Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20121024 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 24, 2012 CITY COUNCIL MEETING ROOM 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO SITE VISIT- Please visit the project sites on your own 5:00 INTRODUCTION A. Roll call B. Approval of minutes C. Public Comments D. Commission member comments E. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) F. Project Monitoring G. Staff comments H. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued I. Submit public notice for agenda items NEW BUSINESS 5:10 A. 400 E. Hyman Avenue- Minor Review OLD BUSINESS 5:40 A. 420/422 E. Cooper Avenue- Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Demolition, Mountain View Plane Review, PUBLIC HEARING 6:25 B. 610 E. Hyman- AspenModern Negotiation for Voluntary Landmark Designation, Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Special Review For Utility/Trash/Recycling Area, Continued from October 10th, PUBLIC HEARING WORKSESSION A. None 7:30 ADJOURN a � A; P1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner RE: 422 E. Cooper Street- Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design, Demolition, and Viewplane Reviews, Public Hearing continued from September 12, 2012 and September 19, 2012. DATE: October 24, 2012 SummARY: The applicant proposes to demolish the back portion of the one story commercial space adjacent to the 1892 Red Onion building and construct a three story addition. The one story commercial space was originally built in 1955/56 as an expansion of the Red Onion restaurant to provide a larger dining room. HPC reviewed the project on September 12, 2012 and continued the public hearing for more information and discussion. The draft F: minutes from the September hearing are attached as Exhibit C. ffi A summary of HPC comments are as r- follows: • Concerns about the proposed height. Request to see the height in context of surrounding buildings. _ • Concerns about the impact of the third story on the mass and scale of the block and on the viewplane. • Concerns about impact of �. ! development on Red Onion sign along east wall. • Questions about the relocation of they, existing mechanical equipment. =1 Of the list of discussion points outlined by Staff in September Demolition Public Amenity and Trash/Utility were not raised as concerns during the hearing on the 12th. The applicant has provided 6 view simulations from the 3-D model that will be presented at the meeting. There are no changes to the project that HPC reviewed in September. Staff continues to support the proposal with conditions. 1 i P2 NOTE: • FROM SEPTEMBER 12,2012: SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to demolish the back portion of the one story commercial space adjacent to the 1892 Red Onion building and construct a three story addition. The one story commercial space was originally built in 1955/56 as a expansion of the Red Onion restaurant to provide a larger dining room. The 1892 Red Onion sits on a 9,000 square feet lot that includes the one story commercial space to the east(the subject of this review) and a two story commercial space to the west that was also constructed as an expansion of the Red Onion for a nightclub and stage. All three spaces were internally connected at one time. The entire lot is designated a historic landmark and is considered contributing to the Commercial Core Historic District. There are currently no residential units on the 9,000 square feet parcel. The applicant proposes to create one new residential unit that spans the second and third floor of the proposed new addition. The first floor and basement are proposed to be commercial use. The applicant requests Conceptual Major �4 Development and Conceptual Commercial Design a in addition to Demolition and View plane approvals. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual �. Commercial Design, Demolition, and Viewplane with conditions.; 1 APPLICANT: Red Onion Investors, LLC, r.� represented by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc., 412 N. Mill St., Aspen, CO. mage 1:Vicinity Map. Yellow border illustrates the 9,000 sf.parcel and the star indicates the portion subject PARCEL ID:2737-182-16-061. to this review. ADDRESS: 422 East Cooper, Red Onion Condos, Unit 1, Lots N, O, and P, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONE DISTRICT: CC, Commercial Core, Historic District Overlay. DEMOLITION The applicant proposes to retain the front fagade of the existing building and to demolish the back portion. The building was constructed in- 1955/56 as an expansion of the Red Onion restaurant to provide a larger dining area. The Red Onion was designated a local landmark in 1982. The designation lists "420 East Cooper (Red Onion)" as the property description. It is Staff's opinion that the designation includes the entire 9,000 sf parcel since the entire site was operating as the Red Onion at that time. 2 P3 The applicant represents that the structural integrity of the masonry on the sides and the back of the subject building is failing. An analysis of the structural integrity of the front facade has not been undertaken. The applicant proposes to retain the front facade; however if structural issues arise during demolition, the applicant proposes to reconstruct the front facade to match the existing condition. 4 .Yf t q Image 2 and 3: Photographs of the Red Onion with the east and west expansions. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, C. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen,or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located, and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and C. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. Staff Response: As mentioned above, the building was once part of the Red Onion restaurant. The one story scale of the structure is indicative of the typical 1950s modest scale of construction 3 P4 and the detailing relates to the 1892 building. While the Red Onion is one of Aspen's more iconic historic buildings from the 19a` century, it is Staff s opinion that the portion proposed for demolition is not integral to the Red Onion's historic significance. Staff finds that the demolition criteria are met and recommends that HPC approve demolition. The applicant represents that there are significant structural concerns with the masonry at the rear portion that is proposed to be demolished. Staff appreciates the applicant's willingness to retain the front fagade of the building; however should the building fagade be deemed unsafe after a structural inspection, Staff does not recommend that the front fagade details be replicated which is an issue for Final Review. Staff recommends that the applicant conduct a structural inspection prior to Final HPC review to determine whether the fagade is safe to remain. CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale,massing and proportions of a proposal. The design guidelines for conceptual review of a building in the downtown historic district are all located within the "Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives." The relevant guidelines are attached as"Exhibit A." Many of the Conceptual Design Guidelines, for example "Street and Alley Systems," "Building Orientation," and `Building Placement," do not apply to this project due to the scope of the proposal. The applicable conceptual design issues are addressed below. SCALE/MASS: Overall Staff is supportive of the proposed mass and scale of the project. The building maintains a one story scale at the street edge. Significant setbacks are proposed for the second and third floors. The second floor is setback 3' 1" in addition to a 9' deck for a total of about a 12' setback and the third floor is setback 12' in addition to a 33' deck for a total of 45' setback from the street edge. A third floor setback of 5' is proposed along the alley for a deck. 4 P5 The proposed upper floors will block some of the non-original window openings along the eastern fagade of the 1892 Onion. The historic photograph below, from the Aspen Historical Society, shows the eastern fagade without windows. Staff is supportive of the setbacks and the relief that is provided to the historic Red Onion and finds that the Design Guidelines on the following page are met. {{�y f � S Image 4: Historic image of the Red Onion showing the eastern facade without windows and the building prior to its expansion in the 1950s. Staff questioned whether the proposed building would cover the vertical Red Onion sign along the eastern fagade (the date of the current sign is unknown- the current sign replaced the painted version in the photograph above). The applicant has indicated that the sign will not be covered. Staff recommends that the applicant provide a rendering during the meeting that shows the visibility of the sign with the proposed setbacks. 6.18 Maintain the alignment of facades at the sidewalk's edge. • Place as much of the fagade of the building at the property line as possible. • Locating an entire building front behind the established storefront line is inappropriate. • A minimum of 70%of the front fagade shall be at the property line. 6.23 Use flat roof lines as the dominant roof form. • A flat roof, or one that gently slopes to the rear of a site, should be the dominant roof form. • Parapets on side facades should step down towards the rear of the building. • False fronts and parapets with horizontal emphasis also may be considered. 5 P6 6.24 Along a rear fagade, using building forms that step down in scale toward the alley is encouraged. • Consider using additive forms, such as sheds, stairs and decks to reduce the perceived scale. These forms should however, remain subordinate to the primary structure. • Use projective roofs at the ground floor over entrances, decks and for separate utility structures in order to establish a human scale that invites pedestrian activity. HEIGHT: The applicant proposes a maximum of 38' to the top of the third floor with an elevator overrun extending beyond the 38' height limit(elevators are allowed up to 10' above the building height if setback 15'). No rooftop access is proposed. The proposed height is within the dimensional requirements for the Commercial Core Historic District and the floor levels align with the adjacent building. Staff finds that the proposed height and setbacks are appropriate for the site and meet the Design Guidelines below: 6.31 A New building should step down in scale to respect the height, form and scale of a historic building within its immediate setting. 6.32 When adjacent to a one or two story historic building that was originally constructed for commercial use, a new building within the same block face should not exceed 28 ft. in height within 30 ft. of the front fagade. • In general, a proposed multi-story building must demonstrate that it has no negative impact on smaller, historic structures nearby. • The height and proportions of all fagade components must appear to be in scale with nearby historic buildings. Staff is concerned about the relocation of the existing mechanical atop the subject building. The large mechanical system, pictured below, services the Red Onion restaurant. The Land Use Code allows mechanical equipment to extend 5' above the height of the building at the point where the apparatus is attached to the roof. Staff recommends that a mechanical plan be provided at Final Review. r 1 Images 5&6: Photographs of the mechanical that services the restaurant and is located atop the subject property. 6 P7 PUBLIC AMENITY: Provision of public amenity. The Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission, pursuant to the review procedures and criteria of Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Review, shall determine the appropriate method or combination of methods for providing this required amenity. One (1) or more of the following methods may be used such that the standard is reached. 1. On-site provision of public amenity. A portion of the parcel designed in a manner meeting Subsection 26.575.030.F., Design and operational standards for on-site public amenity. 2. Off-site provision of public amenity. Proposed public amenities and improvements to the pedestrian environment within proximity of the development site may be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission,pursuant to Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Review. These may be improvements to private property,public property or public rights-of-way. An easement providing public access over an existing public amenity space for which no easement exists may be accepted if such easement provides permanent public access and is acceptable to the City Attorney. Off-site improvements shall equal or exceed the value of an otherwise required cash-in-lieu payment and be consistent with any public infrastructure or capital improvement plan for that area. 3. Cash-in-lieu provision. The City Council,upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable,may accept a cash-in-lieu payment for any portion of required public amenity not otherwise physically provided, according to the procedures and limitations of Subsection 26.575.030.E, Cash-in-lieu payment. 4. Alternative method. The Commission,pursuant to Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Review,may accept any method of providing public amenity not otherwise described herein if the Commission finds that such method equals or exceeds the value, which may be nonmonetary community value, of an otherwise required cash-in-lieu payment. The property currently has no onsite public amenity. The requirement is to provide a minimum of 10% or 900 square feet of public amenity. The applicant proposes to provide off-site public amenity in an amount that equals or exceeds the value of the cash in lieu payment. The improvements are proposed for the adjacent Cooper Street Pedestrian Mall with approval from the Parks Department. Staff Response: Staff finds that criteria 2 above is met and recommends approval of off-site cash in lieu subject to approval by the Parks Department. TRASH/UTILITY/RECYCLE AREA: When the necessary logistical elements of a commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success of the district. Poor logistics of one (1) building can 7 P8 detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The following standards shall apply: 1. A utility, trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated along the alley meeting the minimum standards established by Section 26.575.060, Utility/trash/recycle service areas, unless otherwise established according to said Section. 2. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property and along the alley. Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall be minimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site conditions, such as'an historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed. 3. Delivery service areas shall be incorporated along the alley. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged. 4. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical. 5. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a public right-of-way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for future ventilation and ducting needs. Staff Response: The applicant proposes to utilize the existing trash utility area on the property for the proposed redevelopment which already meets the dimensional requirements of 20 ft. x 10 ft. x 10 ft.. Existing delivery services along the alley will be maintained. Mechanical equipment is proposed either within the building or on the roof. The applicant has not consulted with a mechanical engineer yet since the project is in its conceptual review phase. The applicant represents that it will meet the standards listed above. Staff included a condition of approval that requires a mechanical plan be submitted for Final Review. Staff finds that the review criteria are met with conditions. VIEWPLANE: 26.435.050.B. Exemption. The Community Development Director may exempt the addition of mechanical equipment to an existing development which protrudes into the view plane only if such development has an insignificant effect upon the designated view plane. The addition of a satellite dish, elevator shaft or any other piece of equipment whose height and mass have a significant effect upon the designated view plane shall be reviewed pursuant to the standards of Subsection 26.435.050.C. 26.435.050.C. Mountain view plane review standards. No development shall be permitted within a mountain view plane unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. No mountain view plane is infringed upon, except as provided below. 8 P9 When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable building height otherwise provided for in this Title, development shall proceed according to the provisions of Chapter 26.445 as a Planned Unit Development so as to provide for maximum flexibility in building design with special consideration to bulk and height, open space and pedestrian space and similarly to permit variations in lot area, lot width, yard and building height requirements and view plane height limitations. The Planning and Zoning Commission, after considering a recommendation from the Community Development Department, may exempt a development from being processed as a Planned Unit Development when the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the proposed development has a minimal effect on the view plane. When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located in front of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will further infringe upon the view plane and the likelihood that redevelopment of the adjacent structure will occur to re-open the view plane. In the event the proposed development does not further infringe upon the view plane and re-redevelopment to reopen the view plane cannot be anticipated, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall exempt the development from the requirements of this Section. Staff Response: The third floor and part of the second floor of the proposed building sits within the Wheeler Opera House viewplane which projects over Cooper Avenue directed towards Aspen Mountain; however, existing buildings on the Hyman Avenue mall already block the protected viewplane. The likelihood of redeveloping either of the largest buildings blocking the view is highly unlikely: the Paragon Building is a historic landmark and exceeds the height limit, and the adjacent Roaring Fork Building is an existing non-conformity in terms of height and commercial design review which could not be replicated under today's Code. Staff finds that the proposal has a minimal impact on the viewplane considering existing development and recommends that the HPC exempt this project from being developed as a PUD which is the required process for major infringements into a protected viewplane. Any mechanical equipment that is placed in the viewplane (on top of the proposed third floor) either needs to meet the exemption described above in Section 26.435.050.13 or shall be subject to a new viewplane review which may be handled during HPC's Final Review. RECOMMENDED DISCUSSION POINTS: 1. Demolition of the building except the front faeade. a. Require a structural assessment of the front faeade be submitted for Final Review to determine whether it can be saved. 2. Mass/Scale a. Are the setbacks adequate to maintain prominence of the 1892 building? b. Does the proposed building cover the Red Onion sign? 3. Height a. Require a mechanical plan for Final Review to locate the existing and proposed mechanical. 9 P10 4. Public Amenity a. Off-site public amenity improvements to the Pedestrian Mall proposed with Parks Department approval. 5. Trash/Utility a. Proposal to use existing trash/utility area which meets the dimensional requirements for trash/utility area. 6. Viewplane a. Proposed building is blocked by existing development on Hyman Ave. Mall. b. Staff determined a minimal impact on the viewplane due to existing development already blocking the viewplane, and the lack of potential redevelopment of the existing buildings. c. Review mechanical during Final to discuss viewplane infringement if needed. The HPC may: • approve the application, • approve the application with conditions, • disapprove the application, or • continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Conceptual Major Development Review, and Demolition for the project located at 422 E. Cooper Street with the following conditions: 1. Demolition of the building located at 422 E. Cooper Street and retaining the front fagade is approved with the condition that a structural assessment of the front fagade be submitted with the Final Review application. 2. The mass and scale is approved as presented in the application. 3. A maximum of 38 feet is approved as presented in the application, with Land Use Code height exemptions for elevator overrun and mechanical equipment as stated in Section 26.575.020.F(4)Allowed Exemptions to Height Limitations. 4. A mechanical plan and elevations shall be submitted with the Final Review application. 5. Off-site public amenity improvements to the Pedestrian Malls is approved in accordance with Land Use Code Section 26.575.030.C(2) Off-site provision of public amenity and is subject to review and approval by the Parks Department. The improvements shall equal or exceed the value of the cash in lieu payment of$67,500. 6. The proposal is determined to have a minimal impact on the viewplane due to the existing development that already blocks the viewplane and is hereby exempt from being processed as a PUD in accordance with Section 26.435.050.0.1. Any mechanical equipment placed within the viewplane shall comply with Section 26.435.050, which may require a new viewplane review. 7. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the 10 P11 Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty(30) days prior to the expiration date. Exhibits: A. Relevant Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Guidelines and Objectives. B. Application-provided on September 12, 2012. C. Updated Application showing view simulations of proposal. 11 P12 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW (CONCEPTUAL), DEMOLITION,AND VIEWPLANE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 422 EAST COOPER AVENUE RED ONION CONDOS, UNIT 1, LOTS N, O, P, BLOCK 89, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION#_, SERIES OF 2012 PARCEL ID: 2737-182-16-061. WHEREAS, the applicant, Red Onion Investors, LLC, represented by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc., has requested Major Development (Conceptual), Conceptual Commercial Design Standard Review, Demolition, and Viewplane Reviews the property.located at 422 East Cooper Avenue, Red Onion Condos, Unit 1, Lots N, O, P, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, 422 East Cooper Avenue is located within the Commercial Core Historic District and is located on a designated historic parcel; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Commercial Design Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines per Section 26.412.040.A.2, Commercial Design Standards Review Procedure, of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, in order to authorize a Demolition, according to Section 26.415.080, Demolition of designated historic properties, it must be demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: 422 East Cooper Avenue HPC Resolution#_, Series of 2012 Page 1 of 4 P13 a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, C. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen, or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and Additionally,for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located, and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and C. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area; and WHEREAS, pursuant to 26.435.050.C., Mountain Viewplane Review Standards, of the Land Use Code, no development shall be permitted within a mountain view plane unless the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. No mountain view plane is infringed upon, except as provided below. When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable building.height otherwise provided for in this Title, development shall proceed according to the provisions of Chapter 26.445 as a Planned Unit Development so as to provide for maximum flexibility in building design with special consideration to bulk and height, open space and pedestrian space and similarly to permit variations in lot area, lot width, yard and building height requirements and view plane height limitations. The Planning and Zoning Commission, after considering a recommendation from the Community Development Department, may exempt a development from being processed as a Planned Unit Development when the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the proposed development has a minimal effect on the view plane. When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located in front of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will further infringe upon the view plane and the likelihood that redevelopment of the adjacent structure will occur to re- open the view plane. In the event the proposed development does not further infringe upon the view plane and re-redevelopment to reopen the view plane cannot be anticipated, the Planning 422 East Cooper Avenue HPC Resolution#_, Series of 2012 Page 2 of 4 P14 and Zoning Commission shall exempt the development from the requirements of this Section; and WHEREAS, during the September 12, 2012 meeting the applicant demonstrated compliance with Land Use Code Section 26.304.035 Neighborhood Outreach; and WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report to HPC dated September 12, 2012 performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards had been met, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on October 24, 2012 continued from September 12, 2012 and September 19, 2012, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application during a duly noticed public hearing, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and recommended approval with conditions by a vote of - NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants HPC Major Development (Conceptual), Conceptual Commercial Design Standard Review, Demolition, and Viewplane Review for the property located at 422 East Cooper Avenue, Red Onion Condos, Unit 1, Lots N, O, P, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: 1. Demolition of the building located at 422 E. Cooper Street and retaining the front fayade is approved with the condition that a structural assessment of the front facade be submitted with the Final Review application. 2. The mass and scale is approved as presented in the application. 3. A maximum of 38 feet is approved as presented in the application, with Land Use Code height exemptions for elevator overrun and mechanical equipment as stated in Section 26.575.020.F(4)Allowed Exemptions to Height Limitations. 4. A mechanical plan and elevations shall be submitted with the Final Review application. 5. Off-site public amenity improvements to the Pedestrian Malls is approved in accordance with Land Use Code Section 26.575.030.C(2) Off-site provision ofpublic amenity and is subject to review and approval by the Parks Department. The improvements shall equal or exceed the value of the cash in lieu payment of$67,500. 6. The proposal is determined to have a minimal impact on the viewplane due to the existing development that already blocks the viewplane and is hereby exempt from being processed as a PUD in accordance with Section 26.435.050.C.1. Any mechanical equipment placed within the viewplane shall comply with Section 26.435.050, which may requite a new viewplane review. 7. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for 422 East Cooper Avenue HPC Resolution#_, Series of 2012 Page 3 of 4 P15 a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty(30) days prior to the expiration date. Ann Mullins, Chair Approved as to Form: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 422 East Cooper Avenue HPC Resolution#_, Series of 2012 Page 4 of 4 UVt City of Aspen Commercial Core Historic District Encompassing the Commercial Core Zone District Design Objectives and Guidelines Policy: Improvements in the Commercial Core Historic District should maintain the integrity of historic resources in the area.At the same time,compatible and creative design solutions should be encouraged. This chapter presents guidelines for new Existing Character construction and alterations to existing non- The heart of Aspen centers around the Commercial historic structures in the Commercial Core Core Historic District. It is the first area that Historic District. Key design characteristics of developed in the early mining days of the town this district are summarized and then specific and its character reflects this rich mining heritage, guidelines are presented. which is the image that many carry with them of this historic Colorado mountain town. Each Location historic building contributes to the integrity of the The Commercial Core of the city is defined by district and preservation of all of these resources Monarch Street to the west,Durant Avenue to the is,therefore,crucial. This is especially important south,Hunter Street to the east, and roughly the as new development continues. alley to the north of Main Street to the north.(See the Character Area map in the appendix.) +• Sr z, Y as The Commercial Core Zone District is located at the core of Downtown Aspen. Commercial,Lodging and Historic District d"r� page 91 Design Objectives and Guidelines �' P17 Commercial Core Historic District City of Aspen Street Pattern As the historic core of the city, its current urban form reflects these origins. It is a grid of streets aligned to the north. Rectangular street blocks of 270 ft.by 220 ft.with long axes and rear alleyways are oriented east-west,and subdivided into 30 by 100 ft.lots.Buildings generally occupy the full lot width within the core area and span the full depth from street frontage to rear alley. 4 ,^ This arrangement still anchors the historical urban form of the city, despite some recent departures from the traditional hard street edge. The variety of building forms &scales is influenced in areas - by previous site-based open space requirements. The traditional lot widths continue to define the majority of the buildings in this area,either in total width or, where lots have been amalgamated,in their architectural composition, articulation and fenestration pattern. This ensures that the city center is.still appreciated for its essential human scale, .concentration of historic buildings and The street pattern frames spectacular scenic views. visual and cultural experience. Building Character The commercial buildings of the mining era establish the context for new construction, even though individual landmarks of later periods may also be found in the area.Buildings range in scale from early residential including miners'cottages to larger'iconic'landmark Victorian commercial and community buildings. The latter tend to occupy corner sites and range in scale from one to three stories in height. This area includes the varied range of buildings dating from the city's early history and representing all periods of development in the evolution of Aspen. The character is predominantly urban, while the building pattern in many areas continues to exhibit the original traditional lot width arrangement. The street fagades are strongly defined in many areas by a combination of larger Victorian and smaller scale buildings. This is particularly the case on street corners. page 92 Commercial,Lodging and Historic District a Design Objectives and Guidelines P18 City of Aspen Commercial Core Historic District Storefront context Most buildings have features associated with traditional commercial designs. Ground level * floors of the buildings are oriented to pedestrian ° views,with large display windows highlighting ,. i'.,,• the goods and services offered for sale inside. Recessed entries are also typical. A horizontal band of molding usually separates the ground floor from upper portions of the fagade and the parapet is capped with a decorative cornice. ' These elements combined to establish a horizontal emphasis along the street. Fenestration on upper floors is predominantly solid and void`hole in the wall'form and vertical in proportion, reflecting classical architectural proportions.There are,however,departures from this pattern which contribute to the rich diversity of the street. Ahard street wall as seen along the walking mall downtown is a Outdoor Spaces characteristic throughout Character Area 1. There are also instances of small scale spaces created by the set back of building fagades. They are, however, the exception to the historic alignment of building fronts.Where these are used for outdoor dining they provide attractive public gathering spaces and street vitality.The intent is to maintain the strong definition of the street wall in this area,and therefore creating further breaks in the street wall should be minimized. The resulting character is both intimate and stimulating, and in keeping with the variety and harmony unique to Aspen. There have been ` departures from the hard street edge, where more recent development has stepped back to create semi-basement space and detached or internal retail frontage often on more than one level. In many cases these have detracted -from the immediate relationship between shop frontage and public sidewalk and the sense of " J street fagade definition, with adverse effects on street vitality and the urban character within Victorian storefronts anchor the Commercial Core and define downtown Aspen. the key characteristics of building height,mass,articulation and materials. Commercial,Lodging and Historic District page 93 Design Objectives and Guidelines ' P19 Commercial Core Historic District City of Aspen Design Objectives 4. Reflect the variety in building heights seen These are key design objectives for the Commercial historically. Core.The City must find that any new work will New development should stay within the range help to meet them: of building heights,and be designed to reflect the variation in height across traditional lot widths. 1. Maintain a retail orientation. The scale and form of a new building should be Traditionally the hub of Aspen and the center of designed to safeguard the setting of a historic commercial and cultural activity,the Commercial building,whether single story or the large'iconic' Core should remain so. Designs for new three plus stories. construction should reinforce the retail-oriented function of the street and enhance its pedestrian 5. Accommodate outdoor public spaces where character. they respect the historic context. The street vitality associated with the center 2. Promote creative, contemporary design that of the city should be retained and enhanced respects the historic context. through a combination of the form and design of While new construction should be compatible the walkable street network and the associated with the historic character of the district,designs areas of public gathering space at street level and should not copy early styles but instead should above. The design of any public space within seek creative new solutions that convey the the core should be a central consideration in community's continuing interest in exploring the design and configuration of the building, to innovations.At the same time, the fundamental ensure that it contributes to a positive experience principles of traditional design must be respected. in the streetscene,whether or not used for street This means that each project should strike a dining. balance in the design variables that are presented in the following pages. 6. Promote variety in the street level experience. 3. Maintain the traditional scale of building. Architectural form should recognize existing scale The Commercial core of the city is likely to and diversity and build upon established design experience continuing market pressure for hotel, traditions,creativity and innovation in a manner commercial and residential development and Which strengthens the architectural richness the parallel needs of affordable commercial and and identity of the city core. The contextual residential accommodation. It is important that contribution of building and storefront design future growth acknowledges, complements and will depend on detailed consideration of the street enhances the existing scale and character of this fagade and associated landscaping and paving. area. 7. Preserve the integrity of historic resources within the district. The original form,character,materials and details of historic resources should be maintained. This applies to individual structures of landmark quality as well as more modest "contributing" structures. a page 94 Commercial,Lodging and Historic District d�c1 Design Objectives and Guidelines P20 City of Aspen Commercial Core Historic District Conceptual Review Design Guidelines The following design guidelines shall apply at the conceptual revickv stale. Street &Alley Systems � � 'Ft► .� The street pattern is essential 'infrastructure' z for the character of the district. The north/ r � south orientation of the streets accentuates w the relationship of the City with its dramatic landscape setting. �x. zm ♦ t The circulation pattern provided by the network of streets,alleys and courts should be retained to ensure maximum public access. It should not be enclosed by gating and it should not be spanned <, by development above. Wherever possibletr4, _? pedestrian access to alleys should be enhanced. The creation of additional public walkways to Vq ., Pr rear alleys and other public spaces enhances the interest of the city center. The networkofstreets,alleys and existing pedestrian passageways enhances access in the downtown. Additional links and an enhanced public circulation pattern can increase commercial frontage and access to the side,to the rear and also to the interior of development sites. Improved access also creates opportunities for additional commercial space,which is to be encouraged. Street Grid The original arrangement of parcels significantly affects the visual character of the area. The city was platted on a grid system of lots and blocks, and buildings were typically sited parallel with these lot lines. The layout of early buildings, streets, sidewalks and alleys still can all be seen in this system, and should be maintained. 6.1 Maintain the established town grid in all projects. • The network of streets and alleys should be retained as public circulation space and for maximum public access. • Streets and alleys should not be enclosed or closed to public access, and should remain open to the sky. Commercial,Lodging and Historic District 1 page 95 Design Objectives and Guidelines a' P21 Commercial Core Historic District City of Aspen Internal Walkways 6.2 Public walkways and through courts, when appropriate,should be designed to create access to additional commercial space and frontage, within the walkway and/or to the rear ` of the site. • See also: Public Amenity Space design guidelines. Alleys Historically, alleyscapes were simple and Maintain the established town grid in all projects. utilitarian in character,with a variety of materials and building scales. Many structures had additions that were subordinate to the main building, stepping down in scale at the alley. Others had loading docks, stairs and balconies that contributed to the human scale. This traditional character should be maintained, while accommodating compatible new uses.The continued development of visual interest in these alleys is encouraged.Greater variety in forms and materials is also appropriate here. 6.3 Develop an alley facade to create visual interest. • Use varied building setbacks and changes in materials to create interest and reduce perceived scale. • Balconies, court yards and decks are also appropriate. Providing secondary public entrances is strongly encouraged along alleys. These should be clearly intended for public use, but subordinate in detail to the primary street-side entrance. page 96c Commercial,Lodging and Historic District f.: 1 ,� Design Objectives and Guidelines P22 City of Aspen Commercial Core Historic District Parking The character of the Commercial Core Historic District is one which is primarily appreciated on foot. The human scale and concentration of walkable streets is a key attraction. Therefore the visual impact of parking should in all cases _ ' be minimized. Parking should be structured or placed underground where the scale and setting of the site affords this opportunity. 'Where a parking structure is considered this should be contained within a'wrap' of commercial and/or Where a parking structure might be considered this should be residential uses. within a 'wrap' of commercial and/or residential uses, as this building is. 6.4 Structured parking should be placed within a'wrap'of commercial and/or residential z P uses. t • The exposure of auto entry areas should be minimized. 6.5 Structured parking access should not have a negative impact on the character of the street.The access shall be: • Located on an alley or secondary street if . necessary. • Designed with the same attention to detail and materials as the primary building facade. •Parking access located on an alley and integrated into the building design. • Integrated into the building design. Commercial,Lodging and Historic District ❑e page 97 Design Objectives and Guidelines P23 Commercial Core Historic District City of Aspen Public Amenity Space In every case Public Amenity Space should be On-site and communal open space has been a well defined and carefully designed. The design long-standing priority and characteristic of the of public gathering space, its enclosure, layout city. Where it is required the form, orientation, and content, will be an integral consideration quality and use of such open space is of the utmost in the proposed form of the space. Although a importance. Well defined public space should be matter for full review and approval at the Final integrated with traditional streetscape character. Stage,its design should be envisioned at the time The Planning and Zoning Commission and/or of conceptual review. the Historic Preservation Commission will decide whether,where and in what form Public Amenity Design Objectives Space will be required. Where considered to be compatible within the Commercial Core Historic District,public amenity In the past,open spaces occurred as accents along space should be designed and placed td achieve the street, usually where a house existed in the the following objectives: historic context or where a lot stood temporarily 9 Create an active and interesting streetvitality vacant.In more recent years,outdoor spaces were through the promotion of public gathering built that sometimes eroded the character of the space. street edge. These conditions are not precedents 0 Maintain a well-defined street edge and for future development.While some open space street corner to ensure that such public space may occur, it'should be subordinate to the creates an accent within the street facade. traditional character of the street. Create an additional commercial frontage Public amenity space along the primary street • and/or space to the side or rear of the site frontage should be an accent within, and or building exception to, an otherwise well defined street Create awell defined,localized public space facade. There will be locations within the city at the street edge, where e.g. additional core where the character and setting of the site space for street dining might be beneficial. or a historic building will also influence the form, 0 Design a space that maximizes access to location or appropriateness of such a space. sunlight throughout the year. • Create a second level space designed to *. , . ensure that it is permanently open to the u public and provides interest in the form of a scenic or other interpretive marker for thelife of its service as a public amenity space. ` A `��� � ;.� Achieve second floor patio space that ' provides access to affordable commercial uses. The Downtown Enhancement and Pedestrian Plan ,�. should serve as an additional reference. a. +p' Where open space within a parcel is appropriate,develop an amenity that can be experienced by the general public. page 98 a Commercial,Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines P24 City of Aspen Commercial Core Historic District Public Amenity Space Types �y* Public amenity space is a requirement in the Commercial Core. In this area, particular types ` of public amenity space would be in character ` with the urban form of the Commercial Core area. "': 'l" These include: • Street facing amenity space • Mid-block walkway amenity space # • Alley side amenity space • Second level amenity space • Front yard amenity space Guidelines for the location and design of each of these types follow. A variety of public amenity spaces exist in Downtown Aspen.In future development it is important to focus on the quality of the space rather than the quantity. µ` I, The walking mall in Downtown Aspen provides substantial public amenity space for the buildings located there,and therefore creating breaks in the block fagade within this area to provide more street- facing public amenity space should be carefully considered. Commercial,Lodging and Historic District a e 99 Design Objectives and Guidelines ; P g P25 Commercial Core Historic District City of Aspen Street Facing Amenity Space — ---�:'- -; A street facing amenity space, usually located towards the middle of a block, may be considered. However, within the heart of the district, where _. the greatest concentration of historic storefronts align, creating new gaps in the street wall is discouraged. Providing space on sites that are located in the outer edges of the district,especially along the southern edge is more appropriate. a. 6.6 A street facing amenity space shall meet -- � all of the following requirements: • Abut the public sidewalk Street facing amenity space should abut the public sidewalk, be . Be level with the sidewalk level with the sidewalk,open to the sky,directly accessible to the public and be paved or otherwise landscaped. •. Be open to the sky • Be directly accessible to the public Y Be paved or otherwise landscaped a �5 a 6.7 A street-facing public amenity space shall rw remain subordinate to the line of building fronts in the Commercial Core. • Any public amenity space positioned at the street edge shall respect the character of the streetscape and ensure that street corners are well defined, with buildings placed at the sidewalk edge. • Sunken spaces, which are associated with some past developments, adversely affect the street character. Where feasible, these should be replaced with sidewalk level improvements. -' 6.8 Street facing amenity space shall contain 1 features to promote and enhance its use.These Street facing amenity space should contain public art and other may include one or more of the following: amenities to promote its use. • Street furniture • Public art • Historical/interpretive marker The detailed design of Public Amenity Space, with regard to guidelines 6.8,will be a matter for approval at the Final Review Stage, although it may be discussed at the Conceptual Stage. page 100r Commercial,Lodging and Historic District G " Design Objectives and Guidelines P26 City of Aspen Commercial Core Historic District Mid-Block Walkway Amenity Space New buildings on sites occupying more than one traditional lot width may provide a mid- ' . block walkway or through court within a single '' development or between two developments. This type of space shall be an extension of and a -471 complement to the street and public circulation network within the center of the city. See also Street&Alley System design guidelines. The Commercial Core is highly regarded for Y# its pedestrian character and 'walkability'. The opportunities created by the extension and 41,�: enhancement of the public circulation network has distinct urban benefits and is encouraged. Typically only one such space would occur along ` �- a single block face. This form of Public Amenity Space should be a consideration on larger development sites ' within the city. It links the potential of additional commercial frontage and access, with human scale space and circulation, enriching the Y public experience. Situated along the edge of a development site,it should extend to link with the Amid-block passage may link through a property provide access to uses along the side of a building or to businesses on an alley. rear alley. Adjacent to a residential type historic building it can provide a respectful break and a { space between the two. 6.9 Mid-block walkways shall remain subordinate in scale to traditional lot widths. f • Mid-block public walkways shall be between 8 ft.and 10 ft.in width. 6.10 A mid-block walkway should provide public access to the following: ' • Additional commercial space and frontage within the walkway • Uses located at the rear of the property A passageway may be considered as Public Amenity Space when it remains subordinate to the continuity of the block face.It should be designed to visually appealing and to provide access to active uses. Commercial,Lodging and Historic District W page 101 Design Objectives and Guidelines P27 Commercial Core Historic District City of Aspen Alley Side Amenity Space Public amenity space may be located to the rear �J 1= ; ---_ of the site in association with the alleyway. Such a space shall provide access to commercial uses at the street or second floor level. Public amenity space may also be located at the corner of an alley and a street. Such spaces should be designed to enhance the use of alleys for supporting commercial uses. -'r�- 6.11 An alley side amenity space shall be designed to have these characteristics: t 3� Direct public access to commercial space at street or second floor levels Public amenity space located at an alley should generally be south • Maximize solar access to the alley side facing to maximize solar access for the space and provide access to commercial space that maybe located there. amenity space • Enhance of the attractiveness and use of the rear alley • Minimize the adverse impacts of adjacent service and parking areas Commercial,Lodging and Historic District page 102 G�ea� ff ff Design Objectives and Guidelines P28 City of Aspen Commercial Core Historic District Second Level Amenity Space An outdoor patio space on a second floor,which is directly accessible to the general public, will be considered as a form of public amenity space when it is compatible with the historic context -_ ^� .W m and is clearly inviting for public use. This will ` w be most successful in association with outdoor - i dining space. In this respect it may be favorably considered within sites affected by mountain ►� : ' view planes. , 6.12 Second level amenity space should be Second level space shall be accessible from a public space such as compatible with the character of the historic a sidewalk or street facing amenity space. district. _ • It shall remain visually subordinate to any 7 historic resource on the property. • If located on a historic property, it may not r - alter the appearance of the resource as seen from the street. 6.13 A second floor amenity space should meet ' all of the following criteria: _ • Ensure consistent public access • Be dedicated for public use a • Provide a public overlook and/or an interpretive marker Outdoor private space shall be demarcated from the public amenity • Be identified by a marker at street level space. 6.14 Second level space should be oriented to maximize solar access and mountain views, or views of historic landmarks. 6.15 Second level space should provide public t r access by way of a visible and attractive public stair or elevator from a public street, alley, or street level amenity space. mil E R Second level public amenity space shall provide permanent public access from the street. Commercial,Lodging and Historic District page page 103 Design Objectives and Guidelines P29 Commercial Core Historic District City of Aspen Front Yard Amenity Space Certain areas within the Commercial Core retain a distinct historic residential character.This is often defined by a landscaped front yard and side yard setback. To maintain and enhance this tradition in certain areas,a landscaped front yard amenity space may be considered. 6.16 Second level dining may be considered. • If the use changes, the space must remain accessible to the public, so long as it is to be considered meeting the public amenity Certain areaswithin the commercial core are identifi'edwithhistoric space requirement. single story buildings with setbacks.Front yard setback areas may be considered as public amenity space in such an instance. 6.17 Front and side yard amenity space should be considered in the context of a historic one �i�' "I'd story residential type building.Re.WIN I! I au Building Placement m.wn man Ave. y Street Corners E.H Street corners are important elements in the N ■ street block and in the framing of many of the ■ a views which characterize the Commercial Core. Many buildings on corner lots exhibit special features that add accents. Corner entrances and This figure ground study illustrates the alignment and amount of storefront windows that extend along intersecting open space along the street edge during the year 1904. street facades are examples. These elements are appropriate in many corner lot locations and should be encouraged.Here the buildings should confirm the pattern of a strongly defined building MIN a Op I wall at the street edge. Building fagades should be oriented parallel to the street, with variation m.wn«i.,oa�iw E.Hyman Ave. p�,i w,Mo in front wall setbacks kept to a minimum. Any departure from the street wall, for well defined ■ and designed public dining space, should occur as an accent within the street block, not the a predominant pattern. The same blocks in 1999. Notice how the increased use of open Exceptions for street dining might be considered, space has eroded the building wall along the street. in the outer southern edge of the Commercial Core. These sites often serve as focal points for public activity and therefore sitting areas and other gathering spots are appropriate in the outer edges of the district. e 104 Commercial,Lodging and Historic District page Design Objectives and Guidelines P3O City of Aspen Commercial Core Historic District Building Setbacks The Commercial Core has a strong and relatively consistent street fagade line. Corner buildings,a x t't often of late 19th/early 20th century form,anchor � r the street block in many instances. Within the street fagade however there are some departures , from this where small areas of open space provide �� individual street dining experiences. g ex p � Ir. ti3 Setbacks within the central commercial area t should reinforce the objective of maintaining and enhancing the special urban and traditional character of the strong urban edge of the street fagade and street corner. Local areas of open space Traditionally,commercial buildings were built to the sidewalk edge also further the objective of the street vitality and anchored the corner.This should be continued. created by well defined dining space within the city. These should however remain as an accent within the street fagade. Side setbacks provide the opportunity to create or enhance public passageways or through courts to the rear alley, with the advantages of improved public permeability, access and additional ; commercial frontage. See also Street&Circulation 1 Pattern design.guidelines. Rear setbacks create the opportunity to achieve more creative and attractive commercial and public space to the rear of the site and alley. , *- In sum, buildings create a strong edge to the street because they traditionally aligned on the front lot line and were usually built out to the full width of a parcel.Although small gaps do occur between some structures, these are exceptions. This uniform wall of building fronts is vitally This second floor patio incorporates an abstract interpretation of important to the historic integrity of the district upper-story windows and cornice elements to define the space and and should be preserved. maintain the building wall line along the block. Commercial,Lodging and Historic District1 page 105 Design Objectives and Guidelines P31 Commercial Core Historic District City of Aspen 6.18 Maintain the alignment of facades at the sidewalk's edge. • Place as much of the fagade of the building_ at the property line as possible. Locating an entire building front ' behind the established storefront line is inappropriate. A minimum of 70`/(, of the front fagade a ' r _ shall be at the property line. 6.19 A building may be set back from its side .* J ` lot lines in accordance with design guidelines identified in Street & Circulation Pattern and Public Amenity Space guidelines. xg�r. Building Orientation Development within the core area has been traditionally oriented with the street grid. This relationship should be maintained. 6.20 Orient a new building to be parallel to its ' lot lines, similar to that of traditional building orientations. • The front of a primary structure shall be oriented to the street. Maintain the alignment of fagades at the sidewalk's edge. 6.21 Orient a primary entrance toward the street. • Buildings should have a clearly defined primary entrance. For most commercial buildings, this should be a recessed entry way. • Do not orient a primary entrance to an interior court. • Providing secondary public entrances to commercial spaces is also encouraged on larger buildings. page 106 _ Commercial,Lodging and Historic District a Design Objectives and Guidelines P32 City of Aspen Commercial Core Historic District Building Form A prominent,unifying element of the Commercial Core is the similarity of building forms. Commercial buildings were simple rectangular solids,deeper than they were wide,with flat roofs. e, In a few instances,gabled roofs,with false fronts, may have been seen. This characteristic of flat roof lines is important and should be continued ' in new projects. 6.22 Rectangular forms should be dominant Rectangular forms should be dominant on Commercial Core on Commercial Core fagades. fagades. • Rectangular forms should be vertically oriented. — — The fagade should appear as predominantly T flat, with any decorative elements and projecting or setback "articulations" I appearing to be subordinate to the dominant form. ( YES! YES! YES! 6.23 Use flat roof lines as the dominant roof form. sidewalk • A.flat roof, or one that gently slopes to the street rear of a site, should be the dominant roof form. Orient a building parallel to its lot lines. • Parapets on side fagades should step down towards the rear of the building. • False fronts and parapets with horizontal emphasis also may be considered. 6.24 Along a rear facade,using building forms that step down in scale toward the alley is encouraged. • Consider using additive forms,such as sheds, stairs and decks to reduce the perceived scale.These forms should however,remain subordinate to the primary structure. • Use projecting roofs at the ground floor over entrances, decks and for separate utility structures in order to establish a human scale that invites pedestrian activity. Commercial,Lodging and Historic District page 107 Design Objectives and Guidelines P33 Commercial Core Historic District City of Aspen Building Height, Mass & Scale The character of the Commercial Core derives in part from the range and variety of building � -- heights. These vary from one to three stories. =K� Building height with traditional lot width and creates a constantly changing cornice profile along ° } � a block face. This is the basis of the human scale, t( architectural character and visual vitality of the city center. New development in this area should continue this variation. With respect to scale,a new building shall also be Maintaining a block fagade and orienting new development with sensitive to nearby historic building These range the street grid are two key objectives in the Commercial Core from single story historic residential structures to District. three story Victorian commercial buildings. _ Two Story Scale ' 6.25 Maintain the average perceived scale of two-story buildings at the sidewalk. _ Establish a two-story height at the sidewalk edge,or provide a horizontal design element at this level. A change in materials, or a molding at this level are examples. Height Variation Maintain the average perceived scale of two-story buildings at In the Commercial Core area building heights the sidewalk. range from one to three stories. This variation in fagade height is a key characteristic that should be maintained. Variation in height should occur where the site is larger than two traditional lot widths,in order to reduce overall scale of the building. A variation in fagade height,often in conjunction with setting back an upper floor,may be required. 6.26 Building fagade height shall be varied from the fagade height of adjacent buildings of the same number of stories. 0 If an adjacent structure is three stories and 38 ft.tall,new infill may be three stories,but must vary in fagade height by a minimum of 2 ft. page 108 a� Commercial,Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines P34 City of Aspen Commercial Core Historic District 6.27 A new building or addition should reflect , : the range and variation in building height of � b the Commercial Core. . x • Refer to the zone district regulations to determine the maximum height limit on the subject property. . • Aminimum 9 ft.floor to ceiling height is to be. maintained on second stories and higher. • Additional height,as permitted in the zone district,may be added for one or more of the following reasons: - In order to achieve at least a two-foot variation in height with an adjacent A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation building. in building height of the Commercial Core. - The primary function of the building is civic.(i.e.the building is a Museum,Civic Building,Performance Hall, Fire Station, — - - etc.) - Some portion of the property is affected 7 by a height restriction due to its proximity I � 1 to a historic resource, or location within a View Plane, therefore relief in another B area may be appropriate. A - To benefit the livability of Affordable Housing units. To make a demonstrable(to be verified by Methods of achieving height variation within a single building include(A)stepping the building do--)n as it approaches the alley the Building Department)contribution to and(B)stepping the building along the primary fagade. the building's overall energy efficiency, for instance by providing improved day- Existing Building New Building lighting. d 6.28 Height variation should be achieved using one or more of the following: • Vary the building height for the full depth 42' 38' of the site in accordance with traditional lot width. • Set back the upper floor to vary the building fagade profile(s) and the roof forms across Building fagade height shall be varied from the fagade height of adjacent buildings of the same number of stories. the width and the depth of the building. • Vary the fagade (or parapet) heights at the front. • Step down the rear of the building towards the alley, in conjunction with other design standards and guidelines. Commercial,Lodging and Historic District page 109 Design Objectives and Guidelines �' P35 Commercial Core Historic District City of Aspen Height Variation for Larger Sites Buildings within the commercial center and historic core of Aspen represent the traditional lot widths of the city(30 ft.),either in building width f or the horizontal and vertical design articulation "f t of the street fagade. New development occupying a site of more than one traditional lot width should be designed to integrate with the scale created by narrower existing buildings. The ,] k architectural rhythm of earlier street fagades should also be reflected in new development to retain and enhance the human scale and character of the center of the city. 6.29 On sites comprising more than two traditional lot widths, the facade height shall be varied to reflect traditional lot width. F ,.l The fagade height shall be varied to reflect traditional lot width. y �;Ffl Height should be varied every 60 ft. ~'` r minimum and preferably ever 30 ft. of ; 7 p Y Y 14, linear frontage in keeping with traditional lot widths and development patterns. • No more than two consecutive 30 ft.fagade Height variation can occur in a number ofways,depending on site modules may be three stories tall,within an conditions and design intent. individual building. • A rear portion of a third module may rise to three stories, if the front is set back a minimum of 40 feet from the street fagade. (e.g.at a minimum,the front 40 feet may be no more than two stories in height.) 6.30 On sites comprising two or more traditional lots,a building shall be designed to reflect the individual parcels. These methods shall be used: • Variation in height of building modules across the site • Variation in massing achieved through upper floor setbacks, the roofscape form and variation in upper floor heights • Variation in building fagade heights or cornice line page 110 Commercial,Lodging and Historic District ,� Design Objectives and Guidelines P36 City of Aspen Commercial Core Historic District Height Adjacent to Historic Structures The Commercial Core Historic District is the - setting for a very diverse range of historic _ structures. Designing a building in the historic . _• district demands a sensitivity in design analysis and approach which is exacting and which will vary with each situation. The intent is that a ' new building or addition to an existing building IN' should be designed to respect the height and scale of historic buildings within the commercial core. a Historic One Story Commercial Type � 6.31 A new building should step down in Building scale to respect the height, form and scale of a historic building within its immediate setting. Building fagade height shall be a maximum of one floor higher within 30 ft.of an adjacent single story historic building. 6.32 When adjacent to a one or two story historic building thatwas originally constructed for commercial use,a new building within the same block face should not exceed 28 in height within 30 ft. of the front facade. • In general,a proposed multi-story building , must demonstrate that it has no negative impact on smaller, historic structures nearby. The height and proportions of all facade K components must appear to be in scale with Historic One Story Residential nearby historic buildings. type Building 6.33 New development adjacent to a single New infill adjacent to historic miners cottages shall not exceed story historic building that was originally 28 ft. in height within 30 ft. of the property line adjacent to the constructed for residential use shall not exceed historic structure. 28 ft.in height within 30 ft.of the side property line adjacent to the historic structure, within Iconic Historic Structures the same block face. Visually prominent historic structures 6.34 The setting of iconic historic structures influence the design character of Downtown should be preserved and enhanced when Aspen and should be recognized.These are: feasible. • On sites comprising more than two • The Wheeler Opera House The Elks building traditional lot widths, the third floor of The Independence building the adjacent lot width should be set back a Pitkin County Courthouse minimum of 15 ft from the front facade. • • Step a building down in height adjacent to • Hotel Jerome an iconic structure. • City Hall St. Mary's Church • Locate amenity space adjacent to an iconic • structure. Commercial,Lodging and Historic District a e 111 Design Objectives and Guidelines :; P g ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSIO = z 37 MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 Chairperson, Ann Mullins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Nora Berko, Willis Pember, Jay Maytin, Jamie McLeod, Patrick Segal, Sallie Golden and Jane Hills. Staff present: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Jay moved to approve the minutes of August 15th second by Nora. All in favor, motion carried. Public comments: Bill Wiener, 701 Gibson. It is important to preserve the character of this community. The height issue is now before the public because of what went on with council and the 28 feet. When we put extra height on a building we are putting extra volume on it also. There are circumstances that where a building needs to be taller than 28 feet. To do that they need to mitigate. It is time to start looking at volume and that is mass and it is changing the character. There is a formula that I can work on. You would get setbacks that create urban feel with little gardens. Jay said our guidelines indicate no setbacks. Bill said the character of this community has been little gardens, flowers and a piece of sculpture and variety around town. This is not that kind of large city where we need everything to the property line. Bill said he will do a volume. analysis. 422 E. Cooper Ave. Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Demolition, Mountain View Plane Review, Public Hearing Sallie recused herself. Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney stated the public notice is in order and the applicant can proceed. Exhibit I Amy said we are dealing with a 9,000 square foot lot on the Cooper Ave mall and it contains 3 structures. One has an art gallery and a t-shirt shop, the Red Onion Restaurant and a poster shop. The entire property is landmarked and in the historic district. At one time the Red Onion occupied 1 P38 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 all three spaces. This proposal only affects the portion of the property that is occupied by the poster shop. The structure was built around 1965-66. This application is to demolish the one story poster shop addition. The applicant is proposing to keep the fayade as it is now on Cooper but there is some uncertainty as to whether it will survive the construction process. The new construction will have a one story element at the front, a setback two story element and setback three story element. There is no residential use on the lot right now but it would be created. Staff feels because it is set back and sympathetic to the architecture of the Red Onion and adjacent building we feel the scale is appropriate. Staff feels that the signage on the Red Onion restaurant east facing should not be blocked. The floor levels align with the adjacent buildings and staff feels the proportions are good. They are at the allowed height limit and are not asking to exceed it. There is a requirement that they address the public amenity requirement. There are several ways to do that. They can physically set a building back from the street and provide cash-in-lieu. They would like to continue to have the poster shop right at the street line and would make a contribution to improvements to Cooper Ave. They are required to provide a certain amount of trash and utility area and that is being met. They are located within the Wheeler Opera House view plane. There are many things in the way that obstruct that view and some existed at the time the view plane was adopted particularly the Paragon building. The view plan slices across the Red Onion property and we want to ensure that nothing they are constructing now makes the view plane blocked anymore. Their argument is that existing development on the Hyman mall already interferes with the projection of the view plan of Aspen Mountain and they are not making the situation worse. The issues that need addressed are demolition, the appropriateness of the mass, scale and height of the addition, cash-in-lieu; trash and utility and Wheeler Opera House view plane. Staff recommends conceptual approval with conditions. Patrick said if the buildings on Hyman were redeveloped they would have to comply with the view plane. Amy said you are supposed to address the situation as of today and are they infringing further on the view plan than other obstructing buildings already do. Stan Clauson and Associates Inc. Kim Weil, Poss Architects 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION P39 MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 Stan presented a power point on the existing buildings and proposed development. Regarding the neighborhood outreach we had a meeting explaining the project. The project was generally positively received. The building is a cinder block building, slab on grade and a portion of the Red Onion Restaurant comes into it on the first floor. Kim said the dimensions of the building are 20 x 100. Stan said in documentation that we have we show that 422 E. Cooper is not historical and has no historical significance even though it is associated with the historically designated Red Onion. On the first floor there is 1,000 square feet of net leasable and the proposed residence on the second and third floor would consist of 2,000 square feet. There are significant setbacks. On the first floor to the second floor it is set back 12 feet and on the third floor it is set back 45 feet. The existing fagade will be maintained if we can shore it up. An elevator provides access to the third floor. The Red Onion sign would remain. The entry would be the same as it is now with a single doorway adjacent to the large picture window. From the doorway you would enter the commercial space and then enter stairs and the elevator to access the second and third level. There is no access to a third floor roof deck. The elevator has a simple over run on the third story. The highest point is 38 feet which is compliant with the code and then there is approximately a 4 foot elevator run. View plane The building is located within the Wheeler Opera House view plane generally speaking, but due to the height of the buildings on Hyman the proposed development will be blocked from the view plane. The view plane cuts off a portion of the third story. Because it is blocked the code provides for a complete exemption from the view plane. The blockage largely occurs from the Paragon building and the Roaring Fork building. Kim said it was not our intent to create an architectural statement as much as it was to do something of its time and respect the Red Onion. We will keep the white facade and we would step back and use brick and stone and glass rails which tend to minimumize the mass. We wanted to keep it simple because there is an alley behind it and two buildings on either side. Jay asked about the scrubber on the roof for the Red Onion restaurant and where it would be located. 3 P40 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 Kim said we will retain a mechanical engineer to determine what our options are. Codes require hoods and kitchen equipment to be up and we aren't sure which building it will be on top of since the owner owns all three buildings. New technology allows the mechanicals to be smaller. Jane asked about maintaining and retaining the Red Onion sign. With the decks and setbacks people will be living in those units and they will likely have things on their decks. Kim said the second level deck is set back for that very reason. We are holding the deck back from the sign so things can't be put there. Jamie inquired about the street entrance. Kim said in order to retain the picture window the door entrance will be right where it is now to serve the retail and residential unit. It is a little step up. Nora said given the idea that we are trying to make iconic buildings stand out and have some breathing room how can we not over shadow the Red Onion building. Stan said the proposal has very significant setbacks. On the second floor it is set back 12 feet and 45 feet on the third floor. Kim pointed out that the lot is 100 feet deep and we are 45 feet back and there is no roof deck or stairs to the third floor. Kim said it would be difficult to come back later for a roof top deck because you would need an elevator and two sets of stairs. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public comments. Junee Kirk said she attended the neighborhood meeting and listened to many of the comments. The Red Onion is one of the most iconic buildings and I would hope that you would not put the third story on but rather look at the balance of this. Balance in terms of space and space in terms of not building right next to it. The Red Onion had one story structures on either side. The guidelines indicated buildings next to iconic buildings should not exceed a 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION P41 MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 height of 28 feet. On the alley side with the third floor addition you will have a 42 foot high structure that will impact the Red Onion. This is an historic block and once you destroy the Red Onion it is sad thing that we are doing to this town and our local history. In Europe they really honor history. You should take the one story and go back 12 to 20 feet on the second story and they can still have their pent house. Chairperson, Ann Mullins closed the public comment section of the agenda item. Sallie stated that the sign should be protected and the mechanical should be addressed on the roof. Jay asked for information on the plate heights. Kim said the first floor is 13 feet and the second level to the third level is 11 feet. The third floor is 12. 6 feet. These are floor to floor heights. The plate heights would be lower. That amounts to a 3 8 foot high building. Ann outlined the issues: Demolition Mass and scale Height Public amenity Trash/utility View plane Patrick asked staff if by right they can build 38 feet. Amy said that is the maximum they can have and HPC would have to approve that height in the project. Jay pointed out that the Red Onion is the center of the block and everything else tapers down lower. The buildings behind the Red Onion are massive. If any block can handle 38 feet it is this block. I would like to see if the applicant can study the mechanical and see if they can bring the 38 feet down to 36 feet. That is an important part and we might not need the max for the program. Ann said the Red Onion is dominant on the block and we have one owner for all three lots and we can maintain the dominance of that historic resource 5 P42 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 within the block. This project does not do that. The demolition is fine. The mass, scale and height is unacceptable. It completely dwarfs the Red Onion and you will get some of the view from the west side. On the east side it will be the tallest building in the block. The third story will stick out and dominate and compromise the Red Onion. The public amenity and trash/utility are fine. I can't accept that something else is blocking the view plane. The main issue is the third story. Jamie said the third floor is over powering the Red Onion building. Jay said for what is behind this building and the large setback is clearly there to honor the Red Onion. I support the project with a restudy of the height and this project can handle the mass. Sallie recused herself. Jane will be voting. Nora said she feels we are chipping away at our mission. Our mission is to preserve what we have. The Red Onion deserves some prominence. Part of the appeal of this town is what we have in history and as we build these huge buildings next to it I have to look back and ask.what I have contributed in preserving what we have. Willis said he feels the board is struggling with reading the mass and scale. It would really help to have a three dimensional representation and show the view planes. A one story building is not in the vocabulary of this project. Stan stated that the Red Onion is flanked by one and two story structures. The entry to the two story structure comes right up to the Red Onion. The building is at 38 feet. With respect to the view plane the code is very clear and if something interrupts the view plane in front of you, you are exempt from the view plane. We could have come to you with a two story building coming all the way out to the front but in respecting the sign and the Red Onion there is a significant setback for the second story and a significant setback for the third floor. We feel this is a very respectful and small project. We can do a three D model. MOTION: Ann moved to continue 422 E. Cooper to Sept. 19th; second by Jamie. Motion carried 6-1. Jay opposed. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION P43 MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 Patrick said his issue is the third story. Jamie said her concern is the height against the Red Onion and how much higher is it. Ann said she feels the building should be a two story. If that isn't possible then there should be no view plane compromise. Willis said he feels the mass and profile is very promising and if you go two stories you will block the sign and that doesn't make sense. From any pedestrian point of view you won't see the third story. Jane said she agrees with Willis that a three D contextual of the neighborhood would be helpful. How does it compare to the street. I like the project and want to see it in terms of height context. MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn; second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 7 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner RE: 400 E. Hyman Avenue (Tom Thumb Building) - Minor Development and Consolidated Commercial Design Standard Review DATE: October 24, 2012 SUMMARY: The applicant requests minor changes to the corner portion of the existing building located at 400 E. Hyman Avenue which was built in 1981. It is a non-contributing building within the Commercial Core Historic District. The property contains 15 individually owned condominium units; 12 of which are commercial space and 3 of which are residential. HPC previously granted conceptual approval to demolish the corner building and replace it with a glass box. The applicant is no longer pursuing entitlements for the glass box project. Staff recommends that HPC approve the request for Minor Development with conditions. APPLICANT: Ken Sack, 400 Hyman LLC, 5454 County Rd 346, Silt, CO 81652. PARCEL ID: 2737-073-43-001 through -005, 2737-073-43-009 through -015, 2737-073- 43-706 through -708 and 2737-073- 43-801. Tom Thumb Building ADDRESS: 400 E. Hyman Avenue, ; 4 Tom Thumb Building, Condominium ;. Units A-101 through A-103, A-201, A-202, A-301 through A-304, B-101, P' B-201, B-202, B-301, C-101, C-201, C-301 and the Condo Association Common Area, Lots K and L and a portion of Lot M, Block 88, City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. ZONE DISTRICT: CC, Commercial Core. N Legend historic 1 400 E.Hyman Ave.(Tom Thumb) HPC Minor Development Staff Memo 10/24/2012 P2 HPC is asked to grant Minor Development and Consolidated Commercial Design Standard Review. Staff applied both the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objective and Guidelines and the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines to the discussion. DISCUSSION: Window Changes: As described in the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines for the Commercial Core Historic District, "Fenestration on upper floors is predominantly solid and void `hole in the wall' form and vertical in proportion, reflecting classical architectural proportions. There are, however, departures from this pattern which contribute to the rich diversity of the street. " 400 E. Hyman Avenue comprises two buildings: a corner piece that is the subject of this review and an L-shaped building that surrounds the corner piece. The applicant proposes to replace the upper and lower level windows with larger storefront style windows. The window change is only proposed for the corner piece, which will differentiate it from the L-shaped building surrounding it - similar to the previous concept of the glass box. The current configuration of smaller windows on the upper floors with storefront windows on the ground level attempt to relate to the hierarchy of spaces typically seen in the 19`h century buildings in the historic district, however the success of this attempt is questionable. AVY r' � . M.1' °-�fi✓ � 1 M, pww Photograph 1: 400 E.Hyman St.existing condition 2 400 E.Hyman Ave. (Tom Thumb) HPC Minor Development Staff Memo 10/24/2012 P3 Relevant Design Guidelines are below: 6.40 Maintain the repetition of similar shapes and details along the block. • Upper story windows should have a vertical emphasis. In general, they should be twice as tall as they are wide. • Headers and sills of windows on new buildings should maintain the traditional placement relative to cornices and belt courses. 6.42 The general alignment of horizontal features on building fronts should be maintained. • Typical elements that align include window moldings, tops of display windows, cornices, copings and parapets at the tops of buildings. • When large buildings are designed to appear as several buildings, there should be some slight variation in alignments between fagade elements. 6.44 Maintain the distinction between the street level and upper floors. • No upper floor shall be taller than the first floor. • Floor-to-floor heights should appear to be similar to those seen historically. In particular the windows in new construction should appear similar in height to those seen traditionally. • The first floor of the primary fagade should be predominantly transparent glass. • Upper floors should be perceived as being more opaque than the street level. Upper story windows should have a vertical emphasis. • Highly reflective or darkly tinted glass is inappropriate. • Express the traditional distinction in floor heights between street levels and upper levels through detailing, materials and fenestration. The presence of a belt course is an important feature in this relationship. Staff Response: Staff is supportive of the proposed window change on the upper floors and finds that differentiating the corner piece from the rest of the property breaks up the 1980s building and provides some interest on this popular corner of the pedestrian mall. The size and number of proposed windows meets the intent of Guideline 6.40 by providing repetition in building elements as a way to relate to the repetition in historic structures. The proposed alignment of the windows and horizontal emphasis meets Guideline 6.42. Staff finds that the increased window size on the lower level lightens up the building and places more emphasis on the storefront level. The windows on the upper floor do not meet Guideline 6.44, however staff finds that a departure from this standard is appropriate for this building and in line with the intent of Guidelines described above in italics. Signage: HPC does not typically review signage — it is usually an administrative review. The street and upper level of the building are proposed to be leased by one company. As such, the applicant proposes a cut out letter sign on the second story of the building on both the Mill and Hyman Street fagades. Display boxes with the "Panerai" sign are proposed in the storefront .windows. The proposed amount (square footage) of signage complies with the City of Aspen sign code. A backlit light that meets lighting and signage Code requirements is proposed for 3 400 E.Hyman Ave. (Tom Thumb) HPC Minor Development Staff Memo 10/24/2012 P4 both cut-out signs, however the backlit sign conflicts with the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines are below: 14.25 Locate signs to be subordinate to the building design. • Signs should not obscure historic building details. • Small scale signs, mounted on the building are encouraged. • Free-standing signs should not be so large as to obscure the patterns of front facades and yards. 14.26 Sign materials should be similar to those used historically. • Painted wood and metal are appropriate. • Plastic and highly reflective materials are inappropriate. 14.27 Use signs to relate to other buildings on the street and to emphasize architectural features. • Position signs to emphasize established architectural elements. It is best to mount signs so they fit within"frames"created by components of the fagade design. • Pay particular attention to placing new signs on existing buildings when renovating. The signs should not obscure existing details. 14.29 Illuminate a sign such that it complements the overall composition of the site. • If signs are to be illuminated, use external sources. Light sources should be placed close to, and directed onto, the sign and shielded to minimize glare into the street or onto adjacent properties, and shall be very low wattage. If possible, integrate the lights into the sign bracket. Staff Response: Staff is concerned about the impact of the proposed signage on the Historic District, especially considering the Wheeler across the street and the adjacent Collins Block. The upper floor location and backlit lighting do not meet the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines 14.25, 14.27 and 14.29. The Code allows signage on the second floor of buildings if it coincides with where the commercial space is located. In this project, the commercial space is on both the first and second floors, so a first floor sign is more appropriate. Staff suggests that the applicant work with Staff and monitor to revise the location and lighting of the sign to meet the Design Guidelines and to be more compatible with the Historic District and surrounding historic landmarks by placing the sign on the first floor, rather than the upper floor, looking into more traditional lighting options, and possibly utilizing the awning for signage. Mechanical Equipment: The applicant proposes two new HVAC units atop the building. The units are about 6'10"by 4' 2"in size, about 4'9"in height, and are located about 4' from the Mill Street fagade and the north building edge. The Land Use Code requires mechanical equipment to be less than 5' in height as measured from the point at which the mechanical attaches to the roof. Mechanical is also required to be at least 20' back from street facing facades. The width of the building is 20' making the setback requirement impossible to be met. The Community Development Director may waive the dimensional requirement in this instance as long as the mechanical equipment is reasonably close to meeting the requirement. The applicant proposes brown aluminum tubes as a screen around the HVAC units. Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines are below: 4 400 E.Hyman Ave.(Tom Thumb) HPC Minor Development Staff Memo 10/24/2012 P5 14.15 Minimize the visual impacts of mechanical equipment as seen from the public way. • Mechanical equipment or vents on a roof must be grouped together to minimize their visual impact. Where rooftop units are visible, provide screening with materials that are compatible with those of the building itself. • Use low-profile mechanical units on rooftops so they will not be visible from the street or alley... • Paint telecommunications and mechanical equipment in muted colors that will minimize their appearance by blending with their backgrounds. Staff Recommendation: Currently there is a small mechanical unit on the roof. In order for the setback to be waived, Staff recommends that the mechanical equipment be relocated to the far interior edge of the building. Staff also recommends that the applicant find the smallest HVAC units available (similar to what is already on the roof). The proposed metal screen may draw more attention to the mechanical equipment than help it blend into the background. Staff recommends that Staff and monitor review and approve the mechanical screen once the mechanical location and size is finalized. Accessible lift: The sunken interior courtyard requires updated accessibility equipment. The applicant proposes a stair lift accessed off of the Hyman Avenue Mall. The current stair lift is located off of Mill Street. Staff Recommendation: Staff is supportive of the location of the stair lift as long as it meets Building Code requirements. Suggested Discussion Topics: 1) window changes 2) signage 3) mechanical equipment location on roof 4) accessible lift The HPC may: • approve the application, • approve the application with conditions, • disapprove the application, or • continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. 5 400 E.Hyman Ave. (Tom Thumb) HPC Minor Development Staff Memo 10/24/2012 P6 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant Minor Development approval for the property located at 400 E. Hyman Avenue, with the following conditions: 1. The windows are approved as presented. 2. The wall sign must be on the first floor with the location to be reviewed and approved by Staff and Monitor. 3. The wall sign is not permitted to be backlit and shall have more traditional lighting to be reviewed and approved by Staff and Monitor. 4. The mechanical equipment setback shall be increased to the greatest extent practical and the size of the mechanical equipment reduced to the smallest size allowed, and consolidated into one unit if possible. 5. The mechanical equipment location is subject to review and approval for a dimensional variance by the Community Development Director. 6. Staff and Monitor shall review and approve the mechanical screen after the location and size of the mechanical equipment is finalized. 7. The accessible lift is approved with the condition that it must meet Building Code requirements. 8. Lighting and signage shall meet City Land Use Code requirements. 9. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board. Exhibits: Resolution# , Series of 2012 A. Application 6 400 E.Hyman Ave. (Tom Thumb) HPC Minor Development Staff Memo 10/24/2012 P7 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING MINOR DEVELOPMENT AND CONSOLIDATED COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW FOR 400 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, TOM THUMB CONDOMINIUMS, SPECIFICALLY UNITS C-301 AND C-302,LOTS K, L AND A PORTION OF LOT M, BLOCK 88, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION# , SERIES OF 2012 PARCEL ID: 2737-073-43-001 through -005, 2737-073-43-009 through -015, 2737-073-43-706 through -708, and 2737-073-43-801. WHEREAS, the applicant, Ken Sack of 400 Hyman LLC, represented by Louis Loria Atmosphere Design Group, has requested Minor Development and Consolidated Commercial Design Review approval for 400 East Hyman Avenue, Tom Thumb Condominiums, Units C-301 and C-302, Lots K, L and a portion of Lot M, Block 88, City and Townsite of Aspen; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, the Tom Thumb Condominium Homeowner's Association has consented to the application; and WHEREAS, the property is located within the Commercial Core Historic District and is considered a non-contributing building; and WHEREAS, for Minor Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.0 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, for Consolidated Commercial Design Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines per Section 26.412.040.A.2, Commercial Design Standards Review Procedure, of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and HPC Resolution No._, Series of 2012 400 East Hyman Ave. (Tom Thumb Building) Page 1 of 3 P8 WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff reports dated October 24, 2012, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards, the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines, and the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines are met with conditions; and WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on October 24, 2012, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the applicable review standards and approved the application by a vote of_to_, with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby approves Consolidated Commercial Design Review and Minor Development for the property located at 400 E. Hyman Avenue, Tom Thumb Building, Condominium, specifically Units C-301 and C-302, Lots K and L and a portion of Lot M, Block 88, City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, with the following conditions: APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 24th day of October, 2012. 1. The windows are approved as presented. 2. The wall sign must be on the first floor with the location to be reviewed and approved by Staff and Monitor. 3. The wall sign is not permitted to be backlit and shall have more traditional lighting to be reviewed and approved by Staff and Monitor. 4. The mechanical equipment setback shall be increased to the greatest extent practical and ,the size of the mechanical equipment reduced to the smallest size allowed, and consolidated into one unit if possible. 5. The mechanical equipment location is subject to review and approval for a dimensional variance by the Community Development Director. 6. Staff and Monitor shall review and approve the mechanical screen after the location and size of the mechanical equipment is finalized. 7. The accessible lift is approved with the condition that it must meet Building Code requirements. 8. Lighting and signage shall meet City Land Use Code requirements. 9. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board. 10. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the HPC Resolution No._, Series of 2012 400 East Hyman Ave. (Tom Thumb Building) Page 2 of 3 P9 development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 400 East Hyman Avenue. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall. not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. Ann Mullins, Chair Approved as to Form: Debbie Quinn,Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk HPC Resolution No._, Series of 2012 400 East Hyman Ave. (Tom Thumb Building) Page 3 of 3 _ EXHIBIT - - II L � I 1= I a 13 OF13 01 PROPOSED PERSPECTIVE VIEW OFFICINE PANERAI DATE: AUGUST 08. 2012 400 EAST HYMAN AVE,ASPEN CO 81611 COMMISSION REVIEW PLOTDAlE:OdobwrT3•ZD+s TECTURE 241MLOEXIINGTON AVE.,MOUNT KIISCO NY 10549C C (T)914,244.1300(F)914.244.0599 HISTORIC PRESERVATION FILE:L\P.—NP.—i-A,.^Cobrado\04 CDWchited NHPC Presenlnlim\HPC Rexnlal-4wg - — y � ExHiB�r AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE 1 REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE COD ADDRESS F PROPERTY: Y: � E 466 . �/K4 A Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 2 24 vJ0)t,)EF_: DkV ,201Z S P� STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) (name, please prinf) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: V// Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen(15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice,which form was obtained from the Community Development Department,which was made of suitable, waterproof , materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the_day of , 20_, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more ihan sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (Continued on next page) Rezoning or text amendment: Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation,or otherwise,the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. 41,z, eIo r� Si a e The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice"was cknowledged before =qQvach s A_day of _ I? , 20_? by l'pt,e[�I n 1 - RE: 400 EAST f YNq UOTICE TOM THUMB FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE HIS- , WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL TORIC DISTRICT AND CONSOLIDATED COM- V� MERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing °°�'X1 ��7 �A Ig will be held on Wednesday,October 24,2012,at a • meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m.before the Aspen My commission expires: Historic Preservation Commission,Council Cham- k M. ° tiers Meeting Room,City Hall,130 S.Galena St., ° Aspen,to consider an application submitted n Ken �± Sack,5454/1n.d ty Road 346,Sifl,CO 81652,the �INV owner of ths affected by the proposal.The ° applicant res Minor Development review and °.'° Commercial gn Review for an exterior remod- h•' otary Public el,including ow changes,to units C-3 01 and C-201 of the story portion of the Tom Thumb Building. Th perty is legally described as Tom Thumb Condominiums,Lots L and K of Black 88, Aires 03!29!2014 - City and Townsite of Aspen,Colorado and more commonly known as 400 East Hyman Avenue,As- - pen,Colorado,81611.For further information, contact Sara Adams at the City of Aspen Commu- nity Development Department,130 S.Galena St., Aspen,CO,(970)4P9.P778,sa adams i as pen co.us Aspen Historic PreservationMCommission ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: Published in the As 4,2072 [84527 27)pen Times Weekly on October IIE PUBLICATION KPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENT AGENGIES NOTIED BY MAIL • APPLICANT CERTICICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 400 East Hyman Ave ,Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: October 24th 2012 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, Kenneth Sack (name,please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: x - of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. x Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen(15) days prior to the public hearing on the 6 day of October, 2012, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. x Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen(15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions that create more than one lot, Planned Unit Developments, Specially Planned Areas, and COWAPs are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title,or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended,whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection i the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days rior to th public hearing on such amendments. Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this da of r"�. , 20_I , by e L% 36,. c -"vv � WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL Fs"I My commission expires: Notary'fublic ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPYOFTHEPUBLICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. X24-65.5-103.3 305-7 MILL STREET LLC 316 EAST HOPKINS LP 409 EAST HYMAN LLC 412 N PAULINA RYANCO INC 63 FOX PROWL CHICAGO, IL 60622 5525 E CALLE VENTURA CARBONDALE, CO 81623 PHOENIX,AZ 85018 AP RT 29 LLC ARCADES ASSOCIATES LTD LLC ASPEN FILM 418 E COOPER AVE#207 C/O KRUGER&CO 110 E HALLAM ST#102 ASPEN, CO 81611 400 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AVH ONION VENTURES II LLC 8.208 BARNETT-FYRWALD HOLDINGS INC 420 E HOPKINS AVE 601 E HYMAN AVE 500 PRESIDENT CLINTON AVE STE 310 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 LITTLE ROCK,AR 72201 BENTLEYS AT THE WHEELER BIDWELL BERT INVESTMENT CORP BLAU JEFF T PO BOX 10370 2870 PEACHTREE RD#427 C/O RELATED COMPAINES ASPEN, CO 81612 ATLANTA, GA 30305 60 COLUMBUS CIRCLE FL 19 NEW YORK, NY 10023 BPOE ASPEN LODGE#224 BRAND BUILDING LLC CARLSON BRUCE E TRUST 210 S GALENA ST#21 205 S GALENA ST PO BOX 3587 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 CHARLIES COW COMPANY LLC CITY OF ASPEN COLLINS BLOCK LLC 315 E HYMAN AVE ATTN FINANCE DEPT 205 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 COLORADO CABLE COTTONWOOD VENTURES II LLC COTTONWOOD VENTURES If LLC 500 PRESIDENT CLINTON AVE#310 419 E HYMAN AVE ATTN JANA FREDERICK LITTLE ROCK,AR 72201 ASPEN, CO 81611 300 CRESCENT CT#1000 DALLAS,TX 75201 COX JAMES E&NANCY CRYSTAL PALACE ACQUSITIONS LLC DUVIKE INC C/O KRUGER&CO 2100 E MAPLE RD, STE 200 C/O AERSCAPE LTD 400 E HYMAN AVE BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 230 S MILL ST ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 F&M VENTURES LLC FIERCELY LOCAL G&K LAND CO LLC C/O MORRIS&FYRWALD RE 328 E HYMAN AVE 140 PITKIN MESA DR 415 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 GLENROY PARTNERS 2.9% GODIVA HOLDINGS LLC GORDON DAVID F&LETICIA LLC PO BOX 2157 435 E MAIN ST C/O JOE RACZAK/NORTH OF NELL MGT SANTA CRUZ,CA 95063 ASPEN,CO 81611 555 E DURANT ASPEN,CO 81611 GRIFFITH LARRY R HALL CHARLES L HINDERSTEIN FAM REV TRUST 19794 ESCADA CT PO BOX 1819 4415 HONEYMOON BAY RD REDDING,CA 96003 ASPEN, CO 81612 GREENBANK,WA 98253 HORSE ISLAND LLC HYMAN MALL COMMERCIAL CONDOS ISIS BUILDING LLC 415 E HYMAN AVE#16 LLC 205 S MILL ST#301A ASPEN, CO 81611 290 HEATHER LN ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ISIS GROUP JW VENTURES LLC KANDYCOM INC C/O COURTNEY LORD PO BOX 8769 766 SINGING WOOD DR 631 W BLEEKER ST ASPEN, CO 81612 ARCADIA, CA 91006 ASPEN, CO 81611 KATIE REED BUILDING LLC KAUFMAN GIDEON I KOPP AMELIA L TRUST 418 E COOPER AVE#207 C/O KAUFMAN&PETERSON 1000 DOLORES WY#B ASPEN, CO 81611 315 E HYMAN AVE#305 CARBONDALE,CO 81623 ASPEN,CO 81611 KREVOY SUSANNE SEPARATE PROP LEVY LAWRENCE F&CAROL LINDNER FRITZ DISCLAIMER TRUST TRST 50% 50% CHI 2311 LA MESA DR N MICHIGAN AVE#400 66966 TEN PEAKS CT SANTA MONICA, CA 90402 CHICAGO, IL 60611 BEND, OR 97701 LOMA ALTA CORPORATION MILL STREET PLAZA ASSOC LLC MOTHER LODE INVESTORS LLC PO BOX 886 C/O M&W PROPERTIES 6400 S FIDDLERS GREEN CIR LANCASTER,TX 75146-0886 205 S MILL ST#301A GREEWOOD VILLAGE, CO 80111 ASPEN,CO 81611 NH ONION VENTURES II LLC 16.918% OSA TRUST 50% P&L PROPERTIES LLC 601 E HYMAN AVE C/O KREVOY SUSANNE BELZBERG 101 S 3RD ST#360 ASPEN, CO 81611 2311 LA MESA DR GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501 SANTA MONICA, CA 90402 PROSPECTOR FRACTIONAL OWNERS RED ONION INVESTORS LLC 65.784% RG ONION VENTURES II LLC 4% ASSOC 418 E COOPER ST#207 601 E HYMAN AVE 301 E HYMAN AVE#108 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 SEDOY MICHAEL 35% SH ONION VENTURES It LLC 2.19% SHVACHKO NATALIA 65% 35 SUTTON PL#19B 601 E HYMAN AVE 35 SUTTON PL#19B NEW YORK, NY 10022 ASPEN, CO 81611 NEW YORK, NY 10022 SILVER SLAM COMMERCIAL LLC SLAM COMMERCIAL LLC WALL JANET REV TRUST C/O RELATED COMPANIES/JEFF BLAU 2100 E MAPLE RD#200 9762 BURNLEY PL 60 COLUMBUS CIR BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 BEVERLY HILLS,CA 90210 NEW YORK, NY 10023 WELLS FARGO BANK WHEELER BLOCK BUILDING LLC WHEELER SQUARE-CASPER FAMILY C/O THOMSON PROPERTY TAX TKG MANAGEMENT INC C/O LLC SERVICES 211 N STADIUM BLVD STE 201 315 E HYMAN PO BOX 2609 COLUMBIA, MO 65203 ASPEN, CO 81611 CARLSBAD, CA 92018 WILLIAMS DEXTER M WOODS FAMILY LP ZUPANCIS ROBERT L 30.621% 82 W LUPINE DR PO BOX 11468 509 RACE ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 OTICE .. il Cocto _) 20,12 - Time 5pm Place : 130 S. Galena St. , Basement of City Hall Purpose : FI. r' to r -j;ew an application for ^sir � � -)evelopment to charpn +"� u . v+- jr of the two story bui!.din , larger windows. Consclidated :mercial Design Review is required. The application-,was -J . , "itted by Ken Sack with consent u; t� the 1 om Thumb HOA. k.OW. further information contact Ash- Planning De-pt. at 970-920-5090 . r 10/19/12 PUBLIC NOTICE RE:400 EAST HYMAN AVENUE...ASPEN,CO 81611 Classifieds AspenTimes.com Friday.October 19th 63°F I --, -...- aspentimes.com �lI 0T0 TO... Q I I I I ocnr�ci.` PUBLIC NOTICE RE:400 EAST HYMAN no price ASPEN.CO 81611 - Ott 04,2012 - ad id:8452727 Post Date: Oct 04.2012 linage PUBLIC NOTICE Expire Date: Oct 04,2012 RE:400 EAST HYMAN AVENUE,TOM THUMB BUILDING.MINOR DEVELOPMENT Days Online: 15 days REVIEW FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND Days Leh: Last Day CONSOLIDATED COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW Details NOTICE 15 HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, No Additional Information Available October 24,2012,at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m.before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission,Council Chambers Meeting Room,City IIaU, 130 S.Galena St.,Aspen,to consider an application submitted by Ken Sack, 5454 County Road 346,Silt,CO 81652,the owner of the units affected by the proposal.The applicant requests Minor Development review and Commercial Design Review tot an exterior remodel,including window changes,to units C- 301 and C-201 of the two story portion of the Tom Thumb Budding.The property is legally described as Tom Thumb Condominium,Lots L and K of Block 88,City and Townsite of Aspen.Colorado and more commonly known as 400 East Ityman Avenue,Aspen,Colorado,81611.For further information, contact Sara Adams at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S.Galena St.,Aspen,CO,(9701 429.2778, s/Ann Mullins,Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Tines Weekly on October 4.2012[84527271 Basa t Mm!Aass.ve Leac,l e 0i Alee C43 Map data©2012 Google- 'Marker on map represents general location for this ad. -- ®2005•e"(i 12 S1r+R C;or.;r,��recati ons.Inc. apps.aspentimes.com/utils/c2/app/v2fndex.php �/} f A f r � 9. P1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 610 E. Hyman Avenue— AspenModern negotiation for Landmark Designation, Conceptual Major Development and Commercial Design Review, Public Hearing DATE: October 24, 2012 (Continued from May 23`d and October I 01 2012) SUMMARY' 610 E. Hyman Avenue was constructed for well known gallery owner Patricia Moore in <' 1963. It was designed by Ellie Brickham, who in 1951 was the first female architect to arrive in Aspen. The offices of Charles -- Cunniffe Architects have been located in the building for twenty years. In late 2010, Charles Cunniffe proposed voluntary designation and a building ` expansion through the Ordinance #48 landmark negotiation process, which was the City's first effort to incentivize designation of postwar era properties. HPC reviewed the project twice before the = =' application was terminated after no significant progress. In April 2012, the Patricia Moore Tne. occupies the first, floo,• of this building designed bV 'iiss Brickham. 'Miss 'doore application was re-submitted in advance of occupies the second floor apiut.ment. reduced height limits going into effect in the downtown. The proposal now falls under the AspenModern ordinance (largely similar to Ordinance#48) within which the applicant can request special benefits. The project entails a second floor expansion of the existing office space, on top of a garage that was added in 2003. The applicant also wishes to enlarge the existing upper floor apartment by constructing a rooftop addition. HPC is asked to make a recommendation to City Council regarding the historic significance of 610 E. Hyman and the appropriateness of the incentives that are requested. HPC is also asked to make a determination regarding Conceptual design review of the exterior changes. HPC Review 10.24.2012 610 E.Hyman—Charles Cunniffe Architects Page 1 of 15 P4 HPC presented an Honor Award to Ellie Brickham in 2001, in recognition of her influence on the built environment in Aspen. The neighborhood where this structure was built includes several other AspenModern related properties. Relatively few of the noted postwar properties are commercial structures. It is important to carefully consider ,� preservation opportunities for this small . collection of highly visible downtown structures. Staff finds that historic designation criteria a, c, and e are met. - ` K The second component of designation is scoring the physical integrity of the building. Staff s score sheet is attached as Exhibit B. Please note that the scoring system was revised with the adoption of AspenModern and is now based on a 20 point scale, instead of the former 100 point scale. Several elements of this building were altered through previous remodels. The front entry door was originally centered on the fagade. Now there are entries on both ends of the storefront level. Originally all of the street-facing opening were arched, but the ground floor windows have been changed to have square transom windows. A lightwell has been added to the front fayade so the building no longer meets the sidewalk in the center, the basement office level is exposed to view, and there are no kickplates below the windows. The stucco color has been changed from white to a masonry color. A seasonal canopy has been added to enclose the rooftop courtyard. These alterations have affected the integrity score for the building and need to be taken into account when determining the appropriate package of preservation incentives to approve for the project. Staff scored the building as a "Better/Best" example of AspenModern, with 15 out of 20 points. ASPENMODERN §26.415.025.C.1.b. The Community Development Director shall confer with the Historic Preservation Commission, at a public meeting, regarding the proposed land use application or building permit and the nature of the property. The property owner shall be provided notice of this meeting. The Historic Preservation Commission, using context papers and integrity scoring sheets for the property under consideration, shall provide Council with an assessment of the property's conformance with the designation criteria of Section HPC Review 10.24.2012 610 E. Hyman—Charles Cunniffe Architects Page 4 of 15 P5 26.415.030.C.1. When any benefits that are not included in Section 26.415.110 are requested by the property owner, HPC shall also evaluate how the designation, and any development that is concurrently proposed, meets the policy objectives for the historic preservation program, as stated at Section 26.415.010, Purpose and Intent. As an additional measure of the appropriateness of designation and benefits, HPC shall determine whether the subject property is a "good, better, or best" example of Aspen's 20th century historic resources, referencing the scoring sheets and matrix adopted by City Council. Staff Response: The applicant requests the following site specific incentives through AspenModern negotiation, in exchange for landmark designation. (The applicant also requests some standard benefits offered to landmarked properties. These benefits are discussed later in the memo.) 1) The existing residential unit is currently just below the 1,500 square feet maximum floor area allowed for free market apartments on this property. The applicant wishes to enlarge the unit. As a preservation benefit, a floor area increase of 1,546 square feet is requested, making the total free market floor area 3,046 square feet. A portion of the FAR assigned to the residential use is actually common circulation area, garage, deck area, etc. If this benefit is approved, the combination of the commercial floor area and the residential floor area will also exceed what is allowed as a total development for the site by 692 square feet. 2) The applicant requests extended vested rights. All projects receive an automatic three years of vested rights, or protection from changes to Land Use regulation. The applicant requests 10 years to allow for the start date of the project to be more flexible. The Land Use Code states that, as a further measure of the value of negotiation, Staff and HPC should evaluate whether the proposal meets the Purpose and Intent Statements of the Historic Preservation program, which are: §26.415.010. Purpose and intent. The purpose of this Chapter is to promote the public health, safety and welfare through the protection, enhancement and preservation of those properties, areas and sites, which represent the distinctive elements of Aspen's cultural, educational, social, economic, political and .architectural history. Under the authority provided by the Home Rule Charter of the City and Section 29-20- 104(c), C.R.S., to regulate land use and preserve areas of historical, architectural, archaeological, engineering and cultural importance, this Chapter sets forth the procedures to: HPC Review 10.24.2012 610 E. Hyman—Charles Cunniffe Architects Page 5 of 15 P6 A. Recognize, protect and promote the retention and continued utility of the historic buildings and districts in the City; B. Promote awareness and appreciation of Aspen's unique heritage; C. Ensure the preservation of Aspen's character as an historic mining town, early ski resort and cultural center; D. Retain the historic, architectural and cultural resource attractions that support tourism and the economic welfare of the community; and E. Encourage sustainable reuse of historic structures. F. Encourage voluntary efforts to increase public information, interaction or access to historic building interiors. The City does not intend by the historic preservation program to preserve every old building, but instead to draw a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest in preserving the City's cultural, historic, and architectural heritage. This should be accomplished by ensuring that demolition of buildings and structures important to that heritage are carefully weighed with other alternatives. Alterations to historically significant buildings and new construction in historic areas shall respect the character of each such setting, not by imitating surrounding structures, but by being compatible with them as defined in historic preservation guidelines. OTHER BENEFITS Affordable housing The new office space triggers affordable housing mitigation, however the applicant will take advantage of a preservation benefit which is already in place for all landmarks at Section 26.470.060.4 of the Municipal Code. The Community Development Director can grant an exemption to affordable housing requirements for up to 4 employees as part of the expansion of a mixed use, landmarked building. There are no review standards that must be met for the approval of this exemption. If the property is not landmark designated, and mitigation were required for this development, it would be for the equivalent of 1.725 employees, or $242,000 if paid as cash-in-lieu. Parking The expansion of the free market residential unit does not trigger additional parking requirements, but the new office space does generate the need for a fraction of one space. A full space could theoretically be provided on-site to meet the requirement (although it is apparently not physically possible), or the owner could pay cash-in-lieu. HPC must HPC Review 10.24.2012 610 E. Hyman—Charles Cunniffe Architects Page 6 of 15 P7 find that the review standards of Section 26.415.110.0 of the Municipal Code are met. They require that: 1. The parking reduction and waiver of payment-in-lieu fees may be approved upon a finding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance or architectural character of a designated historic property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district. Staff Response: Normally a property owner would handle the parking requirement for this project as a cash-in-lieu payment, which in this case would be $28,050. The applicant is requesting a waiver of the fee as a preservation incentive. When paid, the cash in lieu fee is used for parking and transportation related construction or improvements. In other recent AspenModern projects, Council has required the cash payment. Staff would recommend that standard be continued. There is the possible need to discuss removal/waiver of one of the three existing on-site spaces in order to provide some utility/trash/storage area on this site. Further discussion below. Park Development Impact Fee and Transportation Demand Impact Fee Historic Landmark properties are exempt from paying certain fees that offset the need for the City to develop more parks or transportation systems as a result of new development. The exemption is standard. There are no review criteria. The proposed development would result in a waiver of approximately $12,000 in Park Development Impact Fee and $1,000 in Transportation Demand Impact Fee. Staff Response: The negotiated benefits are policy matters for Council to decide. HPC is asked to use the designation criteria, adopted context papers, and scoring sheets to forward a recommendation to City Council regarding the importance of the building. HPC may choose to comment on the specific incentive requests. During the three previous discussions of this project (minutes attached), HPC was focused on the importance of restoring the front facade of the building as much as possible, given the requested preservation incentives. Three particular actions were identified as important; restoring the arched windows on the lower half of the front facade, removing the canopy that currently covers the upper floor patio and restoring the original color of the stucco panels. The applicant proposes to address the stucco and canopy, but will not address the arched windows. Staff assumes that HPC's commitment to restoration of this building is the same as it was at the earlier meetings. Community Development does not support the award of the benefits that are requested without the dedicated effort to return all of the character defining features of the building within reason. It is understood that moving the entry HPC Review 10.24.2012 610 E.Hyman-Charles Cunniffe Architects Page 7 of 15 P8 doors back to the center, and eliminating the lightwell are impractical. Nonetheless, on other AspenModern projects, including Mason and Morse and Aspen Core, the applicant's financial commitment to restoration efforts are very substantial. Consistently high standards for the AspenModern process are important in staff's opinion. Historic and current images of the building are depicted below. - S y A glimpse of the subject building, circa 1960s, can be seen at the left � edge of the photo. a. 6' y x. a HPC Review 10.24.2012 610 E. Hyman—Charles Cunniffe Architects Page 8 of 15 P9 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit A." The existing building contains office space on the garden level and main floor, and a residential unit and courtyard on the upper floor. The property is within floor area limitations. The proposal is to create an addition at the back of the site, sitting on top of a garage/carport constructed in 2003. Immediately above the carport will be two new office spaces. On top of that will be a master bedroom expansion that will change the existing studio unit into a 1 bedroom. Because the proposed new construction is located at the rear of the property, visibility of the addition from the street will be very limited, in staff's assessment. Only a small portion of the proposed third floor encroaches onto the 1962 structure at all. Staff finds that the HPC guidelines for Conceptual HPC guideline approval are met. COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW The City has an adopted set of guidelines, "Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives" which are in addition to the HPC design guidelines. Development on this site is affected by the chapter that addresses what is known as the "Commercial Character Area." All of the Conceptual level guidelines address setback and height HPC Review 10.24.2012 610 E.Hyman—Charles Cunniffe Architects Page 9 of 15 P10 issues that are not generally applicable to a remodel, rather than all new construction. Staff finds that no additional review is needed, except for discussion of the applicants request to exceed the 36' height threshold for three story buildings, discussed below. Any additional design guidelines that are applicable to Final will be presented to HPC at that time. An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the standards. B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the fagade of the building may be required to comply with this Section. C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means. Staff Response: The application includes a request to exceed the 36' height limit for third story elements. When measured from the alley grade, which is lower than the elevation at the front of the building, the addition is 38'11" tall. The elevator overrun is no more than 5' above the roof height, which would be allowable. The Commercial guidelines state: 6.25 Maintain the average perceived scale of two-story buildings at the sidewalk. • Establish a two-story height at the sidewalk edge, or provide a horizontal design element at this level. A change in materials, or a molding at this level are examples. Staff finds that the goal of keeping the building scale low along the streetscape is achieved. However, the floor to ceiling height of the third floor addition appears to be HPC Review 10.24.2012 610 E. Hyman—Charles Cunniffe Architects Page 10 of 15 Pi l approximately 12.' This height could be reasonably reduced. Staff does not support a height increase to the degree that is requested. UTILITY, DELIVERY AND TRASH SERVICE PROVISION Section 26.575.060 of the Municipal Code requires this property to have an area parallel to the alley dedicated;to the service needs of the building. This area is to be 15 feet long and 10 feet deep. The area cannot also be used as a parking space. This property currently has no service area that meets the code. The applicant proposes to maintain their existing condition. Expanding the building demands that the standard be addressed. In order to reduce the dimensions, the HPC must find that the following standards are met: B. forth at Chapter 26.430 if: 1. There is a demonstration that, given the nature of the potential uses of the building and its total square footage, the utility/trash/recycle service area proposed to be provided will be adequate. 2. Access to the utility/trash/recycle service area is adequate. 3. Measures are provided for enclosing trash bins and making them easily movable by trash personnel. 4. When appropriate, provisions for trash compaction are provided by the proposed development and measures are taken to encourage trash compaction by other development in the block. 5. The area for public utility placement and maintenance is adequate and safe for the placement of utilities. 6. Adequate provisions are incorporated to ensure the construction of the access area. Staff Response: Staff understands that when the garage/carport was built in 2003, trash was relocated off of this property to a shared location with the adjacent building. We are not certain if the required service area was an oversight during that review process. The shared arrangement with the adjacent property has not been documented with any form of a written agreement. Regardless, this is not a viable long term solution, especially because the adjacent building is under review for renovation, does not meet its own on site utility/trash/storage area requirements, and has made no representation that the needs of the 610 E. Hyman property are being accommodated. HPC Review 10.24.2012 610 E.Hyman—Charles Cunniffe Architects Page 11 of 15 P12 The proposal for 610 E. Hyman shows a 27 square foot service at the back end of the garage. This is well below the 120 square foot requirement and does not directly abut the alley as required. 610 E. Hyman cannot be further expanded without providing for these functions. If the project is to go forward, staff recommends HPC consider a waiver of one of the existing on-site parking spaces. Cash-in-lieu payment should be required. The utility trash storage area could be accommodated in the former parking space, with the 15' required length oriented perpendicular to the alley instead of parallel, an exception that has been allowed for some other projects. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff has been supportive of the proposal for voluntary landmark designation. The 610 E. Hyman building represents Ellie Brickham as an architect and is indicative of post-war commercial development irk Aspen in the 1970s. We are generally supportive of the proposed addition. The building arguably meets the designation criteria in its existing condition. With designation, some of the incentives,involved in this project, such as affordable housing waiver and development impact fee waiver, would be automatic. Other incentives, including the floor area bonus, parking variance, height, utility/trash/storage and vested rights are all discretionary by either HPC or Council. Staff believes that HPC has been consistent in their direction at the previous meetings. The project has been continued numerous times due to unclear or erroneous calculations and information. An AspenModern negotiation period between the applicant and the City is limited to a 90 day duration. Council can grant extensions and has done so for this project. The current extension expires on December 23rd. If the negotiation is not successfully completed by that time, Council must either grant another extension or the process will expire and development on the site will be subject to the new regulations for the C-1 zone district, including a 28' height limit. Staff finds that approval of this project as proposed would be inconsistent with the negotiations that have occurred on the four previous AspenModern negotations related to downtown properties. The state of the building at the end of the project does not have enough historic integrity to justify the very valuable incentives that are requested. There is not a schedule that will allow for another meeting with HPC and then first and second reading of a City Council ordinance by December 10th, their last meeting of the year. The project has not made progress as a result of the HPC input to date. Staff will not recommend in favor of another Council extension of the negotiation period. HPC Review 10.24.2012 610 E. Hyman—Charles Cunniffe Architects Page 12 of 15 P13 Staff recommends denial of this project finding that the review criteria for designation are met, but the AspenModern negotiation and Conceptual Design Review criteria are not met. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A: Design Guidelines Exhibit B: Integrity Score Sheet Exhibit C: Previous HPC minutes Exhibit D: Application "Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Design Guidelines for 610 E. Hyman , Conceptual Review" 3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. ❑ Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntins/mullions, sills, heads,jambs, moldings, operation and groupings of windows. ❑ Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them, whenever conditions permit. ❑ Preserve the original glass, when feasible. 3.2 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. ❑ Enclosing a historic window opening in a key character-defining facade is inappropriate, as is adding a new window opening. This is especially important on primary facades where the historic ratio of solid-to-void is a character-defining feature. ❑ Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear walls. ❑ Do not reduce an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or door or increase it to receive a larger window on primary facades. 7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices. ❑ Flat skylights that are flush with the roof plane may be considered only in an obscure location on a historic structure. Locating a skylight or a solar panel on a front roof plane is not allowed. ❑ A skylight or solar panel should not interrupt the plane of a historic roof. It should be positioned below the ridgeline. 7.6 When planning a rooftop addition, preserve the overall appearance of the original roof. . ❑ An addition should not interrupt the original ridgeline. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. ❑ A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. ❑ An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. HPC Review 10.24.2012 610 E. Hyman—Charles Cunniffe Architects .Page 13 of 15 P14 ❑ An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. ❑ An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. ❑ An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. ❑ A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. ❑ An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic building. L3 A 1-story connector is preferred. ❑ The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. ❑ The connector also should be proportional to the primary building. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. ❑ Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. ❑ Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. ❑ Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is recommended. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. ❑ Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate. ❑ Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. ❑ For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. 10.12 When constructing a rooftop addition, keep the mass and scale subordinate to that of a historic building. ❑ An addition should not overhang the lower floors of a historic building in the front or on the side. ❑ Dormers should be subordinate to the overall roof mass and should be in scale with historic ones on similar historic structures. ❑ Dormers should be located below the primary structure's ridgeline, usually by at least one foot. 10.13 Set a rooftop addition back from the front of the building. HPC Review 10.24.2012 610 E. Hyman—Charles Cunniffe Architects Page 14 of 15 P15_ ❑ This will help preserve the original profile of the historically significant building as seen from the street.' 10.14 The roof form and slope of a new addition should be in character with the historic building. ❑ If the roof of the historic building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition should be similar. ❑ Eave lines on the addition should be similar to those of the historic building or structure. HPC Review 10.24.2012 610 E. Hyman—Charles Cunniffe Architects Page 15 of 15 P16 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL DENY HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND PRESERVATION BENEFITS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 610 E. HYMAN AVENUE,LOT M, BLOCK 99, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO THROUGH THE ASPENMODERN PROGRAM,AND DENYING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW RESOLUTION #_, SERIES OF 2012 PARCEL ID: 2737-182-12-004 WHEREAS, the applicant,'610 E. Hyman LLC, Charles Cunniffe, represented by Haas Land Planning, has requested that the property located at 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot M, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen be considered for voluntary historic designation in exchange for specific benefits through the AspenModern negotiation as described at Section 26.415.025 and Section 26.415.030 of the Municipal Code; and ' WHEREAS, an AspenModern negotiation period extends 90 days after initiation unless extended by City Council. Council passed Resolution #53, Series of 2012 to extend this negotiation to December 23, 2012; and WHEREAS, the applicant also requested HPC Major Development (Conceptual) and Commercial Design Review (Conceptual) approval for an expansion to the subject building; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Commercial Design Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Objectives and Guidelines per Section 26.412.040 of the Municipal Code. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and 610 E.Hyman Avenue—AspenModern HPC Resolution# , Series of 2012 P17 WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report to HPC dated October 24, 2012, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards. The staff recommendation was that the property chould be designated a landmark as it meets the criteria for designation and the integrity score qualifies as the "better/best" category of historic resources. Staff recommended that the proposed incentives were not appropriate within the AspenModern program, and the project did not meet review standards related to Conceptual Design Review. Staff recommended denial of the project; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on October 24, 2012, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application during a duly noticed public hearing, the staff memo and recommendation, and public comments, and found the project to be inconsistent with the review criteria by a vote of_to NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby finds that the property located at 610 E. Hyman Avenue,Lot M, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen, meets the designation criteria of Land Use Code Section 26.415.030.C.1, but the proposal does not meet Land Use Code Section 26.415.025.C.1.b or Land Use Code Section 26.415.010 Purpose and Intent, relative to the AspenModern negotiation. HPC hereby denies Major Development (Conceptual) and Commercial Design Review (Conceptual) approval finding that the requested height increase does not meet the guidelines. The property has no qualifying utility/trash/storage area. APPROVED-BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 24th day of October, 2012. Ann Mullins, Chair Approved as to Form: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 610 E.Hyman Avenue—AspenModern HPC Resolution# , Series of 2012 P18 City of Aspen Commercial Character Area Conceptual Review Design Guidelines Tlie tc loG i ,rY deli-n ,ridelinet; dial] apply at ti its. conceptual re ew <<Aage. z: Street & Alley System .• 4h The street patterns essential 'infrastructure' ' r � ; q Y to the character of the Commercial Area. The " network of streets, alleys and courts are key and P should be retained for maximum public access. These should not be enclosed by gating and + * should not be spanned by development above to maintain view corridors and permit sun and light penetration along public ways.Wherever possible pedestrian access to alleys should be enhanced. Jq The creation of additional public walkways to rear alleys and other public spaces enhances the 4 attraction, permeability, intricacy and interest of the area and is encouraged. Improved access creates opportunities for additional commercial M P ; space,which is to be encouraged. The network of streets,alleys and existing pedesh-ian passageways enhances access in the Commercial Area. Street Grid The original arrangement of parcels significantly , 3u� affects the visual character of the area. The city . = was platted on a grid system of lots and blocks, and buildings were typically sited parallel with these lot lines.This development pattern should be maintained. 1.1 Orient a primary entrance toward the street. i • A building should have a clearly defined The network of streets,alleys and existing pedestrian passageways primary entrance. should be retained for maximum public access. • Providing secondary public entrances to commercial spaces is also encouraged on larger buildings. 1.2 Maintain the established town grid in all projects. • The network of streets and alleys should be retained as public circulation space and for maximum public access. • Streets and alleys should not be enclosed or closed to public access, and should remain open to the sky. Commercial,Lodging and Historic District page 25 Design Objectives and Guidelines P19 Commercial Character Area City of Aspen Internal Walkways Parking The character of the Commercial Area is one 1.3 Public walkways and through courts which is most appreciated on foot,and the human should be designed to create access to additional scale of streets and spaces lies at the heart of commercial space. the attraction of the town center. Therefore, the • These maybe shops that face onto walkways visual impact of parking should be minimized. or courtyards. Whenever possible, parking should be placed • See also: Public Amenity Space design underground. Where a parking structure might guidelines. be considered this should have a 'wrap' of commercial and/or residential uses around it. Alleys Where it is permitted to be constructed, these Traditionally, alleyscapes were simple and guidelines shall apply: utilitarian in character,with a variety of materials and building scales contributing to the human 1.5 The visual impacts of structured parking scale. This traditional character should be should be minimized. The access shall be: maintained, while accommodating compatible Located on an alley when feasible or a new uses. The continued development of visual secondary street, designed with the same interest in these alleys is encouraged. Greater attention to detail and materials as the variety in form and materials is also appropriate primary building fagade, and integrated here. into the building design. 1.4 Develop an alley facade to create visual 1.6 Structured parking should be placed interest. within a'wrap'of commercial and/or residential • Use varied building setbacks and changes uses. in materials to create interest and reduce perceived scale. • Balconies, court yards and decks are also appropriate. • Providing secondary public entrances is strongly encouraged along alleys. These should be clearly intended for public use, but subordinate in detail to the primary street-side entrance. The visual impact of the entry to a parking facility should be minimized,as it is in this building.The opening is subordinate to the overall mass of the fagade. page 16 a Commercial,Lodging and Historic District -,> Design Objectives and Guidelines P20 City of Aspen Commercial Character Area Public Amenity Space Design Objectives On-site and communal open space has been a Where considered to be compatible within the long-standing priority and characteristic of the Commercial Area, public amenity space should city. Where it is required the form, orientation, achieve the following objectives: quality and use of such open space is of the 0 Create street vitality through the promotion utmost importance. Well defined public space of public gathering space, should be integrated with the traditional 0 Maintain a well-defined street edge and streetscape character of a well-defined street wall. street corner to ensure that such public space The Planning and Zoning Commission and/or creates an accent within the street fagade. the Historic Preservation Commission will decide 0 Create an additional commercial frontage whether,where and in what form Public Amenity and/or space to the side or rear of the site Space will be required. or building Public amenity space along the primary street • Create a well defined,localized public space frontage should be an accent within,and exception atthe street edge,where e.g.additional space to, an otherwise well defined street facade. The for street dining might be beneficial. urban form within this area is however less • Design a space that maximizes access to tightly defined than in the Commercial Core and sunlight throughout the year. there will be greater opportunity to create public 0 Create a second level space, when gathering space. There will be locations within appropriate, designed to ensure that it is the Commercial Area where either the character permanently open to thepublicand provides and setting of the site or of a historic building will interest in the form of a scenic or other influence the form, location or appropriateness interpretive marker for the life of its service of such a space. as a public amenity space. In every case Public Amenity Space should be Achieve second floor patio space that well defined and carefully designed. The design provides access to affordable commercial of public gathering space, its enclosure, layout uses. and content, will be an integral consideration in the proposed form of the space. Although a The Downtown Enhancement and Pedestrian Plan should serve as an additional reference. matter for full review and approval at the Final Stage,its design should be envisioned at the time of conceptual review. i a Public Amenity Space should be well-defined and designed to encourage pedestrian activity. Commercial,Lodging and Historic District page 17 Design Objectives and Guidelines P21 Commercial Character Area City of Aspen Public Amenity Space Types Providing public amenity space is a requirement in the Commercial Area. Here particular types of public amenity space would be in character, - ensuring that they are well defined and an accent y within the street block. These include: • Street facing amenity space b Mid-block walkway amenity space • Alley side amenity space • Second level amenity space • Front yard amenity space Guidelines for the location and design of each of these types follows. Amenity space is required in the Commercial Area. Street Facing Amenity Space A street facing amenity space, usually located toward the middle of a block, may be considered. 1.7 A street facing amenity space shall meet all of the following requirements: Abut the public sidewalk Be level with the sidewalk Be open to the sky Be directly accessible to the public Be paved or otherwise landscaped 1.8 A street-facing public amenity space shall A street facing amenity space shall abut the public sidewalk. remain subordinate to the line of building fronts in the Commercial Area. • Any public amenity space positioned at the street edge shall respect the character of the streetscape and ensure that street corners are well defined, with buildings placed at the ` sidewalk edge. Sunken spaces, which are associated with �' some past developments, adversely affect the street character. Where feasible, these should be replaced with sidewalk level improvements. 1.9 Street facing amenity space shall contain features to promote and enhance its use.These "T may include one or more of the following: • Street furniture • Public art Street facing amenity space should be located to take advantage • Historical/interpretive marker of solar exposure. page 18 Commercial,Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines P22 City of Aspen Commercial Character Area The detailed design of Public Amenity Space with regard to guideline 1.9 will be a matter for approval at the Final Review Stage, although it may be discussed at the Conceptual Stage. Mid-Block Walkway Amenity Space The Commercial Area should be highly regarded for its pedestrian character and 'walkability'. The opportunities created by the extension and enhancement of the public circulation network are encouraged. Typically only one such space would occur along a single block face. New buildings on sites occupying more than one traditional lot width may provide a mid- block walkway or through court within a single _. development or between two developments. ��� ""`�" '"""•` This may also extend only part-way through thef parcel if located away from the site boundary. �> This type of space shall be an extension of and a complement to the street and public circulation Apassageway through aproperty,or one that leads to a plaza,maybe network within the center of the city. consideredfor Public Amenity Space.Itshould remain subordinate to the overall wall plane of the block,and lead to activities within This form of Public Amenity Space should be the property or along an alley. a consideration on larger development sites within the city. It links the potential of additional commercial frontage and access, with human scale space and circulation, enriching the public experience. Situated along the edge of a development site,it should extend to link with the rear alley. Adjacent to a residential type historic building it can provide a respectful break and a space between the two. 1.10 Mid-block walkways shall remain subordinate in scale to traditional lot widths. • Mid-block public walkways shall be between 8 ft. and 10 ft. in width. 1.11 A mid-block walkway should provide public access to the following: • Additional commercial space and frontage within the walkway • Uses located at the rear of the property that are commercial in nature. Commercial,Lodging and Historic District V`� page 19' Design Objectives and Guidelines P23 Commercial Character Area City of Aspen Alley Side Amenity Space Public amenity space may be located to the rear e of the site in association with the alleyway.Such a space shall provide access to commercial uses at the street or second floor level. Public amenity x ='- space may also be located at the corner of an alley F and a street. Such spaces should be designed to enhance the use of alleys for supporting commercial uses. a k_ 1.12 An alley side amenity space shall be -: designed to have these characteristics: • Direct public access to commercial space at ground or second floor levels Maximize solar access to the alley side amenity space Public amenity space located at an alley should generally be south 0 Enhance the attractiveness and use of the facing to maximize solar access. rear alley • Minimize the adverse impacts of adjacent ;R service and parking areas Alleys can be enhanced for public amenity space and commercial use. page 20 ��� Commercial,Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines P24 City of Aspen Commercial Character Area Second Level Amenity Space An outdoor patio space on a second floor,which is directly accessible to the general public, will be considered as a form of public amenity space when it is compatible with the context and is clearly inviting for public use. This will be most successful in association with outdoor - v G"mow. dining space. In this respect it may be favorably "--- considered within sites affected by mountain view planes. 1.13 A second floor amenity space should meet all of the following criteria: • Ensure consistent public access • Be dedicated for public use • Provide a public overlook and/or an Second level space shall be accessible from a public space such as interpretive marker a sidewalk or street facing amenity space. • Be identified by a marker at street level 1.14 Second level space should be .oriented , 9, to maximize solar access and views to the mountains or other landmarks. 1.15 Second level space should provide public access by way of a visible and attractive public stair or elevator from a public street, alley, or street level amenity space. 1.16 Second level dining may be considered. • If the use changes, the space must remain accessible to the public so long as it is to Second floor amenity space should be oriented to maximize solar be considered meeting the Public Amenity access and views to the mountains. Space requirement. Front Yard Amenity Space Three historic one-story residential type buildings, 4 M exist in the Commercial Area. These are often defined by a landscaped front yard and side yard setback. To maintain and enhance this tradition in certain areas,a landscaped front yard amenity _ space may be considered. t" 1.17 Front and side yard amenity space should be provided in the context of a historic one story residential type building. Front yard amenity space should be provided in the context of a historic one-story residential type building. Commercial,Lodging and Historic District a � page 21. Design Objectives and Guidelines P25 Commercial Character Area City of Aspen Building Placement Street Facades & Corners Street corners are important elements in the 1 � definition of the street block and in the framing of many of the views which characterize the center Hof the city. Here the buildings should strengthen � and define the building wall at the street edge. 1 1 V� Fagades should be oriented parallel to the street, I, *� f ,. with variation in front wall setbacks kept to a minimum. Breaks in the street wall should occur as an accent within the street block, not the predominant pattern. Maintain the alignment of facades at the sidewalk's edge. Setbacks The Commercial Area has a strong and relatively consistent street fagade line to the south and a much varied line as building scale reduces to the north.Corner buildings anchor the street block to varying degrees throughout the area. Setbacks within the Commercial Area should reinforce the objective of enhancing the urban character and a stronger urban edge of the street facade and street corner. Local areas of open space further the objective of the street vitality created by well defined dining space. These should however remain as an accent within the street fagade. Side setbacks are associated with the more traditional small scale development within the area.They also provide the opportunity to enhance public passageways or through courts to the rear alley, with the advantages of improved public permeability, access and additional commercial frontage. See also Street & Circulation Pattern and Public Amenity Space design guidelines.Rear setbacks create the opportunity to achieve more creative and attractive commercial and public space to the rear of the site and alley. page 22 Commercial,Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines P26 City of Aspen Commercial Character Area 1.18 Maintain the alignment of facades at the sidewalk's edge. ,, '� � • Place as much of the facade of the building ' at the property line as possible. � R • A minimum of 60% of the front facade shall be at the property line. • Locating an entire building front behind the established storefront line is inappropriate. 1.19 A building may be set back from its side lot lines in accordance with design guidelines identified in Street&Alley System and Public Amenity Space guidelines. rt; Building Orientation Development within the Commercial Area is traditionally oriented with the street grid. This relationship should be maintained. 1.20 Building facades shall be parallel to the facing street(s) and primary entrances shall be oriented toward the street. Orient a building facade parallel to the facing street. 1.21 Orient a new building to be parallel to its lot lines, similar to that of traditional building orientations. • The front of a primary structure shall be oriented to the street. Building Height, Mass & Scale The character of the Commercial Area derives in part from the range and variety of building heights. These generally vary from one to three and four stories towards the mountain base. To the north, the building height frequently varies and traditional lot width becomes again evident in the modulation of the block face.This helps to express and maintain the human scale and architectural character of the area. New development should continue this variation while also enhancing the definition of the street facade. A new building should also be sensitive to the setting of an adjacent historic building and the edge of a historic district. Commercial,Lodging and Historic District u�e1 P S a e 23 Design Objectives and Guidelines ^- P27 Commercial Character Area City of Aspen Height Variation Variation in height should occur where the site is - larger than two traditional lot widths,in order to reduce overall scale of the building. A variation in facade height,often in conjunction with setting i back an upper floor, may be required. 1.22 Building facade height shall be varied from the facade height of adjacent buildings of the same number of stories by a minimum of 2 feet. If an existing structure is three stories and - 38 ft. tall for example, then adjacent new A method of achieving height variation within a single building is infill may be three stories,but must vary in to step the building along the primary facade. fagade height by a minimum of 2 ft. 1.23 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of the Commercial Area. • Refer to the zone district regulations to determine the maximum height on the subject property. • Aminimum 9 ft.floor to ceiling height is to be maintained on second stories and higher. Additional height,as permitted in the zone district,may be added for one or more of the following reasons: " t - Inorderto achieveatleasta two-footvariation in height with an adjacent building. The primary function of the building is Height varied between two and three stories,with the three story civic. (i.e. the building is a Museum, Civic portion at the rear of the lot. Building, Performance Hall, Fire station, etc.) Some portion of the property is affected by a height restriction due to its proximity to a historic resource,or location within a View Plane, therefore relief in another area may be appropriate. To benefit the livability of Affordable Housing units. 4 j - To make a demonstrable (to be verified by x the Building Department) contribution to the building's overall energy efficiency, for instance by providing improved day- p lighting. Height varied between two and three stories,with the three story portion at the front of the lot. page 24 Commercial,Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines P28 City of Aspen Commercial Character Area 1.24 Height variation should be achieved using one or more of the following: • Vary the building height in accordance with ao _� � y mss. traditional lot width. = , ��� • Set back the upper floor to vary the building -� - # � • fagade profile(s) and the roof forms across the width and the depth of the building. "' y, • Vary the fagade (or parapet) heights at the front. • Step down the rear of the building towards • '' , ti ' the alley, in conjunction with other design standards and guidelines. - Buildings on sites larger than two traditional lot widths should be Height Variation for Larger Sites designed to reflect the traditional scale of development. Buildings within the commercial center and historic core of Aspen represent the traditional lot widths of the city(30 ft.),either in building width or the horizontal and vertical design articulation of - the street fagade.This pattern should be expressed in the Commercial Area. New development occupying a site of more than one traditional lot width should be designed to integrate with the scale created by narrower existing buildings. The architectural rhythm of earlier street facades should also be reflected in new development to retain and enhance the human scale and character 'l.: of the center of the city. Height varied between one and two stories, in the center of a 1.25 On sites comprising more than two three-lot building. traditional lot widths, the facade height shall be varied to reflect traditional lot width. • The fagade height shall be varied to reflect traditional lot width. Height should be varied every 60 ft. minimum and preferably every 30 ft. of linear frontage in keeping with traditional lot widths and development patterns. '4Z 11 • No more than two consecutive 30 ft.fagade modules maybe three stories tall,within an '`l � individual building. At Q+a • A rear portion of a third module may rise to three stories, if the front is set back a minimum of 40 feet from the street fagade. Height varied between two and three stories. (e.g. at a minimum,the front 40 feet may be no more than two stories in height.) Commercial,Lodging and Historic District u � page 25 Design Objectives and Guidelines P29 Commercial Character Area City of Aspen 1.26 Buildings on sites comprising more .- than two traditional lot widths shall achieve a _ minimum of two of the following: ? Variation in height of building -modules across the site Variation in massing achieved through i upper floor setbacks, the roofscape form ? and variation in upper floor heights Variation in building fagade heights or cornice line Historic One Story p Commercial Type Height Adjacent to Historic Structures Building 12 Designing a building within the immediate Building facade height shall be a maximum of one floor higher setting of a historic building demands a sensitivity within 30 ft.ofan adjacent single story historic building. in design analysis and approach which is exacting and which will vary with each situation. The intent is that a new building or addition to an - -" existing building should be designed to respect the height and scale of historic buildings within the Commercial Area. 1.27 Anew building should step down in scale "t to respect the height,form and scale of a historic 1 ' building within its immediate setting. Historic One Story Residential" 1.28 New development adjacent to a single type Building story historic building that was originally constructed for residential use shall not exceed New infill adjacent to historic miners cottages shall not exceed 28 ft.in height within 30 ft. of the side property 28 ft. in height within 30 ft.of the property line adjacent to the line adjacent to the historic structure within the historic structure. same block face. r. k-„ � 1 Locate amenity space adjacent to a historic residential type site or structure where feasible. page 26W Commercial,Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines P30 FA�A L INTEGRITY SCORING If a statement is true, circle the number of points associated with that true statement. LOCATION OF ON • The building is in its original location. 2 points The building has been shifted on the original parcel, but maintains its original 1 point alignment and/or proximity to the street. The property is located within the geographical area surrounded by Castle Creek, the Roaring Fork River and Aspen Mountain. 1 point The property is outside of the geographical area surround by Castle Creek, the Raoring Fork River and Aspen Mountain. 1/2 point The form of the building (footprint, roof and wall planes) are unaltered from the original design. 3 points a.) The form of the building has been altered but less than 25% of the original walls have been removed, OR b.) The alterations to the form all occur at the rear of the subject building, OR 2 points c.) The form of the building has been altered but the addition is less than 50% of the size of the original building, OR d.) There is a roof top addition that is less than 50% of the footprint of the roof. Exterior. The original exterior materials of the building are still in place, with the 2 points exception of normal maintenance and repairs. 50% of the exterior materials have been replaced, but the replacements 1 point match the original condition. Windows doors The original windows and doors of the building are still in place, with the 2 points exception of normal maintenance and repairs. 50% of the original windows and doors have been replaced, but the 1 point replacements match the original condition. Best: 15 • to 20 points Integrity Score (this page) maximum of 10 points: Better: 12 • to points Character Defining Features Score (first page) maxi- "' ' to points mum of 10 points: Not = ' " HISTORIC ASSESSMENT SCORE: Character Defining Features of the Bauhaus/International Style 1) Simple geometric forms, both in plan and 7X 8) Entry is usually marked by a void in the wall,❑ Check box if elevation a cantilevered screen element, or other 2) Flat roofs, usually single story 7 architectural clue that directs one into the statement is true. composition 1 point per box. 3) Proportions are long and low, horizontal lines g)Buildings are connected to nature through are emphasized the use of courtyards, wall elements that 4) Asymmetrical arrangement of elements ❑ extend into the landscape, and areas of glazing that allow a visual connection to the natural 5) Windows are treated as slots in the wall environment surface,either vertically or horizontally, or 10) Schemes are monochromatic, using glazing appears as a curtain wall neutral colors. Primary colors are used for X 6) Detailing is reduced to the composition of accents. elements rather than decorative effects A building must have 6 of the 10 7) Materials are generally manufactured and ❑X character defining features, either standardized, surfaces are smooth, with minimal or present or clearly documented no detail at window jambs, grade, and roof edge through photographic of physical evidence to qualify as Bauhaus/International Style. ,.� Restoration may be required as part of the award of incentives. . , If the property earned 6 or more points, continue to the next page. If the property earned less than 6 points, scoring ends. n Y 'Al T7 otal Points, 0 - 10 P32 IEV— k/l L ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8 2010 Sarah said in the drawings the breezeway is lower. Chris said the breezeway is about 15 inches lower so we don't have a lot of play. We would like to get as high as we can. Jamie said per the two drawings the ridge is exactly the same and we need to make sure the breezeway is lower and that condition should be in the resolution. Ann said regarding the light well, it would go to the project monitor first and if they are uncomfortable it would then go to the board. Jay said he recommends that the public come and address the commission at the time that it is offered. MOTION. Ann moved to approve resolution #I5 as proposed. Sarah amended condition #1: The reconfigured breezeway is approved to be below the ridge and eave of the garage. Motion second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried 6-0. 610 E. Hyman Ave. —Landmark Designation, Major Development and Commercial Design Review, Ordinance #48 negotiation, Public Hearing Public notice - Exhibit I Photo of bldg. —Exhibit II Drawing of the building—Exhibit III Amy said 610 E. Hyman was built for Patricia Moore and her well known Aspen Gallery in 1963 and it was designed by Ellie Brickham, Aspen's first woman architect. She attended the University of Colorado and worked with Herbert Bayer before opening her own firm. Charles Cunniffe is the owner of the building. He is here to discuss voluntary designation and an addition to the back of the house that adds a penthouse element. Staff finds that the landmark criteria are met, particularly criteria C. This 1960 building relates to new formalism. As part of the designation we need to look at the integrity scoring process. Staff scored 75 and the assessment was due to the alternations in the front of the building. 4 P33 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2010 There is a removable canopy at the top of the building that has created a cover that was previously opened to the sky. It has a barrel vault shape to it and it changes the light in the space and affects the way the space looks. It is reversible but scoring points were removed due to the change. The ground level previously had arched openings similar to the top level and they have been changed to a more of a squared off transom. The-entry doors were originally centered in the building and now moved to the outer edges. The garden level did not exist historically. In the integrity score we brought points down because the stucco appears to be originally white. Staff feels this building is worth saving because we don't have very many examples of Ellie Brickham's work. Amy said in terms of the HPC guidelines the addition is sympathetic and not visible from the street. Some of the incentives are standard and some are new ideas that can be brought up for voluntary designation of a modern building. 1. 500 square foot FAR bonus is being requested. Staff feels some of the previous alterations should be considered to be taken back to the original Ellie Brickham design.. Staff is not suggesting changing the floor plan of the building. 2. A parking waiver is being requested. A site visit occurred today and there doesn't seem like there is any additional space for parking. As a landmark incentive we are suggesting that the requirement be waived. They should not have to provide anything on-site and they should also have the waiver of the cash-in-lieu fee which has the value of about $28,000. Landmark buildings are exempt from affordable housing mitigation. The two new offices would generate around $250,000. They do not have on-site trash storage right now and they share with the building next door. This might be concerning if there is an addition being made and we don't want to end up with a dumpster in the alley in the future which is not an acceptable solution. On a free market residential unit in the downtown there is a cap of 2,000 square feet and they would like to exceed that. Typically the only way to do that is purchase a TDR, transfer development right and they do not want to do that. TDR's are worth around $250,000. and they would like to have the development right without having to pay that. There is a request to not provide an elevator in the building. This would cause a significant challenge in accessibility. In talking to the Building Dept. this would probably not be waived. The applicant is requesting rights for 12 years. This gives the applicant the time to decide 5 P34 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8,2010 when to build. At the final review we should discuss restoration efforts. They are also asking for a one foot in height increase for the addition which is allowable for any building historic or not. The standard is no more than 36 feet tall and they are asking for 40 feet on the elevator. On the addition we are requesting that it be set in a foot or so, so the fagade isn't just up three stories. Mitch Haas, Haas planning. Mitch said we are land marking the building in exchange for incentives. It is not our intent to landmark and undo changes that were done for very good reasons in the first place. All the changes proposed are on non-historic portions of the property and they are fully set back from the property some 40 feet from the street fagade. Asking for the height is allowed through the Commercial Design review. There is an existing free market studio in the building and the allowable FAR is 13 square feet more than what is already there. The building has a lot of common space due to the split levels so a good chunk gets pro-rated into the free market floor area. The only way to expand the apartment is through the Ordinance #48 negotiations and we feel we have done that where it is in the back on the non-historic part of the building. Charles has off-site offices which are being rented. The proposal is to ad a bedroom. We feel it is not much to ask in exchange for forever having this property designated and HPC will have purview over the property. Charles Cunniffe, owner On the trash service needs I have an agreement with the neighbor that has a dumpster that we use and their recycling needs come to our building. In the covered back we can always add a trash can. Council approved the addition with the recycled cans as being adequate for our building. Almost everything we do is recyclable materials, glass, newspaper and magazines. Regarding the minor setback from the alley we can explore that but it does cut into the bedroom space. Regarding the restoration the awning serves as a valuable purpose. It serves as a snow removal area. There is no place to throw the snow that collects there and having the awning allows the snow to roll back to the roof and then melts and goes down the roof drains. I can control snow management by virtue of the awning. The fagade location has not changed and the window line has always been there. Splitting the entries allows the downstairs to be open when the upstairs isn't. Adding the light well allowed light to the lower level and ventilation. This is an improvement that doesn't detract from the history or look of the building. 6 P35 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8. 2010 The monochromatic look makes the building hold together. The columns by themselves look like sticks. The white stucco with brick columns doesn't hold well together. Questions: Jamie asked about the height. Charles said there is a slight slope from sidewalk to alley. On the street side the height would comply but on the back there is a one foot height difference request. Nora asked Charles to explain the evolution of the changes of the building by date. Charles said he bought the building in 1989. The first change was a tenant request which was moving the door from the center to the two sides. It was important to not alter the columns and we stayed with non--structural changes. The light well was done in 1991. When I moved in the space in the late 90's is when the windows were changed. The awning windows now double the view and light coming in. The existing stucco was painted at that time. In 2002 the garage and lower level were added. Chairperson, Sarah Broughton opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Land marking: Jay said the changes to the door specifically affect the landmark. The addition of the awning is not in the spirit of the original design. If we vote for land marking I would prefer to have input on color to preserve the original intent. Charles added that this building is a good example of a single occupant and business residence and there aren't many of those left. It is a mixed us building that was designed as a residence and a gallery. Ann said she feels the building is modified way beyond land marking it. You have lost the essence of the design. There is real lightness with the arches on either story and the transparency of the top. The original was a very graceful looking building. If you had the open roof top garden that would be fabulous. Changing the arches and moving the entrance I couldn't support designation of this building the way it is right now. 7 P36 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8. 2010 Nora said if this building is landmarked how far back could the changed be removed. Charles said except for the door being moved it is not that much different. The door has been pushed to the side but it is still within the arched definitions. I don't feel that is a negative at all. The atrium inside was totally dysfunctional and a waste of space. Nora said land marking is because it is a building that has historic value. Charles said he thought the changes were in the Spirit of the Ellie Brickham building. I tried to do nothing evasive structurally. The taking of the lower arches does not denigrate the building. Jason said Ellie Brickham was trying to duplicate aqueducts and show the verticality of a downtown building with brick columns with the lightness and transparence of an aqueduct. She had a one-story building on the ground with a transparent light structure above. She was taking a one-story building and making it look like a two-story structure. The lightness of the upper piece makes the building special. When you cap it and get the light out that transparency is Iost. I need to see an effort to make this a great project. A light weight solar panel collecting PV roof that is semi-transparent Iike the one in Wagner Park so you get light and see through the entire thing is a suggestion. You need to get back to the original reading of the building. Jamie said she is in agreement with the rest of the board members in getting the fagade back to the original state. For designation it is getting the arches back and the light and dark coming back instead of monolithically. Sarah said in order to recommend historic designation under criteria C you need to do significant restorations of the building in order to get it back to the period of significance. I would be curious to see how the bringing the door back would work. Charles said the door is in the middle of the conference room and can't be changed. Sarah also commented that the arches are significant. The proposed back is incongruent to the original design. 8 P37 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2010 Jay said it also needs to be mentioned if we designate we would be preserving mass and scale of the building. With the new land use code height can go to 46 feet. The idea of restoration is good but by preserving what is left is preserving mass and scale in town. Mitch said a good portion of this commission is taking the approach of all or nothing. Unless you restore it back we aren't working with you. Jay said we have the opportunity to preserve and work with these people. This is not an exceptional piece of property that would warrant all the requests and incentives. I don't want to see this die immediately and would like to see what can be done. Maybe there is a medium that we all can work with. Charles said with the appraisal etc. he is giving up a lot if this is designated and he is willing to do it. A bedroom is needed for his family. The doors are just window infill's between columns. The architecture is the form of the building which within are infill's. Amy said this is the first time the HPC is dealing with a Post War designation application in which the building is somewhat altered. This building has gone through changes. Charles came here tonight to designate the building as is and the HPC is on the opposite of the spectrum where you want to see the building as it was. The applicant needs to determine if he has any flexibility and the HPC needs to think about flexibility. Charles said he is the second owner of this building since 1962. The building is relatively unaltered. The alterations I made are non-invasive and non-structural. I understand the merit of what this board does and as an applicant it is painful to weight what you are giving up and I am asking for flexibility. The awning is a removable device. Jamie said she is fine where the doors are because I agree that it is more of an infill. The lower arches and upper awning should be gone in order to make that an airy two building approach and to restore it back in order to do the designation. Charles said Jason mentioned the roof and translucent solar panels. You would get the best of both worlds, the light coming through plus the solar energy. 9 P38 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2010 Jamie said she would be willing to look at that. With the stairway going up to the next level what would the head clearance be and would it be fully covered or not. Charles said it could probably be done with a hatch. Jason said there would be a flat panel over the entire thing like what they are doing for the art museum. Ann pointed out that the building in its current condition doesn't qualify for designation and it doesn't meet any of the three criteria. Ordinance#48 is a whole different program. With the task force they would not have considered this building because it has been so modified. Ann said the building is fine but it is not an example of Ellie Brickham's work. Jay said possibly we should recommend to council to take this property off the Ordinance #48 list. Sarah said in the current state it doesn't fit the criteria for designation. That doesn't mean that there isn't a middle ground. I would be willing to see a solution keeping the doors where they are. We need to see something come back so that we feel we are meeting the criteria. Mitch said it is about the opportunity of keeping this building and work with doing some preservation. Sarah said she is willing to look at a middle ground. The middle course of arched is critically important to the historic significance of the building. Charles suggested the doors stay where they are and the translucent awning/solar panels add light and put the arches back above the awning window so that it is in a panel. You would still get the arch but the transom window would stay and the arch appears. Nora said if we are designating an Ellie Brickham building it needs to look like an Ellie Brickham building. You need the light coming into the building. 10 P39 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2010 Charles said emotionally he doesn't agree that it has been transformed because he tried very hard to do things in keeping with the architecture and not alter the building to where it is unrecognizable. I made it more livable in the spirit of her work. I was trying to improve her building to make it more functional. Jason said he is willing to look at options in order to make this an exceptional project. Jason said he is flexible on the door but likes the exhibit that was presented. The transparent view up through the roof is good and the color is important, the vertical columns are one color and the white infill for the arches. Back of the building comments: Jason said he would like a response to the rhythm of the columns. Sarah said she would like to see original drawings of the back of the building before the alterations occurred. Jay said the translucent roof would lessen the mass of the building from the front view. Jamie suggested a little more relief on the back due to the vertical wall. MOTION.- Jay moved to continue 610 E. Hyman to 112612011; second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION. Jay moved to adjourn; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 11 P40 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 26, 2011 Motion: Jason moved to create an alternate vice-chair position, second by Brian. All in favor, motion carried. Jim said that position is in the event that the chair or vice-chair aren't present. Motion: Sarah moved to nominate Jay as alternate vice-chair; second by Jason. All in favor, motion carried. 610 E. Hyman—Landmark Designation —Major Development—Public Hearing— Ord. #48 negotiation- Commercial Design Review Amy said staff is interested and supportive of this building being a landmark and we find that it meets the criteria and the negotiated benefits are appropriate except for the request to waive the accessibility requirements. At the last meeting it was clear that more restoration of this building is necessary to truly convey what4ts original character was. We did get some information in the packet about restoration on the front facade about recreating the arches over the ground floor windows and putting in a translucent canopy for the upper floor courtyard. Right now there is a vinyl vaulted piece that is up off and on which is distracting from the original architecture. The submitted materials did not give us enough information to say that it was adequate. Exhibit I—New photographs Staff does not have any particular concerns about the addition and we are recommending continuation. Mitch Haas and Janver Darrington presented for the owner Charles Cunniffe Mitch said Charles is unavailable and we cannot make decisions but can explain the rationale around our presentation. Janver said the photograph handed out is of the city shops anodized material above the windows and it shows the infill panel. Amy suggested spandrel glass but we haven't received the samples yet. The second photograph is of the canopy we are suggesting. Regarding the trash that was mentioned in the memo we have an agreement with the neighbor to put our trash in their container and they put their recycling in our recycling bins. 2 P41 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 26, 2011 Janver said regarding the materials on the alley side we favor a single material rather than a two tiered material. We are going to a lighter color and the only view is from the alley. The samples of the photovoltaic canopy material have not arrived . Clarification: Sarah asked when the horizontal band was added to the window because it was not there originally. Nora agreed that the brow was never there originally. Janver said on top of the parapet is just a metal cap. That metal piece could be part of the canopy attachment. Sarah said if the canopy goes away.will that horizontal banding go away. Janver said they have not figured out how the photovoltaic system is attached. Sarah clarified that the rendering is overplayed a little. Sarah asked if there is any way to do the arched windows within the height of the historic proportion of the windows on the first level. Mitch said the arches shown are more of a facade than a window. Sarah_ asked why the decision was made to make the arches higher than they were historically. Janver said Charles wants to keep the awning windows as they are and add the arched element above to simulate the original arched windows. The windows are all fixed. We are trying to keep the same curved radius as above. Nora said she has been struggling with this building for two months. How far are you willing to go back to the original design. The operative word is restoration. Or do we start at a different place and say this is a compromised building and there is a compromised discussion. Mitch said it is his understanding that Charles is not willing to back 100% on restoration. The points he is unwilling to budge on are putting the doors back in the center and getting rid of the garden level and taking out his operable glass window. 3 P42 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 26, 2011 Mitch said the arched topped windows at the base of the building have been changed. At the garden level there are offices with a conference room above it. That part has not been real flexible. The stucco color has been changed. We are trying to figure out the canopy. The roof, canopy opening, and the lower arch openings we are trying to work with. Nora asked if they would consider re-working the proportion of the arches. Mitch said you can't without replacing the operable windows. Janver said if you had operable windows below the arched tops the bottom of the arched windows would be at eye level which would be impractical. Jason asked if there was discussion about reworking the south fagade. At the last meeting we talked about the rhythm and the proportions of the brick columns on the south facade. Janver said it is set back so far we didn't think there was a relationship. Jason said on the west fagade we need to talk about the windows and why there isn't fenestration to break down the mass and height. Janver said that level is new office space and those windows would have to be fire resistance because it is a party wall. Chairperson, Sarah Broughton opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Preservation: Ann commented that she is not sure this property should be landmarked. It has changed so far from the original with simulations. Simulations are not restorations. The arches are in a different place and economically it is not feasible to take it back to the original. The entrance and light are all important parts of this building and they are all gone. Brian said he does not have enough information to make a decision one way or the other. MOTION. Ann moved to not designate 610 E. Hyman; second by Nora. Discussion: 4 P43 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 26, 2011 Jason said he is not willing to give up on this and we are not done negotiating and we need to get a compromise. I can bend on the door and keep it where it is presently. If we had the transparent roof that would be a compromise. The arches in the original location is the key and I would be willing to have a metal panel so you can have a functioning window which is a compromise. The brick columns need to read like they are going into space which was the intent of Ellie Brickam. We can accomplish designation on this building. Sarah said she has similar views as Ann. There have been so many alterations. Is this a new use and a new life of this building. Sarah commended the applicant for voluntarily coming in for designation. The facade needs to get back to the original configuration. I am flexible on the door location and understand why they have moved. I would also like to see the arches brought down for the mass proportions that were there historically. Ann said it is a building that has evolved and has been changed out for the users. It has changed too far from the Ellie Brickham building. This building should not be part of Ord. #48 negotiations and should go through a normal process. Brian said he likes the building and it has evolved but it does contribute to the downtown area and the streetscape. It is a trade off as they are requesting the 500 square foot FAR and no parking mitigations. This building has parking issues but I am willing to have the applicant come back. Sarah said she is also willing to continue the application because the owner is not present. Jason said this needs to be an exemplary project and we are basically talking about the south facade. Sarah said the beauty in this building is it's simplicity. The proportions are everything. Mitch pointed out that structurally the doors moved out of the center. The columns have not changed and the brick work has not changed. The upper 5 P44 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 26, 2011 windows and openings haven't been changed. Not everything has changed on this building. Vote on Ann's motion: Ann,yes; Nora, yes; Jason, no; Brian, no; Sarah, no. Motion denied 3-2. Mitch said we need to look at the restoration and incentive package. MOTION: Brian moved to continue 610 E. Hyman to February 23rd, second by Jason. Ann, no; Nora, no; Jason, yes; Brian, yes; Sarah, yes. Motion carried 3-2. Incentives: Brian said he is willing to entertain incentives but not the package that is presented. Amy pointed out that the dollar value is over a million dollars. Can't you have an operable window that is an arch shape? Amy said it is the windows and bringing back the white color and roof solutions. Jason said the FAR bonus is for exemplary projects above and beyond and that would mean if the window went back to the original location. Mitch said the parking waiver is less than one space. Jason mentioned the affordable housing. Mitch said if it is designated the affordable housing is not an incentive anymore. Jason mentioned that in the current configuration it is not worth a million in trade off s. Sarah said you can't put a price tag on a great building. The long term benefit is worth more than the short term dollar value. Nora said as a tax payer the amount of these waivers is staggering especially with the Given. If the tax payer is taking on the burden then the project needs to be a community asset in its historic value_ Sarah mentioned that she doesn't see any clients talking about TDR's. We built 100 projects and had one TDR. 6 P45 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 26, 2011 Jason also mentioned the addition and the loft on the south side should reflect the rhythm of the historic facade. There needs to be more detail on the west which is the alley side. Sarah echoed Jason's concerns. Referral comments on Historic Landmark Lot Split Code Amendments No minutes MOTION.• Sarah moved to adjourn; second by Jason. All in favor,.motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 7 P46 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2012 610 E. Hyman -Aspen Modern Negotiation for Voluntary Landmark Designation, Conceptual Major Development Public notice - Exhibit I Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney indicated that the public notices were in order and the public hearing can go forward. Amy said in early 2011 an application was submitted for designation. It was under the previous ordinance 448 negotiations and the application decided to stop the application. It was resubmitted in April and a very similar proposal. Right now it is net leasable space for the architectural firm and there is an existing free market unit on the upper floor. The building was built in 1963 and designed by Ellie Brickham who was Aspen's first woman architect that we know of It was designed for Pat Moore as a gallery. The proposal entails voluntary landmark designation and it meets criteria a and c. It also has architectural integrity enough to be designated historic. There area few things being requested as a benefit in exchange for designation. Two are existing benefits that we already have in the program which are some waiver of affordable housing for new net leasable space that is generated by the rear addition in the building. They are also asking for a parking request. They only generate a fraction of a new parking space through the commercial development so they are asking for a waiver of the cash-in-lieu program valued at $28,000. In terms of AspeModern designation'they are asking for three things: The property is already at the limit for what a free market unit can be on the site and they are asking to increase that to a little less than 1,200 square feet. With circulation for a free market unit staircases etc. are wrapped into the calculation and can strain. how much it can be expanded. We need clarification whether the proposal goes over the maximum unit size of 2,000 square feet.of net livable space. They are also asking for an extension of vested rights to ten feet. This project also involves conceptual design review which is a two step process. There.is any addition proposed for the alley and the roof top. Staff doesn't have concerns about the location, size or placement of the addition. HPC can address material selection at final. Staff's issue is the lack of restoration of the historic resource. There are a few things that we feel are important in terms of restoration. It is a negotiation and HPC and Council could choose not to designate the building. The ground floor store front has been changed. It used to be a 7 P47 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2012 centered entry and now the entries are on either end of the building and there is a large light well in the middle that doesn't meet to the ground like it used to. The arched openings are very important to the concept and they have been changed from the ground floor. The upper floor courtyard has a temporary canopy roof over it which is a change. We feel some of the changes need reversed in order to really make the building worth landmark designation and the benefits they are asking for. That is what UPC had said at both of the previous hearings. At the least the stucco should be painted white. Removing the canopy entirely would reinforce the open area courtyard at the top. There should be some effort to genuinely restore some of the arches. There may have been some interior changes that would not make that easy but a 1200 square foot bonus and around $300,000 worth of waivers is being proposed. There is also no on-site trash and they share with the Golfco bldg. next door but HPC needs to be aware this entire block is being redeveloped including the Golfco bldg. and they might not want to .continue to share a trash area. Staff is not recommending that the project go to council at this point. Charles Cunniffe, applicant Mitch Haas, Haas Planning Charles said when he originally came to UPC four years ago under Ordinance 948 it was because the art museum was taking our view and light away. That.building is higher than what you can do today. Had Council not done the forced march for development with a threat of a moratorium which has scared everyone into action you wouldn't see all this development. You will see 15 years of development happening within the next two years.. I am looking to make this.an attractive building and preserve it. This building and the Crandall are the only two from the 60's on that block. When I remodeled the building I didn't deteriorate the building from its actual state. The only thing significant I did was relocate the doors for better access to the building and I added ventilation to the building. Ellie Brickham came by this building and told me I did a nice job. In the scoring there:are some errors. Mitch Haas said staff has already done a new scoring. It rates as a better AspenModern property. In the old score we disputed it. The old score of 75 should have been more like 87 or 89. There was no part credit for things that were partly changed. Either way we are a better example of AspenModern. 8 P48 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2012 Amy pointed out that the new scoring is not as detailed. It scored 15 out of 20. Charles said the building has continued to maintain its original integrity. In hind site with the Aspen Art Museum I wish I had-made the building taller to preserve the light and view. I would like to achieve designation and do it without losing my ventilation and light. The brick was left natural and when you paint it, it accelerates the deterioration of the brick. The canopy was done in order to have covered outdoor space and it is light and airy. I have not done too much to it to denigrate the building. Mitch said if you have a 3 year vesting the entire block will be under construction at the same time. None of the other buildings are under Asper Modern and cannot ask for more vesting periods. We are basically talking about development on the alley side and the rooftop is pushed back. The building is already an AspenModern and designating it is worth incentives. The additional commercial space is needed for Charles's office. Charles said on the trash we have the recycling bins for the neighborhood and they in turn have the bulk trash containers. Nora asked what is different from this proposal than the previous one. Charles said previously the review was not in the right light due to the scoring. We started out with mistakes in the scoring which developed into some people feeling the restoration should occur to the entire building. I don't believe that it is required to do 100% restoration to qualify as a worthy example of AspenModern. The building is compromised because it is a split level. To do the elevator is very expensive because the building has multiple levels. It is a masonry building and well built. I only made some improvements to the building. Mitch said Charles said he is willing to change the stucco if necessary and is willing to consider the canopy removal. Amy said in the overall FAR in this project they are fine. It is the thresholds on residential and how much commercial FAR that they have a problem on the residential. 9 P49 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2012 Charles said the additional FAR is to make a one bedroom. Because of the split level the stairs take away from the usable square footage. Amy said you can only have 1500 square feet of residential FAR on this site and they already have that and they want to make the unit bigger. Amy pointed that the application said they were going over the unit size cap and then there was an amendment said they weren't. Mitch said the C1 unit size cap is 2,000 square feet and our proposed net livable is 1,814 square feet; however the free market FAR is a little over 2,100 square feet. We would like to do that without buying a TDR. Amy said there are conflicting numbers and that is one of the reasons we are recommending continuation. Willis inquired about the ten year vested rights requested. Mitch said you don't go to city council and ask for vested rights extension without being in a negotiation process. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public hearing. There were.no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Commissioner comments: Jay said he is in support of the designation and the plans presented. Essentially the building and scale of the building'will remain as it is. I., would like to see the awning as a clear awning. The historic integrity of this building will stand out even more after the development of the neighborhood. We are preserving the scale and a lot of Ellie Brickham's design. I don't support ten years of vested rights. Ann said she is not addressing any of the negotiation items because she is not supporting designation. The building has been dramatically altered taking'out the arches and changing the entry and landscape in front. Most . importantly the transparency of the second floor has been changed. I can't see designating this building unless you show a restoration at a minimum of the fagade. Charles said the awning is like an umbrella and is not part of the building. Charles also reiterated that Ellie Brickham applauded the changes to the 10 P50 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2012 building that he made. The use of the building changed. Charles said the scoring was based on the wrong facts. The building would qualify as better without doing anything retroactive.' The assumption was that the/front windows weren't there and it was an open atrium but that was never the case. It was based on a wrong-fact. Amy said at the last scoring and the new scoring it meets the thresholds. If it meets the criteria HPC really doesn't have justification for denying the designation. The problem is if you don't think the building is in good condition you may not want to support all the benefits that they are negotiating. It might be hard to argue that it doesn't meet the criteria as I feel it does meet that criteria. Whether or not you want Council to support an FAR bonus and net livable and extended rights is a different question. Ann said she is saying it doesn't have the degree of integrity to be designated. Nora said she supports the project and the addition but does not support the designation. There is no integrity. I feel I am being asked to compromise my integrity in historic preservation on something that has been really altered. Charles said if he removes the awning that would restore the openness to the sky and the roof line would be exactly the way it was. Willis said he feels the project is worthy of historic designation. I would argue for certain terms to bring this project back further than it is now. The way it is now is not worthy of designation. I would require the awning to go away. The experience when you walk by is that it is closed in so the awning should be removed. There are certain things we can talk about to bring the building back so that everyone is happy. As aboard we have the sense as to what is authentic and what is not. We need more dialogue about the details in order to make this work. Jamie said she feels the application needs to be clearer as to what the applicant is giving.to HPC for the designation and with the benefits that are being asked for. We need to know what you are look at with regard to restoring the building. 11 P51 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2012 MOTION: Ann moved to continue the public hearing on 610 E. Hyman to June 13th second by Jamie. All in favor, motion carried 5-0. MOTION: Ann moved to adjourn, second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. ' Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clark 12 P52 HAAS LAND PLANlti ilti C 9 LLG October 17, 2012 Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 610 East Hyman Avenue Aspen Modern Application Dear Amy: The proposed floor plans for the subject property were redrawn using CAD and the associated floor area and net leasable/net livable areas were then recalculated. These updated plans and calculations have been provided for your review. Your review of the calculations resulted in a slightly different set of Floor Area figures for the free-market residential and commercial components of the project than had resulted from the applicant's calculations. As such, the applicant is relying on your findings. Consequently, please consider the numbers summarized below to represent the proposed project's totals: • Proposed Commercial FAR = 3,644sf of total commercial Floor Area (1.215:1 Commercial FAR), of which 2,879sf are within unit space, and 765sf are in non- unit space (note that gross commercial area is actually some 5,003sf but subgrade exemptions result in a lower Floor Area figure; total commercial net leasable space is approximately 3,875sf). Allowable Commercial FAR is 1.5:1 (4,500sf). • Proposed Free-Market Residential FAR = 3,053sf of total Free-Market Residential Floor Area (1.01:1 Residential FAR), of which 2,195sf count as unit- space, 473sf are in non-unit space, and another 385sf are part of non-exempt outdoor deck areas (note that the net livable area of the free-market residence is just 1,909sf and that wall thicknesses account for some 286sf of the associated Floor Area). Allowable Free-Market Residential FAR is 0.5:1 (1,500sf). • Total/Cumulative Proposed FAR= 6,692sf(2.231:1), where 1,529sf(23%) is non- unit space. Allowable cumulative FAR is 2.5:1 (7,500sf). • Total Proposed Free-Market Net Livable = 1,909sf (0.64:1), while the Total Proposed Commercial Net Leasable= 3,876sf(1.292:1). • Completely above grade Commercial Floor Area is approximately 2,810sf, which is greater than the free-market net livable area, as required. • 201 N. MILL STREET, SUITE 108 ASPEN. COLORADO • 8161 1 • PHONE: (970) 925-7819 FAX: (970) 925-7395 P53 610 Easl.Hyman.Avenue.Addendum 1'age 2 In the end, the total list of"incentives" the applicant seeks includes only an increase in the allowable residential multi-family Floor Area, an extended vested property rights period, and possibly the waiver of a requirement for paying cash-in-lieu of less than one parking space (this "incentive" is needed only if the HPC does not grant the requested fee waiver as benefit available to historically designated properties). Other requests associated with the voluntary landmark designation include Conceptual HPC approval; an administrative GMQS approval for enlargement of a historic landmark; and Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval including the associated height increase and special review for variation of the utility/trash/recycle area requirements. We would also like to clarify that the applicant is willing to both remove the existing canopy from above the second floor deck and paint the stucco a monochromatic color as per the guidelines. However, the arched windows that originally existed on the main level will not be replaced. Staff has scored the existing structure with 15 out of 20 possible points, finding that it represents a"Better" example of AspenModern (on a scale of good, better and best). Not every property designated as historic in the City of Aspen is nor needs to be a "Best" example of its time. With the restoration efforts the applicant has agreed to, the scoring should increase and result in a "Better-to-Best" example of AspenModern, which more than qualifies it for designation and the award of the modest benefits sought by the applicant for agreeing to such designation in perpetuity. The current AspenModern negotiation should not be viewed by the City with an approach of "we want it all and we want it all now." Instead, this "Better" example of an AspenModern building's form remains sufficiently intact to warrant continued monitoring by the HPC to preserve what remains, avoid additional inappropriate additions and modifications, and to guide any further restoration that may be undertaken - -- this potential will forever be lost unless the subject property is designated as part of this AspenModern negotiation. Given the exceedingly fast-changing character of the subject block, the importance of this opportunity is particularly magnified and should not be at all discounted. Very truly yours, Haas Land Planning,LLC Mitch Haas Owner/Manager