council this is a good project and a good solution to a problem. Gibbons said the owner is a good landlord. Larry Brooks, applicant, told. Council he has been discussing with the current tenants the possibility of staying in their location. Walt Dixon, proprietor of Uriah Heeps and current tenant, told Council they would like to stay in their location and that Brooks is an asset to the community. Dixon said they do not favor the city exacting a large parking fee. Brooks has been good at keeping the rents down and a large parking fee will force him to increase rents. Mayor Stirling closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Pendleton said she supports historic designation of the whole parcel. The project is too good to let it go. Council- woman Pendleton said one of her goals is to have local businesses stay downtown. The current tenants have good things to say about the landlord. Councilman Peters said he likes the design of the ' project, which he feels is a benefit to both the applicant and the community. Councilman Peters said there are alternatives to 6 Regular Meetinct Aspen Citv Council July 9. 1990 historic designation of the entire parcel, which is inconsistent ' with previous actions of Council and HPC. Councilman Peters said one alternative is a GMQS application. Councilman Peters said he would support a multi -year allocation for this project. Councilman Peters said he would also be willing to work on the parking solution; however, no one can guarantee this savings will be passed onto the tenants. Councilman Gassman noted the staff memorandum states the below grade space is not net leasable. Councilman Gassman said he had understood that is where the restaurant was going to be. Kaufman said the restaurant will be in the below grade space. Councilman Tuite said the project should be judged on its merits rather than who owns it. Councilman Tuite said this project has been competing for two years in the HPC and P & Z convincing them of the validity of this project. Councilman Tuite said this building is more of an asset if moved to the corner rather than leaving it in the middle of the block and building all around it. Amy Marge -"rum, planning director, pointed out staff was under the impression there would be no net leasable space below grade. The statement that the applicant would be providing employee housing equal to that which they would have to mitigate if they went through GMP may not be true because of the below grade space, which would be exempt if the whole space were designated. Mayor Stirling noted_ since_ the city increased the employee housing requirement to 60 percent, there has not been a commercial project. Mayor ' Stirling said this developer may be able to make that commitment because of the other incentives. Mayor Stirling said in order to make restoration effective, there have to be bona fide incentives. Mayor Stirling agreed moving this historic building a few feet will ' give it a more primary look. Mayor Stirling said he feels this project.will trigger others to see restoration as a valuable tool for urban development. Councilman Gassman said this is a good solution to preserve the building; it is a nice design solution and is something that will be an asset to the owner and to the town. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Tuite, yes; Pendleton, yes; Peters, no; Gassman, yes; Mayor Stirling, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #40. SERIES OF 1990 - PUD Amendment Smuggler Mobile Home Park Councilman Tuite left the room due to a conflict of interest. ' Leslie Lamont, planning office, told Council this is the second step of a two step process. This was reviewed by P & Z, who approved the amendment proposal. Ms. Lamont reminded Council at first reading they requested staff to look at permitted uses at the ti Smuggler Mobile Home park. Ms. Lamont told Council staff worked 7 ' ORDINANCE NO. (Series of 1990) AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING 200 SOUTH MONARCH STREET/309 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE AS H, HISTORIC LANDMARK PURSUANT ' TO DIVISION 7, SECTION 7-701 OF THE LAND USE CODE. WHEREAS, Larry Brooks, General Partner for Aspen Arcade, Ltd., as owner of the real property described as 200 South ' Monarch Street and 309 East Hopkins Avenue, Lots A, B, and C, Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, has filed an ' application for historic landmark designation pursuant to Section 7-701 of the Land Use Code; and 1 WHEREAS, the property known as the "Lily Reid Cottage", located at 309 E. Hopkins Ave. on Lot C, Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado has received the historic evaluation ' rating of 114"; and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Committee recommended ' historic designation for the entire parcel at a duly noticed ' public meeting on January 10, 1990; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommended historic designation for the entire parcel with conditions at a duly noticed public hearing on April 3, 1990; and ' WHEREAS, City Council wishes to pursue the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Committee and the Planning and Zoning Commission and complete the designation process. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COL0RADO: r 1 Section 1 Fec s 1 , -,Q E+I : 627 F'G 666 jo.#;325417 Si � Cnty C1 er ► y B' F'i. �r._n Silvia Da.vi�s• ,- That the property located at 200 South Monarch Street and 309 East Hopkins Avenue, described as Lots A, B, and C, Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, be granted H, Historic Landmark Designation. Section 2 That the Zoning District Map be amended to reflect the rezoning described in Section 1 and the Planning Director shall be authorized and directed to amend said map to reflect said ' rezoning. Section 3 That the Planning Director shall be directed to notify the City Clerk of such designation, who shall record among real estate records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office a certified copy of this ordinance. Section 4 That if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or ' unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the ' remaining portions thereof. Section 5 1 That a public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the day of , 1990, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council ' Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days ' prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published once 2 1 J, i�i� HI : 627 PG 667 iG/1 7 /90 1i-:5` Rec Dr�r q,.(.)i, ' S;'via Davis, F'itl:in Cnty Clerk, C� in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED,as provided by aw by the City Council of the City of Aspen on;.the L� day of. 1989. CJ ATTEST -te TC..fi%y'n,,• Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, ti CP qTTEBT.� ; bryn r S ✓: Koch ord.200sm.309eh William L. Stirling, Mayor passed and approved this �?-� day of 1989. City Clerk William L. Stirling, Mayor fi32541 < 03/ 1 r /90 1o: 5C Rec $15, 0C.) uf:' 627 PG 668 Silvia Da\ -is. Pi.ti-An Cr,ty Clerk:, Doc �•���� 3 11 EXHIBIT C ' Letter from Ryberg Construction Company Regarding Relocation of Lily Reid Cottage E to • H. CARL AYSERC & SON ' Over 35 year* o1 service First in Area to Move 811�end Ma Li Mesnnry Buildings 1 ❑amnlition Excavation Hentention 1 systems Shoring 1 0nderpinning Structural ' Restoratlon =oundbtion ' F+eplarcement roundallyll E"""n iiun Up or Down Fidel ' lirnate inn Denver area Free 1 Structure Relaca:ion Pamphlet for ' Customers i 1 "VF ARE ALWAYS i+HUMP;..rtio ,MAT TEP yo V , Jryr, ,- rAJQSr RYBERC CONSTRUCTION CO. "SHORING & STRUCTURF MOVft4G CUNTRAC7%)i? Y900 E. FLORIDA AVE.02 DENVER, CO 80231 4 ,7anuary 1991 qq ILr. ti . Mr. Charles Cunniffe CHAkt 11; Ct1POWFE & ASSOC. Charles Cunniffe and Assuciarp .s A3PEN. W 520 E. Hunan, Suite 301 Arcpri, Co 81611 Pr%ooddnt Hl.J::A Mcct,%, n3C'1. GZ3; 7" 3426 Re: Relocating a pre -aye rra masonry constructed residential utructure with lime and sand mortar joints with two or more course-s cif brick exterior walls. Dear Mr. Cunniffe: These types of ❑onStrut:tcd house structures are the most difficult to re- locate, however, ttey can be relocated in txlIwst excelletit ccxidit.ion usual to correct moving Procedures. wring the last forty years I have rclocted hum dreds of these pre -age era masonry constructed struct-urrs. The rouse yo,. called about will be an easier one to move due to i.t$ small size (627 square: feet) . Confiirming.the faxed quotes 4 January 1991,the moving coot will be in the $12 -- 13,000.00 range. Out of town and travel cost included in the about- quote. All risk special transportation ineurance is also available at s .7i, Tier hworod dollars of coverage. A $2,000.00 deductible applies to east loss. Providing the decision is to relocate the struct_urt-, it is possible to move the structure or,tx, ^ basement aWar garden level it so desired. If you proceed with the relocation and ciet to Denver in the interim periCd, 1 have photo album wiLl ptinted inserts that explain at1 phases of a masonry reloca- tion Which may be helpful to you. Additiomlly, for LhEr Aspwn arcade or other project:,, if shoring or ondex- pinning is required I would estimate that type of work for you. sincere t.y, 1 'WE HAUL OR RESTORt YOUR MOST PRIZED POSSESSJON FOR YOU" I EXHIBIT D Letter from Owners of Lots A through C, Block 19, Granting Permission to Temporarily Relocate the ' Lily Reid Cottage onto the Property 0 . February 5, 1991 1 Re: Temporary Relocation of Lily Reid House to Lots A through C, Block 19, Aspen Townsite TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Our letter is to notify the City that we are the record ' owners of Lot A, B and C, Block 19, Aspen Townsite. We have given permission to Aspen Arcade, Ltd. to temporarily ' relocate the Lily construction of a Reid house onto new building on our property Lots A, during B and C, Block 81. Yours truly, ' Ch tles Rolle Jo 'Olson CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 3 1 91 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE:_, 2737-073-38-002 A13-91 STAFF MEMBER • �-L PROJECT NAME: Lily Reid House M S Exemption Review Application 4j Project Address: 200 South MonArch, A en CO O•L'� Legal Address: Lots A. B & C, Block 81, Aspen, CO���5� APPLICANT: Larry Brooks, Aspen Arcade, Ltd. Applicant Address: 1148 Fourth St.,Santa Monica, CA 90403 REPRESENTATIVE: Joseph Wells Representative Address/Phone: 602 Midland Park Place Aspen, CO 81611 PAID: YES x NO AMOUNT: $780 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED 7 TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: X/ P&Z Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO , VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO CC Meeting Date r.111101L -2� PUBLIC HEARING: YES N VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO Planning Director Approval: Paid:_ Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date:_ ------------------------------------------ ----------------- REFERRALS: City Attorney Mtn Bell �t� School District City Engineer / Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn NatGas Housing Dir. Holy Cross State HwyDept(GW) Aspen Water Fire Marshall State HwyDept(GJ) City Electric Building Inspector Envir.Hlth. Roaring Fork other _ Aspen Con . S . D . Energy Center 3 Z211 DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: CI INITIAL:�`� City Atty City Engineer Zoning Env. Health Housing Other: � 7 FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: 0 • .� MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager THRU: Amy Margerum, Planning Director av", FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planner RE: Lily Reid House GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing and Vested Rights, Second Reading Ordinance 15 DATE: June 10, 1991 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Lily Reid Cottage and the entire site, Lots A, B, and C, has been Landmark Designated. The applicant proposes to renovate the cottage and completely redevelop the site. The applicant is seeking a GMQS Exemption from Council for the provision of affordable housing on -site and vested rights. This is second reading of Ordin-ance 15, please see attached Ordinance. The Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the housing proposal and has recommended to Council approval with conditions. COUNCIL GOALS: This application supports Goal 1: to ensure that an adequate amount of affordable housing is available... PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council granted final Landmark Designation for the parcel at their July 9, 1990 meeting. Council read and approved Ordinance 15 at first reading May 13, 1991. Council also clarified for staff that Historic Designation of the parcel was intended to afford future development the ability to be reviewed pursuant to Section 8-104 B.1(c) Exemption by Commission of an Historic Landmark. BACKGROUND: The applicant purposes to completely redevelop a 9,000 square foot lot that has received Landmark Designation. The Lily Reid Cottage will be relocated to the northwestern corner of the parcel and the existing one-story structure will be demolished and replaced with a three story brick building along the eastern and southern portions of the site. The parcel is located on the corner of Monarch and Hopkins and was Landmark designated by Council last year. The Lily Reid cottage is the last remaining brick cross -gabled cottage in the Commercial Core Historic District. According to the application, Lily Reid was the first owner of the property. Franz Berko, noted Aspen photographer of the post-war/early ski era also owned this property for a number of years and maintained his studio at this location. This important piece of Aspen's history is now wedged between two contemporary and dominating • • buildings. Presently the Cottage and the existing Uriah Heep's/Cleaners building (Lots A & B) total 6,200 square feet of floor area on - site. For this parcel a FAR of 1.5:1 (13,500 sq. ft.) is allowed and the proposed FAR proposed on the site is 1.5:1. The project will include retail, office and affordable housing uses as well as storage for these uses and other accessory space. The new structure includes 7,300 sq. ft. of floor area on the upper three levels. According to the revised plans 3,108 sq. ft. is new ne leasable, 1,930 sq. ft. is affordable housing and 2,262 sq. ft. os accessory space and other non -leasable area. The basement level will include approximately 7,550 sq. ft. of retail space to be used for a restaurant and secondary display space of some retail uses on the ground floor. A sub -basement level will be used as storage for tenants in the building and mechanical space. Three parking spaces are proposed on -site off of the alley. Subsequent to receiving Landmark Designation for Lots A, B, and C, the applicant Larry Brooks, has submitted an application for development review. Special Review by the Commission was required for reductions in trash/utility service area and open space. Pursuant to Section 8-104 B.1(c) the applicant also sought a GMQS Exemption for the expansion of an Historic Landmark. The Commission, at their April 16, 1991 meeting, approved the Special Reviews and GMQS Exemption pending Council's clarification regarding Section 8-104 B.1(c). The Commission also reviewed and recommended approval to Council of the affordable housing plan with the condition that the applicant work with the Planning Department and Housing Authority to develop a housing proposal that complies with the Authority's guidelines and the Planning Department's concern regarding location of the units. The Housing Authority reviewed the housing proposal at it's April 24 meeting. Revised plans, submitted at that meeting, included: 2 3-bedroom units of 965 sq. ft. each, with washer/dryer, a 180 sq. ft. roof deck for the tenants, and 100 square feet per unit of storage space in the basement, please see attached plans. The Authority Board of Directors, in a 3-2 vote, recommended approval of the revised plans. For referral comments, please see the attached memos from the��,'k referral agencies. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Council housing for a GMQS Exemption also requesting from Council shall review the proposed of€-e-rAabLe `O � and grant vested rights--' Staff is a clarification of Section 8-104 A. GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing: Pursuant to Section 8- 104 C.1(c) the Council shall exempt deed restricted housing that 2 • • is provided in accordance with the housing guidelines. However the Commission shall review and make a recommendation to Council regarding the housing package. According to the Code: The review of any request for exemption of housing pursuant to this section shall include a determination of the City's need for such housing, considering the proposed development's compliance with an adopted housing plan, the number of dwelling units proposed and their location, the type of dwelling units proposed, specifically regarding the number of bedrooms in each unit, the size of the dwelling unit, the rental/sale mix of the proposed development, and the proposed price categories to which the dwelling units are to be deed restricted. RESPONSE: Employee housing requirements for the increased 3,108 sq. ft. of net leasable on the parcel requires mitigation of 6.9 employees. The applicant proposes to provide housing for 6 employees and to pay cash -in -lieu for one full employee at the Category 2 price guidelines. The applicant proposes to include two affordable units on the second floor of the three story retail/office building to be developed behind the Lily Reid Cottage. Each unit will be 965 sq. ft. with three bedrooms and two baths, plus a 180 square foot roof deck. Each unit will have a washer/dryer facility and 100 sq. ft. of basement storage space per unit. The units will be deed restricted to Category 2 price and income guidelines pursuant to Section 8-104 B.1(c). The applicant was encouraged by the Commission to continue to work with the Housing Authority and Planning Department and revise the original submission. The applicant has amended the plan and the Housing Authority has approved the new plan. The applicant has eliminated resident windows opening onto the commercial balcony/corridor, pulled the units away from the elevator shaft and provided a separate entrance off of the elevator into a private foyer for the residents, reduced the number of employees per unit by shifting from a dorm -style configuration into a 2 3-bedroom units, added 100 square feet of basement storage space per unit, and provided a roof deck and washer/dryer facilities among other amenities. These revisions go a long way to meet the concerns of this Department. Staff supports the revised plan and recommends approval. B. VESTED RIGHTS: Pursuant to Section 6-207, Council shall grant vested rights for a site specific development plan when notice has been given and a public hearing has been conducted. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION VOTE: _� FOR � AGAINST KEY ISSUES: The Commission recommended approval of the housing proposal with the condition that the applicant work with 3 • • Housing and Planning to improve the quality of living experience, comply with Housing guidelines, provide storage and adequate kitchen space for the residents pursuant to Housing's guidelines. The applicant has complied with the Commission's recommendation and staff and the Housing Authority Board recommend approval of the proposal. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the GMQS Exemption for the provision of affordable housing on the parcel as represented by the applicant with the following conditions: 1. The size of the two units shall be 965 sq. ft. each with 100 sq. ft. of basement storage space per unit. Washer/dryer facilities and a roof deck shall also be provided. 2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall file a deed restriction for review and approval by the Housing Authority. A copy of the deed restriction shall be forwarded to the Planning Department for recordation. The units shall be deed restricted to the Category 2 income and price guidelines as adopted and enforced by the Housing Authority in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 3. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall make a one time cash -in -lieu payment for one employee consistent with the Category 2 guidelines as adopted and enforced by the Housing Authority in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Payment shall be made to the Finance Department with verification of such payment to the Housing Authority and Planning Department. 4. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall have received a GMQS Exemption for a Historic Landmark by the Planning Director. 5. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning Commission, City Council, Historic Preservation Committee, and Housing Authority shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to read and approve Ordinance 15, Series of 1991 on second reading granting GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing for the Lily Reid development and vesting. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: �- i n L U L, ATTACHMENTS: A. Housing Plans B. Ordinance 15 ILI is ATTACHMENT A UN �� p-, �1�7 s.� .-JN rr- I OC ` I owe ov� I i t,tvlrlCI Ud�7/i�lt'i IIIlIRUI;II r Ip;►�IIIN�i Ifuilp ° .I��iiU o - -� - <wv W�+1-1. X• 1z °•1 i �,7T, 71 • is To: Mayor and Council Thru: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager Thru: Amy Margerum, Planning Director From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Date: May 14, 1990 Re: Landmark Designation Ordinance - First Reading "Lily Reid" Parcel, 200 S. Monarch/309 E. Hopkins SUMMARY: The HPC voted 5-1 for the entire parcel. The landmark designation for th that any further development and those approvals. to recommended landmark designation P&Z voted unanimously to recommend e entire parcel, with the condition shall be subject to GMQS competition The Planning Office recommends that the Council approve Landmark Designation for only that portion of the parcel that will contain the relocated historic resource (Lily Reid Cottage). We further recommend the applicant submit a survey to the Planning Office containing the legal description of the portion of the parcel directly associated with the relocated historic resource, which shall be incorporated within the Ordinance for Second Reading. COUNCIL GOALS: Landmark Designation meets Council Goal #10. BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting Landmark Designation for the entire parcel described as Lots A, B, and C, Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen, in order to take advantage of the incentives offered a designated landmark. (Note: The applicant has also requested a $2,000 designation grant, for which they are ineligible as these grants are designed for residential structures only.) In discussion with the HPC and P&Z, the applicant's principal reasons to pursue landmark designation for the entire 9,000 sq. ft. parcel are timing and exemption from Growth Management (allocation). The Planning Department feels that it is not appropriate to use the landmark designation mechanism in this way, believing that a negative precedent will be set. In other similar cases, we are recommending designation for a portion of the larger parcel immediately associated with the historic resource (i. e. 17 Queen Street, 801 E. Hyman). PROBLEM DISCUSSION: HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION STANDARDS: The Standards for • • Landmark Designation are found in Section 7-702(A) of the Land Use Code. Any structure or site that meets one (1) or more of the standards may be designated as a Historic Landmark. A. Historic Importance. The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an event of historical significance of the cultural, social or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Response: Information in the Planning Office indicates that Lily Reid was the first owner of the property, however, no further information is available on her to support the applicability of this standard for designation . Franz Berko, noted Aspen photographer of the post-war/early ski development era also owned this property for a number of years, and maintained his studio at this location. The Planning Office finds that Designation Standard A. applies to Franz Berko's association with the property under cultural significance. The Planning Office finds that only the historic structure and its immediate "site" meet this standard. We find that the remainder of the parcel does not meet this standard. B. Architectural Importance: The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character. Response: The Lily Reid cottage is the last remaining brick cross gabled cottage in the Commercial Core Historic District, and one of only a few remaining in Aspen. We find that its architectural style is both traditional in form and unique in material. We find that the non -historic corner building does not meet this standard, nor would the land once the proposed demolition of this building occurs. We further find that the architectural importance of the proposed new construction, in concept, does not meet this standard. C. Architectural Importance: The structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type or specimen. Response: The Planning Office finds this standard is not met. D. Architectural Importance: The structure is a significant work of an architect whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. 2 • • Response: The Planning Office finds this standard is not met. E. Neighborhood Character: The structure of site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Response: Clearly, the preservation of the Lily Reid cottage has been found to be an extremely important element in the overall character preservation of the Commercial Core Historic District. Staff finds that its proposed relocation of some 60' to the northwest corner of the parcel does not diminish its applicability to this standard. The existing structure and proposed new construction does not support this standard, in our opinion. F. Community Character: The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Response: The Planning Office finds the Lily Reid cottage clearly meets this standard; however, the existing corner structure or proposed new construction does not. The applicant argues that, in fact, this Standard directly applies to the proposal. They maintain that "site" pertains to the entire 9,000 sq. ft. developable parcel, and from an urban design/master plan point of view is critical to the architectural character of the District. The Planning Office maintains that "site" is defined as the land immediately associated with the historic structure, visually and/or historically. We also feel that while the urban design issues are extremely important, the actual preservation of the historic resource is not critically linked to its relocation. The preservation of historic structures on their original site is always preferred over relocations, however, from an urban design point of view, the cottage relocation and harmonious new development appear to solve some visual character issues on this corner. We support the general design concepts, however, do not support the mechanism in which the applicant is proposing to achieve this. The incentives program has been specifically developed to aid in 3 • • the preservation, rehabilitation and adaptive use of historic and significant structures that have received landmark designation in Aspen. The Planning Office feels that the entire parcel does not meet the standards to be eligible for designation. FINANCIAL BENEFITS TO THE APPLICANT: The financial benefits available to the applicant with landmark designation as requested are summarized as follows: 1) A parking variation of up to 15 spaces @ $15,000 per space 2) Exemption from GMQS competition (timing issue) Overall impact mitigation does not appear to be the driving force behind designation. The applicant has indicated that the employee housing threshold will be met. Open space issues are certainly met with the proposal. The primary impact involves the applicant's request for a 15 parking space variation, at $15,000 per space, and exemption from GMQS competition. ALTERNATIVES: 1) One alternative is Landmark designation for just that portion of the parcel that is immediately associated with the relocated historic cottage. We recommend the applicant submit a survey to the Planning Office containing the legal description of the portion of the parcel directly associated with the relocated historic resource, which shall be incorporated within the Ordinance. Therefore, the variations/incentives requested by the applicant which would be eligible under landmark designation would apply to the historic Lily Reid cottage, however GMQS Exemption for the entire parcel would not. 2) The other alternative to allow a reduction in the required parking is a PUD Overlay, which the Planning Office recommends in this case. ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: On January 10, 1990, the HPC voted 5-1 to recommended landmark designation for the entire parcel. They found that the proposal generally met Standard F, and that the action was appropriate in consideration of the urban design issues of the Commercial Core Historic District. On April 3, 1990, the P&Z voted unanimously to recommend landmark designation for the entire parcel, with the condition that any further development shall be subject to GMQS competition and those approvals. KEY ISSUES: Both the HPC and the P&Z felt strongly that the community benefits associated with designation of this 4 • parcel, to allow this project to occur, far exceed in value the variations and exemptions being requested. The project itself is presented as an excellent solution to preserving a significant historic resource, while allowing a good urban design project to occur in the Commercial Core. The Planning Office agrees with the HPC and P&Z that we are receiving substantial community benefits within the context of historic preservation, however, staff has concerns about the precedent setting nature of this decision. The issue becomes "how do we deny similar applications in the future when the benefits to the community are not as substantial?" RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office supports Landmark Designation for the Lily Reid Cottage, finding that the applicant meets Standards A, B, E and F. We find that the remainder of the parcel does not meet the criteria for Landmark Designation, as stated above. Therefore, we recommend that the (relocated) cottage and the land immediately associated with it, receive landmark designation, and that the incentives, benefits and variations associated with the cottage be granted by the HPC at Final Development review. The Planning Office feels that it is our responsibility to identify any negative aspects of possible decisions by City Council. The Planning Office recommends that the Council Landmark Designation for only that portion of the parcel that will contain the relocated historic resource. We further recommend the applicant submit a survey to the Planning Office containing the legal description of the portion of the parcel directly associated with the relocated historic resource, which shall be incorporated within the Ordinance. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to read Ordinance , Series of 1990, on First Reading." "I move to approve Ordinance Series of 1990, on First Reading." CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: memo.cc.200sm.309eh k, • 1] TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning RE: Lily Reid House - Special Review for the Reduction in Trash/Utility Service Area and Open Space, and Request for GMQS Exemption for Enlargement of an Historic Landmark, Review of GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing DATE: April 16, 1991 SUMMARY: The Lily Reid Cottage and the entire site, Lots A, B, and C received final Landmark Designation from City Council July 9, 1991. The application purposes to refurbish the cottage and completely redevelop the site requiring Special Review for the reduction in trash/utility service area and open space, and a GMQS Exemption for the enlargement of an Historic Landmark. The applicant is also seeking a GMQS Exemption for the provision of on -site affordable housing. Although Council approves the affordable housing package, the Commission shall review and make a recommendation to Council regarding the housing proposal. Staff recommends approval, pending Council clarification, of the enlargement of an historic landmark. Staff recommends the Commission recommend denial of the affordable housing mitigation proposal. Staff recommends approval of the reduction in open space and trash/utility service area. APPLICANT: Larry Brooks, Aspen Arcade, LTD. as represented by Joe Wells, Gidion Kaufmann, and Larry Yaw. LOCATION: 200 South Monarch Street, Lots A, B, & C of Block 81, Aspen, Colorado ZONING: Commercial -Core (CC) APPLICANT'S REQUEST: A reduction in open space and trash/utility service area through Special Review by the Commission and a GMQS Exemption for the enlargement of a Historic Landmark. The Commission is also required to review the affordable housing proposal and make a recommendation to Council. PROPOSED PROJECT: The applicant purposes to completely redevelop a 9,000 square foot lot that has received Landmark designation. The Lily Reid Cottage will be relocated to the northwestern corner of the parcel and the existing one-story structure will be demolished and replaced with a three story brick building along the eastern and southern portions of the site. The parcel is located on the corner of Monarch and Hopkins and was Landmark designated by Council last year. The Lily Reid cottage is the last remaining brick cross -gabled cottage in the Commercial Core Historic District. According to the application, Lily Reid was the first owner of the property. Franz Berko, noted Aspen photographer of the post-war/early ski era also owned this property for a number of years and maintained his studio at this location. This important piece of Aspen's history is now wedged between two contemporary and dominating buildings. Presently the Cottage and the existing Uriah Heep's/Cleaners building (Lots A & B) total 6,200 square feet of floor area on - site. For this parcel a FAR of 1.5:1 (13,500 sq. ft.) is allowed. The FAR proposed on the site is 1.47:1 (13,200 sq. ft.). The project will include retail, office and affordable housing uses as well as storage for these uses and other accessory space. The new structure includes a ground level of 3,433 sq. ft. of retail space, 2,451 sq. ft. of retail and office on the second floor and 1,506 sq. ft. of affordable housing, and the third level includes 3,156 sq. ft. of office space. The basement level will include approximately 7,550 sq. ft. of retail space to be used for a restaurant and secondary display space of some retail uses on the ground floor. A sub -basement level will be used as storage for tenants in the building and mechanical space. Three parking spaces are proposed on -site off of the alley. REFERRAL COMIENTS: Please see the attached comments from the referral agencies. The following is a summary of those comments: 1. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District - the District currently has enough capacity to serve the project, a grease interceptor will be needed if a restaurant is located in the building, and a City storm water system or dry well connection shall be used for site generated surface run-off. 2. Engineering - the applicant shall demonstrate that the dry wells are sufficient to accommodate drainage on site, the Department will support a trash reduction provided a trash compactor is installed, meters and other utility appurtenances shall all be on the applicant's property, should electrical needs exceed those of the transformer across the alley an easement shall be granted for a new transformer to be located on the applicant's property, it is preferable that the alley not be closed during construction, the applicant shall agree to join any future improvement district which may be formed, and the applicant shall obtain permits for any work or development within public rights -of -way from the City streets department. 3. Parks - snow melt is recommended to be installed for all sidewalks, tree size and tree grate sizes shall be specified, and Parks questions how the street trees will be irrigated. 2 4. Aspen Water Department - The applicant must abandon the old water lines at the main, abandon old well at the cleaners and will have access to a 12" line on Monarch or 6" line on Hopkins to tap off of. DEVELOPMENT REVIEWS: A. Special Review - Utility/Trash Area Reduction: Pursuant to Section 5-209 D(6) 200 square feet of a utility/trash service area must be provided for every 6,000 square feet of net leasable unless reduced pursuant to Special Review. Section 7-404 C. establishes the criteria for review for a reduction in the utility/trash service area as follows: 1. There is a demonstration that given the nature of the potential uses of the building and its total square footage, the utility/trash service area proposed to be provided will be adequate. RESPONSE: According to the application a 110 sq. ft. trash service area with a trash compactor on the parcel will be provided to serve the project. The "trash will be compacted and then pushed into a standard dumpster to simplify collection." Although the application refers to discussions with BFI, the applicant shall supply documentation that the system is adequate to handle the needs of the proposed project. 2. Access to the utility/trash service area is adequate. RESPONSE: Access to the service area is directly off of the alley. According to the referral comments from the Engineering Department, access is adequate. 3. Measures are provided for enclosing trash bins and making them easily movable by trash personnel. RESPONSE: The service area is located within a semi -enclosed area, protected from the elements and elevated slightly to minimize ice buildup. According to discussions with BFI, the proposed system will simplify trash collection. 4. When appropriate, provisions for trash compaction are provided by the proposed development and measures are taken to encourage trash compaction by other developments on the block. RESPONSE: A trash compactor will be installed to facilitate the reduction of space required for trash storage. 5. The area for public utility placement and maintenance is adequate and safe for the placement of utilities. 9 RESPONSE: According to the application, meters will be located at the southeast corner of the building. An area of approximately 70 sq. ft. is provided along the east wall of the project. The majority of the mechanical and electrical equipment will be located in the basement. The Engineering Department requires that all meters and other utility appurtenances be on the applicant's property and cannot protrude into the alley right-of-way. There is an existing transformer across the alley from the proposed project. Whether these facilities are adequate for the proposed project cannot be determined until actual loads are calculated. Should the project's electrical needs exceed the current capacity, or the potential upgrade of the existing transformer, the Engineering Department requires an easement for a new transformer to be located on the applicant's property. The applicant should indicate an area for a potential transformer easement prior to final review and approval by the City Council. 6. Adequate provisions are incorporated to ensure the construction of the access area. RESPONSE: Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant shall include the utility/trash service area in the construction documents. In addition, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy a final site inspection shall determine the adequacy of the utility/trash service area and that the area conforms with the representation of conditions as stipulated in this review. B. Special Review - Open Space Reduction: Pursuant to Section 7-404 A(3), the reduction of required open space in the CC zone district may be reduced by review of the Commission. The open space requirement for a parcel in the CC zone district is 25% of the lot area. For this parcel the required open space is 2,250 sq. ft. According to the application approximately 2,300 sq. ft. of public open area is provided in the plaza area, however only 1,650 sq. ft. of this area meets the definition of open space. Pursuant to the criteria of Special Review when the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) approves the on -site relocation of an Historic Landmark into required open space, such that the amount of open space on -site is reduced below that required by this Code, the requirements of this section shall be waived. At their March 27, 1991 meeting, the HPC approved the relocation of the Lily Reid Cottage to the corner of the parcel with the open plaza surrounding the Cottage on two sides. The relocation reduces in effect the required open space because the definition 4 for open space requires a minimum depth of 10 feet for at least 50 percent of the lot frontage and the lot frontage is reduced by the location of the Cottage. The HPC approved relocation of the cottage thus requiring a waiver of the open space cash -in -lieu requirements for this project. C. GMQS Exemption for the Enlargement of a Historic Landmark: Pursuant to Section 8-104 B 1.(c) the enlargement of an Historic Landmark intended to be used as a commercial or office development which increases the building's existing floor area ratio and it's net leasable square footage is subject to review by the Commission for a GMQS Exemption. The applicant is proposing to mitigate the employees generated by the net leasable, above grade, floor area that is added to the parcel above the existing square footage that is proposed to be demolished. Staff does not agree with the applicant that this Section of the code clearly exempts the demolition and reconstruction of existing square footage. In other words, staff is unclear whether the existing 6,200 square feet of net leasable (minus the Lily Reid cottage) when demolished and reconstructed as the, detached, new, three story brick building is exempt from mitigation of employee housing. It is not increasing the existing floor area ratio or net leasable of an existing building. Based upon the review criteria, the Commission may grant the GMQS Exemption for the enlargement of a Historic Landmark. When this application is reviewed by Council, staff will seek clarification of the intent of this Section of the Code. If Council determines that demolition and reconstruction of a building on a site that has been Historically designated is not exempt, the Commission will have to review this application based upon Council's interpretation. For a GMQS Exemption for an Historic Landmark the applicant shall demonstrate that as a result of the development, mitigation of the project's community impacts will be addressed as follows: la. For an enlargement at the maximum floor area permitted under the external floor area ratio for the applicable zone district the applicant shall provide affordable housing at 100% of the level which would meet the threshold required in Section 8-106. For each 1% reduction in floor are below the maximum permitted under the external floor are ratio for the applicable zone district the affordable housing requirement shall be reduced by 1%. RESPONSE: According to the application, 13,200 square feet of 5 floor area will be developed on the site (floor area only applies to above grade space). The maximum permitted for this space is 13,500 square feet. Using the formula outlined above the development is 2.2% below the maximum allowable therefore the applicant shall mitigate roughly 58% of the employees generated. Using a generation factor of 3.7 employees/1,000 square feet, the new space generates 12.81 employees, 58% of which is 7.52. The applicant proposes to house eight employees on -site in a dormitory facility on the second floor of the new building. lb. The applicant shall place a restriction on the property, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, requiring that if, in the future, additional floor area is requested, the owner shall provide affordable housing impact mitigation at the then current standards. Affordable housing provided shall be restricted to Category 2 or 3 income price and occupancy guidelines. RESPONSE: The applicant proposes to deed restrict the on -site housing to the Category 1 price and income guidelines. 2. Parking shall be provided according to the standards of Article 5, Division 2 and 3, if HPC determines that it can be provided on the site's surface and be consistent with the review standards of Article 7, Division 6. Any parking which cannot be located on -site and which would therefore be required to be provided via a cash -in -lieu payment shall be waived. RESPONSE: The parking requirement for the CC zone district is 2 spaces/1000 square feet of net leasable. This project proposes approximately 11,000 square feet of net leasable (excluding the below grade net leasable which is exempt, see below) which equals 22 parking spaces. HPC, at their March 21, 1991 meeting, approved the provision of three parking spaces on -site and waived the cash -in -lieu for 19 spaces. 3. The development's water supply, sewage treatment, solid waste disposal, drainage control, transportation and fire protection impacts shall be mitigated to the satisfaction of the Commission. RESPONSE: According to the referral comments, a City storm water system or dry well connection shall be used for site generated surface run-off and the applicant must discontinue the use of the old water lines and provide new lines. The Engineering Department recommends the approval of a trash/utility service area with the provision of a trash compactor. Bus and fire services are within close proximity of the site. 0 4. The compatibility of the project's site design with surrounding projects and its appropriateness for the site shall be demonstrated, including but not limited to consideration of the quality and character of proposed landscaping and open space, the amount of site coverage by buildings, any amenities provided for users and residents of the site, and the efficiency and effectiveness of the service delivery area. RESPONSE: Service to the site is off of the alley. Service access for any restaurant on the site shall be directly off of the alley. The HPC, Commission and Council have reviewed the site design and development program for this project. All three have complimented the applicant for a stellar urban site design that is sensitive to the unique characteristics of the Lily Reid building. The HPC worked closely with the applicant to incorporate the development into the context of the Historic District and encourage a site plan that is compatible with surrounding parcels namely the Historic cottage across the street. The Lily Reid will be surrounded by an open, at -grade plaza that will entice people to explore, spend some time and admire the Lily Reid cottage. The on -site affordable housing is above grade on the second floor. As will be discussed below, the affordable housing package has some programmatic problems that the applicant will have to resolve. D. GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing: Pursuant to Section 8-104 C.1(c) the Council shall exempt deed restricted housing that is provided in accordance with the housing guidelines. However the Commission shall review and make a recommendation to Council regarding the housing package. Please see attached Housing referral comments. According to the Code: The review of any request for exemption of housing pursuant to this section shall include a determination of the City's need for such housing, considering the proposed development's compliance with an adopted housing plan, the number of dwelling units proposed and their location, the type of dwelling units proposed, specifically regarding the number of bedrooms in each unit, the size of the dwelling unit, the rental/sale mix of the proposed development, and the proposed price categories to which the dwelling units are to be deed restricted. RESPONSE: The applicant is proposing to provide an on -site dorm- 7 0 style rental facility for 8 employees. The housing is proposed to be located on the second floor of the new three-story building. The applicant, although only required to deed restrict the units to Categories 2 or 3, has offered to deed restrict the units to Category 1. The applicant has also requested the right to house employees of the project at those low rates even if the employees exceed the Category 1 income guidelines. According to the Housing Authority Guidelines, dormitory housing must be deed restricted to Category 1 guidelines and it is not a prerogative of the Authority to qualify residents that exceed the guidelines for that housing. The dimensional requirements of dormitory housing have not been met with this housing proposal. The applicant shall work with the Housing Authority to develop a housing plan that complies with the guidelines. The location of the housing is on the second floor of the new building. Fortunately the housing is not located below grade which is a popular response to housing mitigation. However, staff seriously questions the appropriateness of this location for dorm -style housing. The housing is surrounded by retail and office space (please see plans). There is not a separate entrance other than off of the second floor balcony which also services the commercial space. An elevator shaft is located in the center of the housing plan but is accessible to patrons of the commercial space. It is unclear from the plans the size of the storage area and whether it is intended to for residents. Staffs primary concerns regarding the location of the employee housing are the potential negative impacts of noise and a lack of privacy. The applicant has indicated in past meetings that he will encourage businesses to remain open late. To locate housing in the middle of this high activity may be a detriment to the quality of life for the residents. Staff would recommend a reformatting of the housing program perhaps considering additional storage space, housing on the third floor or providing access for residents to a larger common/resident only area on the roof. E. GMQS Exemption by the Planning Director for a Historic Landmark: Pursuant to Section 8-104 A.1.(b)(2), The Director may exempt the enlargement of an Historic Landmark intended to be used as a commercial or office development which increase either the building's existing floor area ratio or its net leasable square footage, but does not increase both. The applicant proposes to provide approximately 7,550 square feet of retail space to be used for a restaurant and secondary display 8 space below grade. This space is exempt from mitigation because it only increases the net leasable. The applicant shall be required to receive a GMQS Exemption for the Director upon final approval and prior to the issuance of any building permits. RECORDATION: Staff recommends the approval of the Special Review for the reduction in open space and utility/trash service area with the following conditions: 1. The floor area of the project shall not exceed 1.47:1 (13,200 sq. ft.) . 2. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy the applicant shall comply (compliance to be determined at final inspection) with the following conditions: a. a grease interceptor shall be installed if a restaurant is located in the building; b. the applicant shall install dry wells to be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department to be used for site generated surface run-off; C. a trash compactor shall be installed on site to support a trash area reduction down to 110 square feet and the applicant shall supply documentation that the system is adequate to handle the needs of the proposed project; d. meters and other utility appurtenances shall all be on the applicant's property, should electrical needs exceed those of the transformer across the alley an easement shall be granted for a new transformer to be located on the applicant's property; e. Snow melt shall be installed for all sidewalks. 3. The alley shall not be closed during construction unless approved by the Public Works Department and the applicant shall obtain permits for any work or development within public rights - of -way from the City streets department. 4. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement district which may be formed. 5. Tree size and tree grate sizes shall be specified on final plans. 6. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant shall abandon the old water lines at the main, abandon the old well at the cleaners. 7. Prior to final review and approval by the City Council the VJ applicant shall indicate an area for a potential transformer easement. 8. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant shall include the utility/trash service area in the construction documents. 9. The HPC approved relocation of the cottage thus requiring a waiver of the open space cash -in -lieu requirements for this project. 10. Service access for any restaurant on the site shall be directly off of the alley. Staff recommends approval of the GMQS Exemption of the expansion of a Historic Landmark pending an interpretation by City Council on the intent of the Historic Landmark section of the Code as it relates to GMQS Exemption for a "site" as opposed to "enlargement of a building's existing floor area" with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall be required to receive a GMQS Exemption for the Director for the below grade net leasable upon final approval and prior to the issuance of any building permits. 2. The applicant shall provide three parking spaces on -site and has been waived a cash -in -lieu fee for 19 parking spaces. 3. The applicant shall provide housing mitigation for 8 employees. Staff recommends that the Commission recommend to Council denial of the affordable housing mitigation proposal, recommending that the applicant work with the Housing Authority to develop a housing program that complies with the Guidelines and to work with the Planning and Housing staff to provide a more amenable location for the housing. ATTACffiKENTS: Referral Comments Site Plan 10 • Joseph Wells Joseph Wells, AICP Land Planning and Design April 10, 1991 Ms. Leslie Lamont Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen CO 81611 Re: Lily Reid Project Dear Leslie: tC�@71[E 0NI APR 1010 a- __J I My letter is a follow up on our meeting yesterday in which we discussed your tentative interpretation that §8-104(A)(1)(a), GMQS Exemption by the Planning Director for remodeling, restoration or reconstruction of an existing building should apply to the Lily Reid project. As you know, it is our position that the project must be reviewed under the provisions of §8-104(B(1)(c), GMQS exemption by the P&Z Commission for the enlargement of an Historic Landmark. Since the language of §8- 104(A)(1)(a) includes no reference whatsoever to its application to Historic Landmark projects, we have never felt that it is applicable to the project. We believe we made it clear that the project as proposed could not be accomplished without the incentives available for Historic Landmark projects and therefore expected the proposal to be reviewed under §8- 104(B)(1)(c). In order to complete the project, Larry Brooks must demolish a perfectly sound commercial building which is 100% occupied, take the loss in revenues while the building is unavailable for the tenants and pay to reconstruct the demolished space. While he is prepared to do that to achieve what we believe is a superior project, he is not in a position to bear the additional expense of supplying housing for the reconstructed space as if it never existed. The employees of this space are, after all, already housed. Therefore, if Staff should prevail in this interpretation (which we believe has no basis in the language of the Code or past City actions), all that will be accomplished is to kill this project which has been embraced 130 Midland Park Place, Number FL As )en, Colorado 81611 Telephone (303) 925-8080 Facsimile (303) 925-8275 • • Ms. Leslie Lamont Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office April 10, 1991 Page Two positively by the community. If §8-104(A)(1)(a) applies, no additional housing will be provided because the existing structure will not be demolished. Any thought that additional housing will result is, therefore, illusory. Further, the impacts of the square footage remain the same, as it presently exists on the site. Projects involving Historic Landmarks are eligible for GMQS Exemption under two different sections of the Code. The first is §8-104(A)(1)(b), GMQS Exemption by the Planning Director for commercial or office development involving Landmarks which increases either the building's existing FAR or its net leasable (but not both) or is a change of use which does not increase the building's FAR. The second is §8-104(B)(1)(c), GMQS Exemption by the P&Z Commission for commercial or office developments involving Historic Landmarks which increases FAR and net leasable. These were the provisions which were applied to the review of the Collins Block project. To refresh my memory of the specifics of that review, I went back through the files last night. You will recall that in that case, the Collins Block project was approved in two phases, in order to allow the owner to proceed with some construction while preparing for the reviews involved in the second phase. Development for the Collins Block project involved the demolition and reconstruction of a total of 10,297 square feet of existing FAR space and an FAR expansion of approximately 3,800 square feet, once the Lane Parcel was made contiguous with the Collins Block parcel through approval of a Lot Line Adjustment. When the demolition was completed, the additions to the building had been removed, the east wall of the Collins Block had been removed because it was structurally unsound due to water damage, and the ground floor structure and the second floor residential units of the Collins Block had been totally removed. The construction of the basement under the entire site, the reconstruction of the ground level floor structure and retail space and the second -floor residential units, re -enclosing of the Collins Block with a new east wall and completion of the majority of the new addition to the east was approved as a GMQS Exemption by the Planning Director under §8-104(A)(1))b). This was because the FAR was limited to that which was being demolished in the existing project. A GMQS Exemption was later granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission for the FAR expansion of an Historic Landmark. • • Ms. Leslie Lamont Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office April 10, 1991 Page Three The Collins Block project was not required to be reviewed under §8-104(A)(1)(a) and did not mitigate for any of the demolished space which was reconstructed because the project was an Historic Landmark. Mitigation was limited to the net FAR expansion of the project. While the Collins Block was processed using both GMQS Exemptions for Historic Landmarks for the convenience of the applicant, there is no reason that the Lily Reid project cannot be accomplished in one step, using the GMQS Exemption for expansion of an Historic Landmark. Nothing would be accomplished by a two step process. We hope that your review of the City's past actions on the Collins Block will clarify this situation for the Staff and that we can avoid the delay of going to City Council for a Code interpretation. Larry Brooks has established his schedule based on the hearing dates he was given some time ago and is unavailable to attend a meeting on May 7. We are therefore hopeful that Staff can decide this issue positively and that we can proceed to P&Z on schedule. Don't hesitate to call to discuss this matter further. Sincerely, / oseph Wells, AICP Cam" JW/b MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Leslie Lamont From: Judy McKenzie Postmark: Apr 10,91 7:54 AM Status: Certified Previously read Subject: Reply to a reply: Lily Reid application ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply text: From Judy McKenzie: To abandon old lines means: the old service line must be abandoned at the main. Active lines cannot be just cut off at the curb box they tend to leak and cause demage. Preceding message: From Leslie Lamont: judy is this your official referral comment to me? could you elaborate what it means to abandon the old water lines? From Judy McKenzie: This property is on the corner of Monarch and Hopkins? They have to abandon all old water lines, plus abandon old well at the cleaners. They have access to a 12" line on Monarch or 6" line on Hopkins to tap off of. 04/12/91 11:47 A P C HOUSING AUTH. 303 920 5580 MEMORANDUM TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning office -THRU: Carr Runs*, Executive Director, AVCHA FROM: Yvonne Blacker, APCHA DATE: April e, 1991 P. 02 RH: Lily Reid House GMQ0 Exemption for Expansion of a Historic Landmark and Affordable Housing Case # A13-91 � amm=ears ass=====aa==aa=s®m msas�asr��a:sts iac�aasta as�ieve�ct�aa,c��e�oss=ems asaa SUMKARY: The Historic Planning Commission granted conceptual development plan approval for the proposed restoration of the Lily Reid Cottage in January 1990 and P & Z recommended approval of Landmark designation for the property in April 1990. In January 1991, HPC granted a 90 day extension for the one-year filing deadline for Final. HPC Development Plan. APPLICANT: Larry Brooks, General Partner Aspen Arcade, Ltd. APPLICANT08 REPRESENTATIVE: Joseph Wells, AICP LOCATION: Lots A, B and C, Block 81, Townsits of Aspen SOOTING: CC REQUEST: Applicant requests approval for 1) Conceptual Development Plan review of a significant Development and Temporary Relocation of an Historic Landmark, 2) Special Review and GMQS Exemption for Enlargement of an Historic Landmark by P & Z, 3) GMQS Exemption of Affordable Housing and 4) Vesting of all approvals by City Council for the development of a new structure. This structure is proposed to contain a ground level of 3,433 sq. ft. of retail space, the second level of which includes 2,451 s►q. ft. of retail and office space and 1,506 sq. ft. of affordable housing, and the third level of which includes 3,156 sq. ft. of office space. The basement level will contain approximately 7,550 sq. ft. of retail space to be used for restaurant and secondary display space for the retail uses on the ground floor. Applicant it proposing restoration of the historic Reid Cottage which will be relocated to the northwestern corner of Lots A, B and C, Block 81. Applicant is requesting an enlargement of an historic landmark as per Section 8-104 (B)(1)(c) which requires that the applicant provide affordable housing at 100% of the level which would meet the threshold required in Section 8-106 for the applicable use. i 04/12/91 11:48 A P C HOUSING AUTH. 303 920 5580 P.03 For each 1% reduction in floor area below the maximum permitted under the external floor area permitted by special review the, affordable housing requirement shall be reduced by It. The code further requires that any affordable housing provided by the applicant shall be restricted to the housing designee's moderate-inoome price and occupancy guidelines. The applicant is proposing to mitigate the difference of the existing floor area of 6,200 sq. ft. and the proposed floor area of 13,200 sq. ft. to equal a net of 7,000 sq. ft. of new floor area. The applicant represents that this includes some: 3,463 sq. ft. of net leasable commercial space, 1,506 sq ft. of affordable housing and 2,012 sq. ft. of accessory space and other non -leasable areas. Therefore, the applicant has stated that his employee mitigation is for the 3,463 net new leasable commercial space. Using the 3.7/1,000 generation factor for retail/office space, applicant will generate 12.81 employees. The applicant is required to mitigate 100% of the threshold for this development which will total 7.52 employees (12.61 x 60%). The applicant has proposed the development of a low income four bedroom 1,506 sq. ft. dormitory unit to mitigate 7.52 employees. The dormitory unit shall be located on the second floor of the building, between two retail/office spaces, with no private entrance. RESPONGE: The 1990 Affordable Housing Guidelines will not allow the use of a kitchen or bath to be shared by more than four persons. The guideline requirements for minimum standards of dormitory housing are as follows: 1. There shall be 150 or greater net livable square feet of living area per person, including sleeping and bathroom. Net livable square footage shall not include interior or exterior hallways, parking, patios, decks, cooking, lounge used in common, laundry rooms, mechanical areas, and storage. Dormitory/lodge rents shall be calculated on the net livable square footage as described above. 2. Rental rates shall include all utilities metered in common, management costs, and taxes. 3. One bathroom shared by no more than four persons, containing at least one water closet, one lavatory, one bathtub with a shower, and a total area of at least 60 square feet. 4. A kitchen facility containing a sink, stove, and refrigerator, and shared by no more than four persona and a total of at least 60 square feet or access to a common kitchen. H 04/12/91 11:48 A P C HOUSING AUTH. 303 920 5580. . . - 0 0 P. 04 5. Use of 20 square feet per person of unit. enclosed storage area located within or adjacent to the 6. All unite shall comply with uHc standards. Staff has discussed the requirements of kitchen and bath to include 60 net livable square feet and to be used by not more than four persons. Applicant's representative has stated that they will pursue an additional kitchen for the dormer unit. Staff has concerns on the calculations of the 1,506 net livable square feet and has requested that plans b• submitted to Housing to verify the calculations of baths, kitchen, and storage space. Applicant requested interpretation of storage space to include the closets. In reviewing the request of the applicant's representative it was agreed that storage space be defined ael "space included and commonly utilized as a location for the preservation or later use or disposal of items or materials. Housing did notify applicant's representative that if the closet space was used under definition of the required 20 sq. ft. of storage space per person, it then could the unit. not also be calculated within the net livable space of RFIQURST: The applicant requests the right to house employeesa of the project at low-income rental rates even though their incomes may exceed low-income guidelines. RE8BON881 The 1990 Affordable Housing Guidelines specifiealll( address the request as it applies to commercial development and dormitory housing to be that in the event the units are employe_ owned, persons directly employed by the owner shall be given first: priority for occupancy of the unit. In the event there are no persons directly employed by the owner who quality or are available, the unit shall be of to other qualified persons according to limitations contained in the guidelines. Dormitory housing is designated for occupancy by low income employees with the exception that for a lodge use, the manager, assistant manager, or lodge owner, who is in the moderate income range, may occupy thet unit, however, the rent is calculated based on the low incomes guidelines. REC0bMBNDAT10N: Denial is recommended for the affordable housing component as proposed. it is recommended in the event of an affirmative P & Z vote, that this be first referred back to the Housing Authority Board. The "quality of life" aspects of the proposed employee housing are sensibly inappropriate as to the unit type and location in the building. Further consideration by the Housing Authority Board will be required. MEMORANDUM • E TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office FROM: George Robinson, Parks Department DATE: April 2, 1991 RE: Lily Reid House GMQS Exemption for Expansion of a Historic Landmark The Parks Department has the following comments regarding the Lily Reid House Review: 1. Exactly where is snow melt to be installed? Snow melt is recommended for all sidewalks. 2. What species and caliber of trees are to be installed? 3. What size of tree grates are to be installed? 4. What is the width of sidewalk between tree's and property line along building? 5. What type of irrigation will be used for street trees? 6. Awnings should be a minimum of eight feet in height. • • MEMORANDUM To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office From: Rob Thomson, Project Engineeri.5I Date: March 27, 1991 Re: Lily Reid House GMQS Exemption; Special Review for Trash and Open Space Please amend the previous memo for the above referenced dated March 25, 1991 to include the following: 8. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights -of -way, we would like the following condition of approval: The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080) for design considerations of development within public rights - of -way and shall obtain permits for any work or development within public rights -of -way from city streets department (920-5130). cc Chuck Roth, City Engineer rt/memo91.25 • • IFD .{aspen Consolidated Sanitation District 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (303) 925-3601 March 26, 1991 Kim Johnson Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Lily Reid House expansion Dear Kim: Tele. MAR 281991 'The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District currently has sufficient capacity to serve this project. Once detailed drawings are developed we will be able to estimate connection fees and issue a tap permit. In review of the application we have the following comments. If a restaurant is located in the basement level of the project, then a District approved grease interceptor will be required prior to connection. The District's interceptor capacity specifications are available at our business office. The installation must be observed by the District line superintendent. It is illegal to make any clear water connections to our collection system such as roof drains, snowmelt run-off. or any other sources of surface run-off. The City storm water system or dry well connection should be used for site generated surface run-off. The location of the tapped connection to our system will be determined by the District and can be planned for once detailed drawings are available. Sincerely, Bruce Matherly` District Manager D MEMORANDUM To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office From: Rob Thomson, Project EngineerIl'�Sf Date: March 25, 1991 Re: Lily Reid House GMQS Exemption; Special Review for Trash and Open Space After reviewing the above application and making a site visit the engineering department has the following comments: 1. Drainage - It is preferable that no runoff from the buildings go onto any public rights -of -way. Per Section 24-7-1004C.4.f of the municipal code, all but historical drainage must be maintained on site. The applicant must demonstrate to the engineering department that the drywells are sufficient to accommodate drainage on site by providing calculations from an engineer registered in the State of Colorado. We also need the engineer to comment on the functional aspects of the facility in order to determine that it can be cleaned for continual, proper performance. 2. Trash/Utility area - The engineering department will support a reduction in the amount of trash service area required by special review for the project provided: a. The applicant installs a trash compactor. As a condition of approval the applicant should furnish sufficient documentation that the designed system is adequate to handle the needs of the proposed project and that the 110 sq. ft. trash area the applicant proposes to provide is suitable for operation of that system. b. The meters and other utility appurtenances for this project shall all be on the applicant's property and none can protrude into the alley right-of-way. C. Access to the utility and trash area is adequate. 3. Reduction in Open Space - Since the project has been granted a Historic Landmark Designation, according to code, HPC will determine the open space considerations. If the HPC does not approve the relocation of the Lily Reid House into required open space, the engineering department would support a reduction in open space for payment -in -lieu according to the formula in Section 7-404 (A) (3). f • • 4. Availability of Electric Supply - Staff has met with the city electric department and finds that there is an existing transformer across the alley from the proposed project. Review of these facilities cannot be completed until actual loads are calculated. Should the proposed project's electrical needs exceed the current capacity, or the potential upgrade of the existing transformer, the engineering department would require that an easement be granted for a new transformer to be located on the applicant's property. 5. Parking - It is the engineering department's recommendation that the applicant be required to provide off street parking spaces or payment via cash -in -lieu. Again, since the project has been granted a Historic Landmark Designation, according to code, HPC will determine the parking considerations. In the event that HPC determines that off street parking is required, the engineering department requests the applicant clarify or furnish additional information as to the actual net leasable square footage of the proposed project for the final determination of the required parking spaces to be provided. 6. Construction Schedule - the applicant must make arrangements with all businesses in the alley to minimize the impacts of construction. We would prefer if the construction did not cause the alley to be closed. 7. Improvement District - The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement districts which may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in the public right-of-way. cc Chuck Roth, City Engineer rt/memo91.18 a 49 4' o; COO Dili Y TO: City Engineer Housing Director Water Department Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Parks* HPC FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning RE: Lily Reid House GMQS Exemption for Expansion of a Historic Landmark and Affordable Housing; Special Review for Trash Area and Open Space Case #A13-91 DATE: March 11, 1991 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Larry Brooks requesting approval of GMQS Exemption and Special Review. Please return your comments to me no later than March 29, 1991. Thanks. *Parks: Please review trees and sidewalk. Thanks ATTACHMENT A