HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20121114 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 14, 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
OLD BUSINESS
5:10 A. 420 E. Hyman Avenue- City Council Remand, Conceptual
Major Development and Conceptual Commercial Design
Review, PUBLIC HEARING
NEW BUSINESS
6:10 A. 223 E. Hallam- Minor Review and Partial Demolition,
PUBLIC HEARING
WORKSESSIONS
A. None
6:50 ADJOURN
TYPICAL PROCEEDING- 1 HOUR 10 MINUTES FOR MAJOR
AGENDA ITEM
Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)
Staff presentation (5 minutes)
Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes)
Applicant presentation (20 minutes)
Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes)
Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) (5 minutes)
Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed (5 minutes)
UPC discussion (15.minutes)
Applicant rebuttal (comments) (5 minutes)
Motion (5 minutes)
*Make sure the motion includes what criteria are met or not met.
No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting
of at least four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a
quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue
the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require the concurring
vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes
of the members of the commission then present and voting.
PROJECT MONITORING- Projects in bold are currently under construction.
Ann Mullins . 217 E.Sleeker-Kribs
205 S. Spring-Hills
Fox Crossing
Red Butte Cemetery.
Boomerang
604 W. Main
Lift One
316 E.Hopkins
610 W.Hallam-light
AspenCore
623 E.Hopkins
Jay Maytin 518 W. Main-Fornell
Red Butte Cemetery
320 Lake
435 W. Main-AJCC
920 W.Hallam
28 Smuggler Grove
Lift One
400 E.Hyman(Tom Thumb)
Nora Berko 1102 Waters
332 W.Main
28 Smuggler Grove
Jamie Brewster McLeod 518 W. Main-Fornell
205 S. Spring-Hills
302 E.Hopkins-Hillstone Restaurants
1102 Waters
Sallie Golden 400 E.Hyman(Tom Thumb)
Jane Hills 320 W.Hallam Street
Willis Pember 508 E. Cooper
Hotel Jerome
202/208 E.Main
AspenCore
Patrick Segal 623 E.Hopkins
M:\city\planning\hpc project monitoring\PROJECT MONITORING.doc
11/8/2012
P1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner
THRU: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 420 E. Hyman Avenue— Remand from City Council for mass and scale review,
Public Hearing
DATE: November 14, 2012
SUMMARY: The applicant requests approval R
to demolish the existing 1970s two story '
mixed use building and to construct a new
three story mixed use building. The property ,
is a 3,000 square feet lot located within the -.
Commercial Core Historic District and is not
considered a contributing structure to the
District. The building is currently a mix of -
commercial and residential uses. HPC sal:
granted Conceptual Major Development,
Demolition and Conceptual Commercial
Design approval on July 251h with the
following conditions:
Image 1: 420 East Hyman Avenue,existing condition.
I
1. The height of the building is limited to 38 feet.
2. The third floor has a 15 feet setback from Hyman Avenue.
3. Utility/Trash/Recycle Service Area is approved as designed.
4. Off-site Public Amenity is approved subject to Parks Department approval.
5. A full review of mass and scale with materials shall occur at Final HPC Review.
6. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one
(1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an
application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the
Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole
discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for
a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written
request for extension is received no less than thirty(30) days prior to the expiration date.
The Land Use Code requires notification of conceptual approvals to City Council during a call up
period at which time Council may discuss the project. City Council exercised their call up
authority and discussed the conceptual approvals granted for 420 E. Hyman on August 27th.
420 East Hyman Avenue
Staff Memo-HPC Remand for Mass and Scale
11/14/2012
Page 1 of 4
P2
Council voted to remand the application back to HPC with direction to resolve condition #5
above by deciding the appropriate mass and scale of the project at conceptual review. Council
was concerned about the impact of leaving mass and scale for Final Review on Growth
Management and Subdivision reviews that are necessary for the project. Minutes from the
Council meeting are attached as Exhibit B.
HPC is asked either to reconsider the mass and scale of the project or to uphold condition 5 of
HPC Resolution number 17. The applicant has revised the drawings to reflect the required
building height of 38 feet (condition 1) and the required 15 feet setback on the third floor
(condition 2). Despite the fact that materials are addressed at Final Review, the applicant has
provided material descriptions to address HPC's concerns that mass and scale are impacted by
the material palette. The HPC discussion is limited to the specific direction from Council unless
the applicant has changed other conceptual aspects of the design. In addition to the height and
setback changes described above, the applicant has removed the separation wall between the
third floor deck facing Hyman Mall and the adjacent building.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve the proposed mass and scale and
adopt a resolution removing condition 5 from HPC Resolution number 17.
APPLICANT: Duvike Inc., c/o Aersacpe Ltd., 230 S. Mill Street, Aspen, CO
PARCEL ID:2737-073-39-020 through-027,and 2737-073-39-801.
ADDRESS:420 East Hyman Avenue, Lot O, Block 88, City and Townsite of Aspen.
ZONE DISTRICT: CC, Commercial Core, Historic District Overla .
I• ^ ' _ a
n
V,. ?
4 .
fr• ��,: -�* A.� ➢ ;:,Ifs
,;-�-
aJhx
Image 2: Map of 420 E.Hyman in context of the Historic District. ast Hyman Avenue
Yellow shading indicates individual land ar
�taf`Memo -HPC Remand for Mass and Scale
11/14/2012
Page 2 of 4
P3
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.
SCALE/MASS: The applicant proposes a rectangular form which is consistent with other
commercial and mixed use buildings in the Historic District. In addition to building form, the
Design Objectives and Guidelines emphasize maintaining a two story scale along the sidewalk.
The applicant proposes a three story building along the Hyman Avenue fagade with a corner cut-
out on the second floor that is setback 15 feet. The third floor setback has been increased to 15
feet from 12 feet previously. The adjacent historic buildings to the east, 426 E. Hyman (Aspen
Psychic) and 428 E. Hyman (Quicksilver), have 15 ft. and 23 ft. setbacks for third floor
additions, respectively. Unlike the subject property, these buildings only have one street facing
fagade. In addition, A balcony is proposed on the second floor facing the interior "alleyway"
which provide some relief to the massing,but does not help to define a two story element.
Staff Response: Staff is supportive of the 15 feet setback and finds that Guideline 6.25 below is
met. Increasing the third floor setback reduces the perceived mass of the building, reduces the
impacts of the third floor on the context of the Historic District and maintains the strong two
story street wall along the north side of the Hyman Mall.
Consistent with the July 25th memo, Staff remains concerned that the alley elevation does not
step down in scale as stated in Design Guideline and Objective 6.24 below, which is visible from
the Wheeler Opera House upper floors and down the alley from Mill Street. HPC did not raise
the alley elevation as a major concern during the July 25th HPC hearing; however Staff
recommends that the applicant revise the alley elevation to comply with Guideline 6.24 by either
420 East Hyman Avenue
Staff Memo -HPC Remand for Mass and Scale
11/14/2012
Page 3 of 4
P4
pulling back the third floor or exploring some other element that reduces the mass. Staff finds
that it would be inconsistent with Council's direction to grant conceptual approval of the project
without an approved alley elevation that meeting the Guidelines. Therefore, Staff recommends
continuation of the hearing for further study of the alley elevation to meet the Guidelines.
6.24 Along a rear faVade, 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.
6.25 Maintain the average perceived scale of two-story buildings at the sidewalk.
• Establish a two-story height at the sidewalk edge, or provide a horizontal design element
at this level. A change in materials, or a molding at this level are examples.
The 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 continue Conceptual Commercial Design
Review and Conceptual Major Development Review for the project located at 420 E. Hyman
Avenue to restudy the alley elevation to reduce the mass and to comply with Guideline 6.24.
Resolution#_, Series of 2012
Exhibits:
A. Relevant Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Guidelines and Objectives.
B. Minutes from City Council meeting August 27, 2012.
C. HPC Resolution number 17, Series of 2012.
D. Minutes from HPC meeting July 25, 2012.
E. Updated Application.
420 East Hyman Avenue
Staff Memo -HPC Remand for Mass and Scale
11/14/2012
Page 4 of 4
P5
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
AMENDING HPC RESOLUTION NUMBER 17 SERIES OF 2012 GRANTING MAJOR
DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW
(CONCEPTUAL),DEMOLITION, AND VARIANCE OF TRASH/UTILITY/RECYCLE
SERVICE AREA DIMENSIONS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 420 EAST
HYMAN AVENUE LOT O, BLOCK 88, DUVIKE CONDOMINIUMS, CITY AND
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION# , SERIES OF 2012
PARCEL ID: 2737-037-39-020 THRU -027
AND 2737-073-39-801
WHEREAS, the applicant, Duvike Inc., requested Major Development (Conceptual),
Conceptual Commercial Design Standard Review, Demolition, and a variance of the
Trash/Utility/Recycle service area dimensions for the property located at 420 East Hyman
Avenue, Lot O, Block 88, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, 420 East Hyman Avenue is located within the Commercial Core Historic District
and is not considered a contributing building to the integrity of the Historic District; 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
420 East Hyman Avenue (Remand Amendment)
HPC Resolution#_, Series of 2012
Page 1 of 3
P6
WHEREAS, in order to authorize a Demolition, according to Section 26.415.080, Demolition of
designated historic properties, it must be demonstrated that the application meets any one of the
following criteria:
a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public
safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely
manner,
b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to
properly maintain the structure,
C. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in
Aspen, or
d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the followinjz 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, for approval of reduction of trash/utility/service area dimensions, a staff analysis
report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.575.060.13 and
Section 26.430 of the Municipal Code, that the reduction:
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.
WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report to HPC dated July 25, 2012 performed an analysis
of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards had not been met, and
recommended continuation; and
420 East Hyman Avenue (Remand Amendment)
HPC Resolution#_, Series of 2012
Page 2 of 3
P7
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on July 25, 2012, continued from June 27, 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 three to two (3 - 2).
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on August 13, 2012 City Council was provided notice of
call up and voted to call- up HPC Resolution number 17, 2012 in accordance with Municipal
Code Section 26.412.040.B; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on August 27, 2012 City Council voted to remand the
project back to HPC for reconsideration of mass and scale; and
WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report to HPC dated November 14, 2012 performed an
analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards had not been
met, and recommended continuation; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on November 14, 2012, the Historic Preservation
Commission reconsidered the mass and scale of 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 amends HPC Resolution Number 17, Series of 2012 for the property located at
420 East Hyman Avenue, Lot O, Block 88, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the
following conditions:
1. The approval and conditions granted pursuant to HPC Resolution Number 17, Series of
2012 are valid, with the exception of the amendments specified herein.
2. Condition 5 of HPC Resolution 17, Series of 2012 is hereby omitted.
3. The mass and scale is approved as represented in the application.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 14th day of November,
2012.
Ann Mullins, Chair
Approved as to Form:
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
420 East Hyman Avenue (Remand Amendment)
HPC Resolution#_, Series of 2012
Page 3 of 3
A Fylu k il P8
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.)
X
The Commercial Core Zone District is located at the core of Downtown Aspen.
Commercial,Lodging and Historic Districts 1 page 91
Design Objectives and Guidelines
P9
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.
This arrangement still anchors the historical urban
form of the city, despite some recent departures
ti from the traditional hard street edge. The variety
of building forms & scales is influenced in areas
b previous site-based open ace requirements.
YP P p 9
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 yrz Commercial,Lodging and Historic District
Design Objectives and Guidelines
�a
P10
City of Aspen Commercial Core Historic District
Storefront context
Most buildings have features associated with K r
traditional commercial designs. Ground level
g
floors of the buildings are oriented to pedestrian `•' ' -'
views, with large display windows highlighting
the goods and services offered for sale inside.
03.
Recessed entries are also typical. A horizontal
band of molding usually separates the ground
floor from upper portions of the facade 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.
A hard 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
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
P11
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.
page 94 Commercial,Lodging and Historic District
°"'` Design Objectives and Guidelines
P12
City of Aspen Commercial Core Historic District
Building Form
A prominent,unifying element of the Commercial f
Core is the similarity of building forms.
Commercial buildings were simple rectangular
solids,deeper than they were wide,with flat roofs. `�' .,'N-
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 - •`j
in new projects.
6.22 Rectangular forms should be dominant Rectangular forms should be dominant on Commercial Core
on Commercial Core facades. fagades.
• Rectangular forms should be vertically
oriented. —The fagade should appear as predominantly I T
flat, with any decorative elements and I
projecting or setback "articulations" I
appearing to be subordinate to the dominant
form. I YES! NO! YES! YES!
6.23 Use flat roof lines as the dominant roof I — �- — —
sidewalk
form.
• 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
P13
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.
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,
{'� j p 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 facade and orienting new development with sensitive to nearby historic building These range
the sheet 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
il 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 facade height shall be varied
from the facade height of adjacent buildings of
the same number of stories.
• If an adjacent structure is three stories and
38 ft.tall,new infill may be three stories,but
must vary in facade height by a minimum
of 2 ft.
page 108 Commercial,Lodging and Historic District
u...'. Design Objectives and Guidelines
b'
P14
City of Aspen Commercial Core Historic District
6.27 A new building or addition should reflect '1
the range and variation in building height of
the Commercial Core. `
• 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,maybe 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.) t �,
- Some portion of the property is affected
by a height restriction due to its proximity
to a historic resource, or location within ,•,�, may , B
a View Plane, therefore relief in another `t '�.
A j+{ .!
area may be appropriate. E I "
- 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 down 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.
6.28 Height variation should be achieved E
using one or more of the following: i
• Vary the building height for the full depth 38 2'
of the site in accordance with traditional lot
width.
• Setback the upper floor to vary the building
fagade profile(s) and the roof forms across Building facade height shall be varied f om 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 DistrictIN page 109
Design Objectives and Guidelines
P15
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 i
and approach which is exacting and which will -
vary with each situation. The intent is that a
new building or addition to an existing building
should be designed to respect the height and
scale of historic buildings within the commercial
core. .. :..
Historic One Story ( -
Commercial Type I
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 facade 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
"• i -
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 -
r
must demonstrate that it has no negative '"' 4' i
impact on smaller, historic structures Ll
nearby. ',.
• The height and proportions of all facade wn
components must appear to be in scale with !,
Historic One Story Residential--/ f
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
the same block face. Iconic Historic Structures
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
• ' traditional lot widths, the third floor of The Elks building
the adjacent lot width should be set back a The Independence building
minimum of 15 ft from the front facade. Pit kin County Courthouse
Hotel
• Step a building down in height adjacent to H Jerome
an iconic structure. City Hall
• Locate amenity space adjacent to an iconic St. Mary's Church
structure.
Commercial,Lodging and Historic District R. page 111
Design Objectives and Guidelines a'
P16 A& � ply
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 2AVU1Z'
amendments are done is that in the prior system, staff would get direction at a work session,
write the amendment, go through P&Z, get public feedback,then come to Council who may not
be interested in the code amendment. This process is to get policy guidance before the ordinance
is written and will give staff clarity in what Council wants from a code amendment.
Councilman Frisch said it is in the long term best interest of the community to have some free
market units in town whether on first, second or third floor. Councilman Frisch agreed if there is
no qualifier,these units will not be to the benefit of the community. Councilman Skadron asked
if it would be injurious to the community's economy to prohibit development of free market
units. Councilman Frisch said he feels it would be a disservice to the community. Councilman
Frisch said there will never be a lodge on small downtown lots. Councilman Frisch said free
market units are one way of getting things for the community, like affordable housing.
Councilman Johnson stated one of his concerns is not allowing any free market residential could
increase commercial rents. Councilman Johnson said he would prefer to discuss how things the
city doesn't like to be fixed and allow,when appropriate, some free market residences. Mayor
Ireland said the city has to stop allowing the use that is driving out uses the community wants.
Councilman Frisch said he would prefer some allowances for free market residential; this
amendment is too restrictive. He would like to work toward getting more of what the
community wants.
Councilman Torre stated he is in support of this as he has campaigned for years to make
residential units inhabited,to increase the downtown vitality, limiting the size of units to fit full
time residents and nothing that has been put in the code has worked. Restricting the size of units
to get more density has not worked.
Councilmembers Skadron and Torre, Mayor Ireland in favor; Councilmembers Frisch and
Johnson opposed. Motion carried.
Mayor Ireland moved to have staff to draft a resolution to address the problem of the double
dip/mixed use housing exemption and the tear down credits that give one credit for affordable
housing that was never provided and rewards tear downs rather than provide credit to developers
who preserve a building; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried.
Mayor Ireland moved to approve Resolution#82, Series of 2012, as amended; seconded by
Councilman Torre. Councilmembers Skadron and Torre, Mayor Ireland in favor;
Councilmembers Frisch and Johnson opposed. Motion carried.
420 E HYMAN -Call Up
Sara Adams, community development department, reminded Council they voted to call up the
conceptual commercial design and historic development approval. This building is located in the
historic district but it is not a historic landmark. Ms. Adams noted the call up provisions result
from a code amendment adopted in March which changed the call up process. The call up is
now after the conceptual review is granted, which allows Council time to address mass, scale,
height,and site planning rather than after final review. Council has 3 options; accept HPC's
decision; remand the application back to HPC with direction for reconsideration; continue the
9
P17
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27,2012
meeting and request more information. Staff is recommending Council remand the project to
HPC. HPC's decision after rehearing is final and concludes the call up review.
Ms. Adams noted this proposal is to scrape and replace a two-story building with a three-story
building as mixed use. During the conceptual review, staff recommended the applicant restudy
height and the third floor setback. Ms. Adams told Council the applicant's propose to address
these concerns by lowering the height and increasing the third-floor setback. These changes
were proposed at the meeting with no new drawings; however,the changes were clear. Staff s
concern is the process. HPC decided to add a condition dealing with mass and scale at final
rather than at conceptual. Conceptual review deals with mass, scale, height and site plan. HPC
struggled with the impacts a glass box would have with the mass and scale. Final review deals
with materials.
HPC approved conceptual with the condition that mass and scale would be reviewed at final
concurrent with the materials and that has caused staff concern and recommends it be remanded.
HPC voted 3 to 2. Ms. Adams said the land use code states conceptual is a binding review on the
commission;they are setting up the size of the box. The next review is what goes into the box,
then what goes on the box. Ms. Adams said this should be remanded to HPC for them to decide
on the mass and scale of the project. Ms. Adams reiterated staff feels HPC should decide on
mass and scale at conceptual so that the applicants know what they have to work with for final
review. Mayor Ireland asked if one of the issues in mass and scale is compatibility with
surrounding properties. Ms. Adams said that is one of the guidelines.
Charles Cunniffe,representing the applicant, told Council HPC felt the size of the building was
all right but the HPC wanted to see how the materials interacted with the mass and scale. The
height has been reduced and the setback has been increased. The applicant was all right with
continuing the materials discussion with mass and scale continued to final review. Councilman
Torre asked about the height of the divider wall with the building to the east. Cunniffe said it is
the same height as the roofline. Councilman Torre asked if this dividing wall will affect the
westerly views from the building to the east. Cunniffe said the purpose of the wall is to prevent
the spread of flames from one building to another; the applicants will work to minimize that wall
and if it not required by the building code, it could be eliminated.
Councilman Torre noted he understands the design guidelines to seek variation in materials,
variation in roof lines, and he is concerned about where the design guidelines are taking the
town. Councilman Torre stated he is for a blend of new and old but not for a total discounting of
the old for one's wish about glass boxes. Councilman Torre said he does not want to see the
character of Aspen, which has brought a lot of success to the town, being turned into an urban
center of the Rockies. Councilman Torre said he would support staff's recommendation to
remand this back to HPC.
Councilman Skadron said he too supports staff's recommendation. Councilman Skadron
questioned the affect this building will have on the historic core;the design is wrong for the
historic core. Councilman Johnson agreed this should be sent back to HPC and his direction
would be to figure out mass and scale before the materials discussion. Councilman Frisch stated
he supports staff's recommendations that HPC relook at the building and design. Mayor Ireland
said he does not want to see a lot of glass buildings on the mall;the malls have a consistency and
beauty to them. There are places in town with eclectic styles but the mall is historic in character.
10
P18
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27,2012
Mayor Ireland moved to remand the project to HPC; seconded by Councilman Johnson. All in
favor, motion carried.
601 E HYMAN AVENUE—Call Up
a Nadolny, community development department,told Council this application re sts
ap oval of demolition of an existing building and replacement with a three-story xed use
buil g. Ms. Nadolny said the proposal is commercial space on the first two fl o rs and a free
marke esidential unit on the third floor. Ms.Nadolny told Council this was r iewed by P&Z
for cons tgal review to approve height, scale and massing. Council chose call up the review
and has th option to accept P&Z's decision,remand the application to P or continue this
hearing to r uest additional information.
Ms. Nadolny n ed'conceptual review deals with public amenity spa and this issue was left
unresolved. Ms. adolny pointed out the applicant decreased pub ' amenity space on site from
13%to 6%and req sted to provide the rest by cash-in-lieu. P voted 4 to 2 to approve the
conceptual design an to resolve the issue of increasing the unt of on-site public amenity
space at final commerc 1 design review. Ms.Nadolny sai onceptual approval locks in how
the site will be used, staf eels the public amenity issue s uld be resolved before going forward
and recommends the applic t be remanded back to P& . The applicant has proposed to pay a
portion of the public amenity ace by cash-in-lieu P&Z recommended that be allowed.
Chris Bendon, community develo ent departme , said the purpose of allowing cash-in-lieu for
public amenities is that some sites 1 d'themsel s better to allowing onsite spaces; other
properties do not face the right way or o not ave the right surrounding uses. Bendon said a
concern is that there is not clarity with w t ets approved at conceptual. Bendon said staff
wants clarity with mass and scale at conc al and not deal with mass and scale at final.
Bendon noted there is a split opinion; o of ich looks at the space and says on the corner
there could be enough usable space th may ha an attraction to it depending on its design.
The applicant did not take that dire c on; P&Z ha discussion about that issue. The design and
public amenity space depend on t type of uses on t ground floor; this building is somewhat
off the commercial core and wil probably housing offs s,which are allowed on the ground
floor in this zone. Bendon no d the Art Museum will be uilt in this block and could affect the
amount of pedestrian traffic hich could result in a success 1 commercial space, like a coffee
shop.
Stan Clauson,represe mg the applicant,told Council the applica does not have a problem
remanding this to P to get the issue resolved. Clauson said the a licants are willing to
provide the full 13 6 of onsite pedestrian amenity. Sarah Broughton, a hitect, told Council they
were tasked wit reating an iconic piece for this corner. This is a constr 'ned site with only two
facades. Ms. roughton said they used the concept of some surrounding la formations to
become part f the fagade.
Council Skadron said the existing building is relatable; it feels comfortable to alk next to.
Counci an Skadron noted he understands the architecture proposed for the new bui ing but
does of feel the building captures the pedestrian the same way emotionally. Ms. Bro hton
11
AAiW6 P19
1/44 012-
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
GRANTING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT(CONCEPTUAL), COMMERCIAL DESIGN
STANDARD REVIEW (CONCEPTUAL), DEMOLITION,AND VARIANCE OF
TRASH/UTILITY/RECYCLE SERVICE AREA DIMENSIONS THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 420 EAST HYMAN AVENUE LOT O, BLOCK 88,DUVIKE
CONDOMINIUMS, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION # 17, SERIES OF 2012
PARCEL ID: 2737-037-39-020 THRU -027
AND 2737-073-39-801
WHEREAS, the applicant, Duvike Inc., has requested Major Development (Conceptual),
Conceptual Commercial Design Standard Review, Demolition, and a variance of the
Trash/Utility/Recycle service area dimensions for the property located at 420 Fast Hyman
Avenue, Lot O, Block 88, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, 420 East Hyman Avenue is located within the Commercial Core Historic District
and is not considered a contributing building to the integrity of the Historic District; 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:
RECEPTION#: 591420,08116/2012 at 420 East Hyman Avenue
11:15:04 AM, HPC Resolution#17, Series of 2012
1 OF 3, R $21.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Page 1 of 3
Janice K.Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
P20
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
I 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, for approval of reduction of trash/utility/service area dimensions, a staff analysis
report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.575.060.13 and
Section 26.430 of the Municipal Code, that the reduction:
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,
WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report to HPC dated July 25, 2012 performed an analysis
of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards had not been met, and
recommended continuation; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on July 25, 2012, continued from June 27, 2012, the
Historic Preservation Commission considered the application during a duly noticed public
420 East Hyman Avenue
HPC Resolution#17, Series of 2012
Page 2of3
P21
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 three to two (3 - 2).
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby grants HPC Major Development (Conceptual), Conceptual Commercial Design
Standard Review, Demolition, and a variance of Trash, Utility and Recycle Area Dimensions for
the property located,at 420 East Hyman Avenue, Lot O, Block 88, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado with the following conditions:
I. The height of the building is limited to 38 feet.
2. The third floor has a 15 feet setback from Hyman Avenue.
3. Utility/Trash/Recycle Service Area is approved as designed.
4. Off-site Public Amenity is approved subject to Parks Department approval.
5. A full review of mass and scale with materials shall occur at Final HPC Review,
6. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one
(1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an
application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the
Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole
discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for
a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written
request for extension is received no less than thirty (30)days prior to the expiration date.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 25'h day of July,2012.
Ann Mullins, Chair
Approved as to Form:
Debbie Quinn,Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
Kai-,A
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
420 East Hyman Avenue
HPC Resolution#17, Series of 2012
Page 3 of 3
P22
A*- k p
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ANA-
MINUTES OF JULY 25. 2012
Issues: Cornices, 30 foot modules on Hopkins and street elevation rendering
of the Hopkins block for context.
420 E. Hyman Ave. — Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual
Commercial Design Review, Demolition, Special Review—cont'd from
June 27th
Public Notice—Exhibit I
Power Point—Exhibit II
Sara said the project is a scrape and replace of 420 E. Hyman. The lot is a
3,000 square foot lot, 30 x 100. The existing building was built in the early
1970's and it is a two story building. The proposal is to replace it with a
three story building. Currently the building is mixed use, commercial and
residential. One of the requests is to grant a height increase from 38 feet to
40 feet. Staff is recommending continuation with two areas of restudy:
Restudy the third floor setback and to lower the height of the building. Staff
is in favor of the site plan which mimics the existing site plan in terms of
access and the zero front yard setback. They are proposing an off-site
amenity with improvements to the pedestrian mall subject to the Parks
Department approval. Staff is concerned about the scale and mass
particularly the third floor. Right now they are proposing a 12 foot setback
but we find that not adequate enough as they are adjacent to two historic
landmarks. The immediate adjacent landmark has a 15 foot setback and
another one has a 20 foot setback. We do consider this a corner lot with the
internal alleyway and you will be able to see two facades and have the
visibility on two sides. The request on the height is to increase it to 40 feet.
Staff is concerned about the context of that height in the historic district
especially in this block which has a very strong two story element with a
third floor that is set back. The third floor is 13 feet and the second 11 %2
feet. Typically you want the third floor to be subordinate. Guideline 6.27
talks about the criteria for granting a height variance and feel none of those
are met. The trash utility was a concern but the applicant has coordinated
with the Environmental Health Dept. and they are supportive of their
dimensions. Staff is recommending continuation because of the third floor
setback and the height of the building. Staff also finds that the demolition
criteria are met.
Charles Cunniffe, Cunniffe Architects
Brian West, Cunniffe Architects
6
P23
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 25, 2 12
Charles said this is a constraint site and we looked at the plans and can go to
a 15 foot setback which matches to the building adjacent to it. The roof
continues along the easement because it covers the walkway to the second
floor but we could eliminate that. The issues that need to be addressed are
the height which we can accommodate and the setback from 12 feet to 15
feet which we can accommodate. About 50% of the building is set back
from the easement. Across the street are two four story buildings.
Charles said you enter the second floor for the free market unit and then you
go to the top floor and there is a little deck in the corner which also gives us
some relief on the corner and softens it. The second and third floors are both
recessed because that is our access walkway to the four units on the second
floor. We are using the access walkway as a setback because the building
recesses at the alley and the third floor is open. We ran the roof over the
third floor that is open. On the setback I guess we could eliminate that roof
or bring the roof down to the second floor. We believe the walkway should
have some shelter from the rain etc. Our client wants a gem of a building, a
cool little glass building. We want to show the mullion lines in a more
vertical pattern so it will reflect some of the historic patterns of store fronts
yet be totally a glass block.
Jane inquired about the fire wall.
Charles said it is a privacy wall between the two decks and it is a
cooperative with them and it is a fire wall because of the openness between
the two buildings. We thought we could do some translucent fire rated
glass so it will allow light to penetrate and it would add to the translucency
of the building.
Ann inquired about the height reduction and which floor that would be taken
off of.
Charles said probably 18 inches off the third floor and 6 inches off the
second floor.
Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public hearing. There were no public
comments. The public comment portion of the agenda was closed.
Ann stated the issues:
7
P24
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 25, 2012
Site plan; scale and mass which includes the setback; height; public amenity
option #2 and trash and utility.
Jamie said she appreciates the height drop to 38 feet and the 15 foot setback
for the third floor. As long as the trash enclosure works for the city that is
fine with me. I'm also fine with the site plan and the public amenity. My
only concern is scale and massing and it has to do more with materials than
scale and mass but to me they go hand in hand. The concern is how the
darks and lights work together and how reflective it will be with all the other
buildings. The connection details are critical. The mass and scale needs to
be studied with the materials. We need renderings of all elevations with
materials and that would be extremely helpful. Renderings show what the
materials are really like.
Charles said it is intended to be a non-reflective glass.
Jamie said maybe we need to look at a sample on-site.
Willis said the applicant is using more than one type of glass. Charles said
some of the glass will have a grayish tint to it and some will be clear. The
client wants a "jewel" box that you see into as opposed to being something
solid. Willis requested a rendering from the north side to confirm what is
there. We also need to see the firewall. The project is cool and it is about
the materials being reflective.
Jane said from a development perceptive this is an incredible difficult site to
develop on. The massing is appropriate for the site and the only confusing
area is how the building connect to the building next door up high as that is a
difficult transition. I am not sure how the translucent glass works. I also
agree that the materials are going to be very important.
Patrick also thanked the applicant for reducing the height and setback.
.Eliminating the covered walkway also helps the massing. The comparison
between the Quicksilver building 15 feet back and the proposed building 15
feet back it affects the mass and scaling the way the treatment of the soffit or
overhang from the third floor occur. If there is too much overhang out there
it adds to the mass.
Ann said the site plan and public amenity solution are fine. The overall
height of the building overpowers the adjacent much smaller historic
8
P25
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 2S, 2012
buildings, guideline 6.31 and 6.32. I am not sure how well the glass box
works in reality once you get furniture and curtains in there. It might be too
busy and distract from the other buildings. Maybe there are examples of
buildings that have been constructed as glass boxes that we could see.
Charles said Apple stores are an example and they have transparent glass
and the buildings are very cool and engage you with the pedestrians. I feel
they are more successful than a solid building. Morris and Frywall also did
a small office by Clark's and it is nice and clean inside. The occupant of any
of these spaces needs to recognize that the space will be very visible. The
applicant is very consumed about architecture and sculpture and concerned
with contemporary minimalism. If the glass is non-reflective I think the
project can be very successful. I am hopeful that we can get adequate
feedback from the HPC board. When an applicant can eliminate some of the
restudy concerns right off the bat and be able to simplify what the
application is then it would be easier to come to conceptual with conditions
because the conditions are made much more simply.
MOTION: Jamie moved to approve resolution #17 for conceptual approval
of 420 E. Hyman with the following conditions as discussed:
Reduction of the height to 3 8 feet
The third floor stepping back 15 feet
Trash enclosure as redesigned
Site plan OK
Public amenity off site OK
Approval of demolition
Submit for final review within one year
For final is a full review of mass and scale with the materials.
Motion second by Jane.
Discussion:
Patrick said he would like to see the covered walkway eliminated for mass
and scale reasons.
Sara asked if Jamie is visioning that HPC could change the mass and scale
for final? Jamie said yes. Sara pointed out that there are other steps that this
project needs to go through and they need to rely on the size of the box;
growth management and subdivision. That request maybe problematic with
the growth management if HPC requires that the box be smaller.
9
P26
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 25. 2012
Jamie said her concern is with the materials and maybe a piece of the glass
element becomes a solid element. I am generally OK with the mass and
scale.
Ann said materials and fenestration affect the mass and scale and we aren't
supposed to look at that until final.
Sara asked Charles about looking at materials at conceptual.
Charles said they are open to working to HPC's satisfaction if that can be
something that is separate from the total mass and scale. If this building was
solid and not glass it would still have the same mass and scale.
Willis said it is not clear to him how the materials transition from the front
of the building into the back. Is there a wood material proposed. We also
need to see the mass and scale from the alley, views you normally don't
present.
Charles said one of the problems is that materials are due at final and we are
trying to get conceptual approval in order to spend time doing the further
research at your client's expense to take it to the next step. When you have
to look at materials up front you need to involve a mechanical engineer for
heat loss, structural engineers etc. That is the stuff you do between
conceptual and final and when you put that kind of involvement on a client
at this stage it is burdensome. There is a lot to do between conceptual and
final.
Jane said in terms of mass and scale and the variations of materials that
might be used how much more massive and how much more different will
this be. I can understand what the materials are as presented and if there has
to be some kind of variation for one reason or another I think it is up to the
monitor to assist in that effort. I am here to identify the mass on the site and
make sure it fit and that the proportions are done well. As a commissioner I
feel this is met tonight. We need to respect the applicant that they aren't
going to majorly change the materials. Proportionally it works well and the
mass meet all the requirements and they are giving back to what they
originally proposed.
Jamie said she doesn't see the overall mass and scale of the building
changing. We need to know how.they integrate.
10
P27
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 25, 2012
Ann said she feels the proposal is too big for the site. Total glass goes
against the guidelines.
Roll call vote: Jamie, yes; Patrick, no; Ann, no; Jane, yes; Willis, yes
Motion carried 3-2.
MOTION: Ann moved to adjourn, second by Patrick. All in favor, motion
carried.
Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
11
EXHIBIT
AFFIDAVIT OF P
UBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CO
ADDRESS OF PR PERTY: '
Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLI HEARING DATE:
IJovp 2041-
P
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
I, r q ex4 name please print)
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
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�Q day of Oc r , 20 12, to
and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted
notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeared no more than sixty(60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
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 in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen(15) days
prior to the public hearing on such amendments.
ignature
The foregoing `Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this iay
of �y`�� , 2��A, by 'b rj wr. laes {'
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My commission expires: o4 24, 2.ol T
Notary Public � Ue
TONI ROSE
SMRSKY
ABLE: c
m
e, e
SIGN)
AL AGENCIES NOTICED
L ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE
a
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 420 E. HYMAN AVE, CITYCOUNCIL REMAND TO HISTORIC
PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGARDING CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL
DESIGN REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday,November 14,
2012, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission,
Council Chambers Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen,to re-review the mass and
scale of the proposed new building at 420 E. Hyman Street. The application submitted by Duvike
Inc., c/o Aerscape Ltd., 230 S. Mill St.,Aspen, CO represented by Charles Cunniffe Architects.
The project affects the property located at 420 E. Hyman Avenue, Duvike Condominiums, Lot O,
Block 88, City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, Duvike
Condominiums, PID #2737-073-39-020 through-027, and 2737-073-39-801. The applicant
proposes to demolish the existing building and replace it with a three story mixed use building
that includes commercial, free market residential and affordable housing. The Historic
Preservation Commission granted conceptual approvals on July 25, 2012 which included a
condition of the approval that mass and scale was to be determined at Final Commercial Design
Review. On August 27h,2012 this decision was called up by the Aspen City Council and
remanded back to the Historic Preservation Commission with direction to finalize the mass and
scale during Conceptual review.
For further information, contact Sara Adams at the City of Aspen Community Development
Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2778, sara.adamskci.aspen.co.us
s/Ann Mullins
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on October 25, 2012
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Aspen Account
Easy Peel®Labels i Bend along line to AVERV0 51600
Use AveryO Template 51600 Feed Paper expose POP-Lip EdgeTM 1
305-7 MILL STREET LLC 400 HYMAN LLC 409 EAST HYMAN LLC
412 N PAULINA 6829 QUEENFERRY CIR 63 FOX PROWL
CHICAGO,IL 60622 BOCA RATON, FL 33496 CARBONDALE,CO 81623
517 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC AP RT 29 LLC ARCADES ASSOCIATES LTD LLC
517 E HOPKINS AVE 418 E COOPER AVE#207 C/O KRUGER&CO
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 400 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN,CO 81611
ASPEN FILM ASPEN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AVH ONION VENTURES II LLC 8.208
110 E HALLAM ST#102 420 E HOPKINS AVE 601 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
BARNETT-FYRWALD HOLDINGS INC BENTLEYS AT THE WHEELER BIDWELL BERT INVESTMENT CORP
500 PRESIDENT CLINTON AVE#310 PO BOX 10370 2870 PEACHTREE RD#427
LITTLE ROCK,AR 722011760 ASPEN,CO 81612 ATLANTA,GA 30305
BLAU JEFF T BPOE ASPEN LODGE#224 BRAND BUILDING LLC
C/O RELATED COMPAINES 210 S GALENA ST#21 205 S GALENA ST
60 COLUMBUS CIRCLE FL 19 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
NEW YORK,NY 10023
CARLSON BRUCE E TRUST CHARLIES COW COMPANY LLC CITY OF ASPEN
PO BOX 3587 315 E HYMAN AVE ATTN FINANCE DEPT
ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 130 S GALENA ST
ASPEN,CO 81611
COLLINS BLOCK LLC COLORADO CABLE COTTONWOOD VENTURES 11 LLC
205 S GALENA ST 500 PRESIDENT CLINTON AVE#310 419 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN,CO 81611 LITTLE ROCK,AR 72201 ASPEN,CO 81611
COTTONWOOD VENTURES II LLC COX JAMES E&NANCY DCGB LLC
ATTN JANA FREDERICK C/O KRUGER&CO ATT GIORGIO RIGHETTI CFO
300 CRESCENT CT#1000 400 E HYMAN AVE 610 WEST 52 ST
DALLAS,TX 75201 ASPEN,CO 81611 NEW YORK,NY 10019
F&M VENTURES LLC
DENSON JAMES D DOLE MARGARET M C/O MORRIS&FYRWALD RE
PO BOX 1614 400 E HYMAN AVE#302 415 E HYMAN AVE
TUBAC,AZ 85646 ASPEN,CO 816111989 ASPEN,CO 81611
FIERCELY LOCAL FOOTLOOSE MOCCASIN MAKERS INC G&K LAND CO LLC
328 E HYMAN AVE C/O MANUEL GOUVEIA 140 PITKIN MESA DR
ASPEN,CO 81611 44 SILVERADO CT. ASPEN,CO 81611
CANON CITY,CO 81212
Ltiquettes faciles A peler ; ® Repliez A la hachure afin de i www.avery.com
Utllisez le gabarit AVERY®51600 i Sens de r�v�ler le rebord Po u uc 1-800 GO-AVERY
chargement p P' j 1
Easy Peel®Labels i A fiend along line to i ( AVERY® 5160®
Use Avery®Template 5160® a Feed Paper expose Pop-up Edge*"+
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#16 290 HEATHER LN 205 S MILL ST#301A
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
ISIS GROUP KANDYCOM INC KANTZER TAYLOR M FAM TRST#1
CIO COURTNEY LORD 766 SINGING WOOD DR 216 SEVENTEENTH ST
631 W BLEEKER ST ARCADIA,CA 91006 MANHATTAN BEACH,CA 90266
ASPEN,CO 81611
KAUFMAN GIDEON I KOPP AMELIA L TRUST KREVOY SUSANNE SEPARATE PROP
C/O KAUFMAN&PETERSON TRST 50%
1000 DOLORES WY#B
315 E HYMAN AVE#305 CARBONDALE,CO 81623 2311 LA MESA DR
ASPEN,CO 81611 SANTA MONICA,CA 90402
LEVY LAWRENCE F&CAROL LINDNER ERIKA L REV TRUST 50% LOMA ALTA CORPORATION
980 N MICHIGAN AVE#400 66966 TEN PEAKS CT PO BOX 886
CHICAGO,IL 60611 BEND,OR 97701-9277 LANCASTER,TX 75146-0886
MASON&MORSE INC MILL STREET PLAZA ASSOC LLC MTN ENTERPRISES 80B
514 E HYMAN AVE C/O M&W PROPERTIES CIO HILLIS OF SNOWMASS
ASPEN,CO 81611 205 S MILL ST#301A PO BOX 5739
ASPEN,CO 81611 EAGLE,CO 816315739
NH ONION VENTURES II LLC 16.918% OSA TRUST 50% P&L PROPERTIES LLC
601 E HYMAN AVE C/O KREVOY SUSANNE BELZBERG 1018 3RD ST#360
ASPEN,CO 81611 2311 LA MESA DR GRAND JUNCTION,CO 81501
SANTA MONICA,CA 90402
RED ONION INVESTORS LLC 65.784% RG ONION VENTURES II LLC 4% SH ONION VENTURES II LLC 2.19%
418 E COOPER ST#207 601 E HYMAN AVE 601 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
SILVER SLAM COMMERCIAL LLC SLAM COMMERCIAL LLC SLAM RESIDENTIAL LLC
C/O RELATED COMPANIES/JEFF BLAU 2100 E MAPLE RD#200 2100 E MAPLE RD STE 200
60 COLUMBUS CIR BIRMINGHAM,MI 48009 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
NEW YORK,NY 10023
Eticluettes faciles 6 peter ; A Repliez h la hachure @fin de i www.avery.com
Utilisez le abarit AVERY@ 5160® Sens de p P reveler le rebord Po u ��c 1-800-GO-AVERY
9 ) chargement ' )
Easy Peel®Labels i ® 111100M Bend along line to AVIARY®51G0®
Use Avery®Template 51600 Feed Paper expose Pop-up Edge7m
VOLK PLAZA LLC VOLK RICHARD W TRUSTEE WALL JANET REV TRUST
995 COWEN DR#201 C/O RICHARD W VOLK MANAGER 9762 BURNLEY PL
CARBONDALE,CO 81623-1657 2327 MIMOSA DR BEVERLY HILLS,CA 90210
HOUSTON,TX 77019
WELLS FARGO BANK WENDELIN ASSOC WHEELER BLOCK BUILDING LLC
C/O THOMSON PROPERTY TAX 150 METRO PARK TKG MANAGEMENT INC C/O
SERVICES ROCHESTER,NY 14623 211 N STADIUM BLVD STE 201
PO BOX 2609 COLUMBIA, MO 65203
CARLSBAD,CA 92018
WHEELER SQUARE-CASPER FAMILY WILLIAMS DEXTER M WOODS FAMILY LP
LLC 82 W LUPINE DR PO BOX 11468
315 E HYMAN ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612
ASPEN,CO 81611
ZUPANCIS ROBERT L 30.621%
509 RACE ST
ASPEN,CO 81611
k1cluettes faciles A peler ; ® Reptiez b la hachure afin de i www.avery.com
Sens do
Utlllsez le gabarit AVERY®51600 chargement r6v6fer le rebord Pop-upk"c 1.800-GO-AVERY
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
#10 H:!VVA'r� ,l]y''e- , Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
^ &y' /A 6 `S:OD 2nl , 20J_Z,
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss. -
County of Pitkin )
1, (name, please print)
being or representing an Applicant to the City Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(EA) 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 than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
(Continued on next page)
Rezoning or text amendment: Whenever the official zoning district map is in
any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision
of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such
revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use
regulation, or otherwise,the requirement of an accurate survey map or other
sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and
addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be
waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public
inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing on such amendments.
Signature
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 7-6 day
of 1�)!'y&ej- , 20fZ, by &,t1Qeg& Sc=4tLN-
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
PU LI NOTI E
RE: 420 E. MAN AVE,CITYCOUNCIL
REMAND TO H TORIC PRESERVATION My COTI7m1S$lOn expires:
COMMISSION GARDING CONCEPTUAL _
COMMERCIAL ESIGN REVIEW AND CON-
CEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
NOTICE IS HE„7EBY GIVEN that a public hearing
-ill be held on Wednesday.November 14,2012,at
a meeting[O begin at S:oO p.m.before the Aspen
Historic Preservation Commission,
A,�rJeotia9 Room�c�ty Hsu, Notary Public
posed new building at 420 E.Hyman Street.rhe
application submitted by Duvike Inc.,c/o Aerscape
Ltd.,230 S.Mill St.,Aspen,CO represented by
Charles Cunniffe Architects.The project affects the
property located at 420 E.Hyman Avenue,Duvike
Condominiums,Lot 0,Block 88,City and Town-
site of Aspen,County of Pitkin,State of Colorado,
Duvike Condominiums,PID#2737-073-39-020
through-027,and 2737-073-39-801. The appli-
cant proposes to demolish the existing building and
replace it with a three story mixed use building that
includes commercial,free market residential and ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE:
storm sio housing. The Historic Preservation � PUBLICATION
Commission granted conceptual approvals on July
25,2012 which included a condition of the approv-
al that mass and scale was to determined at Fi-
nal Commercial Design Review.w. On August 27th,
2012 this decision was balled up by the Aspen City E OWNERS AND GOVERNMENT AGENGIES NOTIED
Council and remanded back to the Historic Preser-
vation Commission with direction to finalize the
mass and scale during Conceptual review.
For further information,conyntact Sara Adams at the
City of Aspen 3 S.CG me unity Development Apn Depart- 'i CERTICICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE
429.2778,sara.adams�ci.aspen.co.us ED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3
st Ann Mullins
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
Published in The Aspen Times Weekly on October
25,2012 [85192871
EXHIBITT,
September 12, 2012
Ms. Ann Mullins
Chair, Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: 420 E. Cooper Avenue
Conceptual Major Development, etc.
Red Onion Investors
Dear Ms. Mullins,
Aspen Elks Lodge #224 is the owner of the historic three story building located on the corner of
Hyman and Galena Streets. The Lodge is comprised of over 900 members who have instructed
its governing body to take any steps necessary to protect its view plane of the mountains,
particularly the views of Aspen Mountain.
The Lodge Trustees and House Committee aka Board of Directors, Aspen Elks Lodge #224,
therefore, takes the position that the project proposed by Duvike Inc., c/o Aerscape Ltd., 230 S.
Mill St., Aspen, CO represented by Charles Cuniffe Architects, the project affects the property
located at 420 E. Hyman Avenue, Duvike Condominiums, Lot 0, Block 88, City and Townsite of
Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, Duvike Condominiums, PID #2737-073-39-020
through -027, and 2737-073-39-801, may interfere with the Lodge's view plane mentioned
above to such an extent that it opposes the request to do so.
Respectfully submitted,
Richard Miller
Exalted Ruler
Aspen Elks Lodge #224
510 E. Hyman, Suite 300
Aspen, CO 81612
Cc: Sara Adams, Aspen Community Development Department
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
P28
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
I
FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner
RE: 223 E. Hallam Avenue-Minor Development and Partial Demolition
DATE: November 14,2012
SUMMARY: 223 East Hallam Avenue is located across from the Red Brick Arts Center in the
West End neighborhood. The entire 12,000 square foot parcel is.a designated historic landmark
containing three structures: an 1893 two story Victorian residence with two residential units, a
1964 (according to the assessor's records) one story
residence, and a one story outbuilding used for
storage. Over time numerous additions have been f'
made to the Victorian. While the entire property is
designated historic, the 1964 studio is not included
as a contributing resource but is eligible for
voluntary inclusion in AspenModern.
The applicant is interested in pursuing a subdivision
application to divide the 12,000 square feet lot into
two 6,000 square feet lots. In order to meet the
minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet in the R-6
zone district, a 1967 addition to the 1893 Victorian Image 1: 1893 Victorian. Arrow points to the 1967
needs to be removed to avoid the building sitting addition proposed for demolition.
over the newly established lot line. The subdivision review is conducted by Planning and Zoning
Commission and City Council.
Partial demolition of the 1967 addition on the west elevation of the Victorian and restoration is
requested of HPC.
Staff finds that the review criteria are met and recommends approval with conditions.
APPLICANT: Gina Berko 25%, David Fleisher 25%, and 223 ELM LLC 50%, represented by
Derek Skalko of 1Friday Design Collaborative.
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-16-003
ADDRESS: 223 East Hallam Avenue, Lots C, D, E, and F, Block 72, City and Townsite of Aspen,
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
ZONE DISTRICT: R-6, Medium-Density Residential Zone District.
1 223 E.Hallam Ave.
HPC Minor Development/Demolition Staff Memo
11/14/2012
P29
DEMOLITION
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 - (22.0,ny zT a
historic district or its historic, architectural or
aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated �.
properties and Y,
C. Demolition of the structure will be
inconsequential to the historic preservation
needs of the area.
Staff Response: The applicant proposes to remove a 1967 '
addition to the west elevation of the historic Victorian. The
two images to the right show the 1904 Sanborne map (top)
and an aerial photograph of the property(bottom).
The yellow arrow points to the 1967 addition. As
evidenced by the 1904 plan,there have been many
alterations to the building. In Staff's opinion, the
addition alters the original footprint of the historic
building and does not have any historic or architectural
significance to the property. Demolition of the 1967
addition brings the residence closer to its original
configuration. Staff finds that criterion d in the first section
above is met. Staff finds that all of criteria a—c in the second
section above are met and commends approval of partial Images 2 and 3. 1904 Sanborn map(top)of
demolition. subject property and 2012 aerial photograph of
subject property(bottom)
2 223 E.Hallam Ave.
HPC Minor Development/Demolition Staff Memo
11/14/2012
P30
MINOR DEVELOPMENT
The procedure for a Minor Development Review 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. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and
the Community Development Director shall issue a Development Order. The HPC decision
shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred(300)feet
of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316.
The applicant proposes to restore the west elevation after the 1967 addition is removed. The
plans from 1967 are included in the application packet as sheet A-2.01, which shows an outline
the original configuration of the west wall to accurately guide the restoration.
6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features should be based on original
designs.
• The design should be substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a
misrepresentation of the building's heritage.
• When reconstruction of an element is impossible because there is no historical evidence,
develop a compatible new design that is a simplified interpretation of the original, and
maintains similar scale,proportion and material.
10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right.
❑ Such an addition is usually similar in character to the original building in terms of materials,
finishes and design.
10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed.
Siding: Horizontal wood siding with profile to match existing is proposed.
Staff Response: Staff finds that guideline 2.7 below is met.
2.7 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials
on primary surfaces.
• If the original material is wood clapboard, for example, then the replacement material must
be wood as well. It should match the original in size, the amount of exposed lap and finish.
• Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only
those should be replaced, not the entire wall.
Windows: The applicant proposes to reuse the existing wooden windows in the same
configuration as existing.
3 223 E.Hallam Ave.
HPC Minor Development/Demolition Staff Memo
11/14/2012
P31
Staff Response: Staff is supportive of the effort to reuse the existing wooden windows, which
were probably the original windows prior to the 1967 addition.
Roof: The roof overhang above the windows is proposed to match the asphalt shingles and
detailing of the existing residence.
Staff Response: Staff is supportive of asphalt shingles and finds that guideline 7.9 below is met.
7.9 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to
those used traditionally.
❑ Replacement materials should be similar to those used historically on comparably styled
buildings.
• If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and
have a matte, non-reflective finish.
• Flashing should be in scale with the roof material.
❑ If copper flashing is to be used, it should be treated to establish a matte, non-reflective finish.
Foundation: The applicant proposes to utilize the existing sandstone foundation of the pre-1925
sections of the residence. If this is not possible, the applicant proposes an 8" concrete block to
match the sections of the residence added post- 1925.
Staff Response: Staff is supportive of the proposal to use a sandstone foundation to match the
existing historic residence. Using the existing sandstone is the primary option, however
replacement sandstone that matches the existing is preferred as a second option if the existing
material is unusable. Staff does not support using concrete block for the foundation. In Staff's
opinion restoring the west wall to its original appearance includes the foundation material.
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 Minor Development approval for
the property located at 223 E. Hallam Avenue, with the following conditions:
1. Partial demolition of the west elevation of the Victorian residence as represented in the
application is approved.
2. The west elevation shall be restored using the 1967 plans included in the application.
3. The horizontal wood siding shall match the existing profile.
4. The existing wood windows shall be reused in the restoration of the west elevation as
presented in the application.
4 223 E.Hallam Ave.
HPC Minor Development/Demolition Staff Memo
11/14/2012
P32
5. Asphalt shingles are approved for the roof of the west elevation. The shingles shall match
the existing roof on the Victorian. A material sample shall be reviewed and approved by
Staff and Monitor.
6. The foundation shall be sandstone to match existing condition. A material sample shall
be reviewed and approved by Staff and Monitor.
7. 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.
8. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan
vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order.
However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this
approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise
exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be
recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development
order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the
development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits).
Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in
the creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary
to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance,the City Clerk shall cause to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the
City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific
development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice
shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development
plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years,
pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado
Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 223 East Hallam
Avenue, Lots C, D, E, and F, Block 72, City and Townsite of Aspen, County of
Pitkin, State of Colorado.
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.
Exhibits:
Resolution#_, Series of 2012
A. Application
5 223 E.Hallam Ave.
HPC Minor Development/Demolition Staff Memo
11/14/2012
P33
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
APPROVING MINOR DEVELOPMENT AND PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 223 EAST HALLAM AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED
AS LOTS C, D, E AND F, BLOCK 72, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION #_, SERIES OF 2012
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-16-003
WHEREAS, the applicant, Gina Berko 25%, David Fleisher 25%, and 223 ELM LLC 50%,
represented by Derek Skalko of 1 Friday Design Collaborative, submitted an application
requesting Minor Development review and Partial Demolition of the property located at 223 East
Hallam Avenue, legally described as Lots C, D, E and F, Block 72, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado; and
WHEREAS, 223 East Hallam Avenue is included in AspenVictorian and listed on the Aspen
Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures; and
WHEREAS, 223 East Hallam Avenue is located in the R-6 zone district; 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, at their regular meeting on November 14, 2012 the Historic Preservation
Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing, took public comment, considered the
application, the staff memo, staff recommendation, and public comments, and found that the
application for Minor Development and Demolition met the review standards with conditions
and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines," by a vote of_to_
NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby grants Minor Development and Demolition approvals with conditions for the
property located at 223 East Hallam Avenue, Lots C, D, E and F Block 72, City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions:
1. Partial demolition of the west elevation of the Victorian residence as represented in the
application is approved.
2. The west elevation shall be restored using the 1967 plans included in the application.
3. The horizontal wood siding shall match the existing profile.
4. The existing wood windows shall be reused in the restoration of the west elevation as
presented in the application.
223 E. Hallam Avenue—Minor Development and Demolition
HPC Resolution#_, Series of 2012
Page 1 of 3
P34
5. Asphalt shingles are approved for the roof of the west elevation. The shingles shall match
the existing roof on the Victorian. A material sample shall be reviewed and approved by
Staff and Monitor.
6. The foundation shall be sandstone to match existing condition. A material sample shall
be reviewed and approved by Staff and Monitor.
7. 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.
8. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan
vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order.
However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this
approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise
exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be
recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development
order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the
development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits).
Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in
the creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary
to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance,the City Clerk shall cause to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the
City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific
development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice
shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development
plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years,
pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado
Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 223 East Hallam
Avenue, Lots C, D, E, and F, Block 72, City and Townsite of Aspen, County of
Pitkin, State of Colorado.
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.
[see following page for signatures]
223 E.Hallam Avenue—Minor Development and Demolition
HPC Resolution#_,Series of 2012
Page 2 of 3
P35
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 14th day of November,
2012.
Ann Mullins, Chair
Approved as to Form:
Debbie Quinn,Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
223 E. Hallam Avenue—Minor Development and Demolition
HPC Resolution#_, Series of 2012
Page 3 of 3
P36
PO BOX 7928
Aspen,CO 81612-7928 1 f r i •
Phone:970.309.0695
E-mail/Web:derek(U)1fridaV.com/www.lfriday.com ' e s '
. .
To: Ms.Sara Adams,AICP; Senior Planner From: Derek Skalko, Principal
The City of Aspen 1 Friday Design Collaborative
E-mail: [Sara.Adams @ci.aspen.co.us] Date: July 315`,2012
Phone: 970.429.2778 Pages: 2
E'
Re: 223 East Hallam Street—Materials CC: File $t} yy
Description—Request for Information I I I I 31 7012
CITY OF ASPEN
223 East Hallam Residence ry�til]hv DEVEL P 9
Request for Information:Materials Description for Proposed Wall Remodel
Dear Sara&Members of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission,
Per your addendum request for information regarding the proposed materials to be utilized towards the
restoration of the east Victorian bay wall area, please find attached a brief outline pertaining to the
matter. We anticipate utilizing a"match existing conditions" approach for the area due to the minimal
amount of impact we will likely experience to the existing structure.
Foundation (D): We intend to fully inspect the ability and condition of the original painted sandstone or
Colorado Buff stone foundation and utilize this if possible. If this cannot be achieved,the foundation is
anticipated to be a comprised of an 8" concrete block foundation to match the remaining existing
conditions found consistently around the home on all additions post 1925.
Walls(A) /Windows: (C) :
Bay walls are comprised of roughly 50% painted wood siding and 50% wooden fixed and operable
windows. It is our intention to simply "match existing construction and detailing conditions' found
consistent with the existing historic structure. The wooden siding is to be a painted 5" horizontally
applied traditional lap siding detail with a traditional vertically applied 1 x 6" painted wooden trim
surround on comer edging and windows per existing conditions. If it is possible to retain and re-use the
existing wooden windows in their height and respective locations within the wall,we anticipate to do so.
Should conditions for this proposal turn adverse,A painted wooden window substitute to comparative in
scale operability, and detailing will be utilized from a modern provider. Loewen Windows and Doors is
the likely anticipated provider should this be necessary.
Wall/Roof Overhang Awning(24"Band)(13):
The proposed upper awning"band" is intended to be clad with a traditional asphalt shingle consistent
with the historical detailing found throughout the residence. The intended colour of the shingles area
will match existing conditions.
We look forward to presenting and discussing this matter with you further. Supplemental graphic
information is provided on the page following for additional description and clarification purposes.
P37
El
1_
.�tt`��, mom rnro
u,ro m o.roen rao ma
4
I
i
I _ _
•1
11 .1
yi
i
,1
,1 li
11E L.-----' --- --}r Rx
_ xistingTstElevation-223 East ____________—_—_ — e'N�'r
�\ I ..�'
--------------
Ir
•
- ----------------
.. i
I j
i t
1�
sl
2-1PrODOsed West Elevation-223 East Hallam Residence
Thank you very much,
a^
Derek Skalko
Principal, 1 Friday Design Collaborative
P38
PO BOX 7928
Aspen,CO 81612-7928 1 f r i •
Phone:970.309.0695
E-mail/Web:derek(a0friday.com/www.1friday.com ' - s i '
• I I a • .
To: Ms.Amy Guthrie;Director From: Derek Skalko, Principal
The Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 1 Friday Design Collaborative
E-mail: Amy.Guthde @ci.aspen.co.us Date: June 280,2012/Revised July 19'',2012
Phone: 970.429.2758 Pages: 5
Re: 223 East Hallam Street—Explanation for CC: File
Partial Demolition/Subdivision Lot Split
223 East Hallam Residence
Request for Dining Addition Removal—Victorian/Subdivision Lot Split—Lots C&D/E&F
Dear Amy&Members of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission,
We are approaching the commission on behalf of Mr. David Fleisher& Mrs. Gina Berko and 223 Elm
LLC, care of Mr. Howie.Mallory & Mrs. Nora Berko, managers and property owners of the 223 East
Hallam Street Residence, a 12,000 sq ft property located in the West End District of Aspen. The
property is legally defined as Lots C, D, E & F, Block 72 within the Townsite of Aspen and is, by
definition, a legally conforming lot according to land use code. The site contains two detached
residential structures in addition to a non-habitable garage.The main Victorian residence initially dates
to the 1890's time period to which one, with the possibility of two, major time period additions were
added prior to the final additions planned in 1967. The first addition likely dates from between the late
1890's-early 1900's to 1925 with the most recent additions dating to construction occurring in or after
1967 per the architectural plans: The existing studio located on the property was also constructed in or
after 1967. The garage located behind the Victorian structure dates between 1925 and 1957. Clerk
and recording information places the studio construction and most recent additions to the Victorian at
1970.
Packet Submission:
The 24 x 36"drawing packet included for your review of 223 East Hallam includes the following:
Initial Sheet: Existing Site Survey with vicinity map, noted structures, topography, and all existing
property and easement setback conditions as recorded per Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc.
Sheet A1-1: A historical breakdown of the building timeline history as understood to the best of our
research via existing records and personal accounts. Additionally, an existing site general locate plan
is provided as with Zoning and FAR site specific information for 223 East Hallam.
Sheet Al-2: Existing site plan of 223 East Hallam with roof depictions of existing structures.
Sheet A1-3: Proposed site plan of 223.East Hallam with roof depictions of proposed alteration to
Victorian residence.
Sheet Al 4:Existing plans and FAR calculations of the residential studio.(NO CHANGES)
Sheet A1-5: Existing elevations of the residential studio. (NO CHANGES)
Sheet A1-6: Existing and proposed plans and FAR calculations of the lower level Victorian.
Sheet Al-7: Existing and proposed plans and FAR calculations of the main level Victorian.
Sheet Al-8:Existing and proposed plans and FAR calculations of the upper level Victorian.
Sheet A1-9: Existing and proposed roof plans of the Victorian. Garage plan and FAR information
provided additionally. (NO CHANGES TO GARAGE)
P39
Sheet A-10: Existing and proposed north elevations(Hallam)of main Victorian.
Sheet A-11: Existing and proposed west elevations(side)of main Victorian.
Sheet A-12: Existing and proposed south elevations(alley)of main Victorian.
Sheet A21: Original Architectural Planning Information of Existing Additions Proposed — October 31,
1967.
Proposed Project Overview&Variance Requests sought regarding 223 East Hallam Residence:
We are requesting to remove approximately 227 square feet from the existing Victorian residence
currently situated across Lots D, E, & F of the four lot parcel. The existing dining area of the main
Victorian, which was one of the two additions to the residence occurring in or after 1967, currently
extends into lot D by approximately 8'-3". We are proposing to eliminate the addition as developed per
the 1967 plans and restore the bay wall as it historically existed prior to the addition,which would place
the Victorian within Lots E&F of the parcel in its entirety.
The intended purpose for requesting removal the home's dining addition is to allow for two 6,000
square foot independent parcels to be created without any possible complications and encumbrance
that may prove detrimental in the future should the residence be left unaddressed and in its existing
location. The current 12,000 square foot size of the property enables the existing parcel to be split
equally to create two conforming 6,000 square foot parcels in accordance with the standard R-6 zoning
of the neighborhood and per Aspen Land Use Code, Section 26.480.030 A2. We are utilizing the
process of a Subdivision Lot Split with the intention of creating two 60'wide by 100'deep parcels. Lots
C&D,Block 72 are intended to comprise one parcel,with Lots E&F, Block 72 comprising the other.
In regards to variances,we are not requesting to alter any areas beyond the dining room mass of the
Victorian, which, upon removal, would be in compliance of a west 5' side yard setback should our
partial request for demolition be granted. In regards to existing non-conformities upon the parcel,
currently, the Victorian is non-compliant regarding its south front yard setback (2' Existing — 10'
Required) and east side yard setback(12'-10" Existing— 15' Required). This would be improved in a
lot split scenario with the east side yard turning compliant(5' Required). The front yard non-conformity
would remain as it exists. The studio residence is currently 6-2"from its west side property, with 15'
being required. A lot split would eliminate this non-conformity. The garage's existing east side is V-6"
from the property, with 15' being the required side yard. Although a lot split would reduce this non-
conformity,the building will still be 3'-6"into the east side yard setback.
Residential Design Standards&compliance/applicability towards 223 East Hallam:
The partial demolition of the dining area does not positively or adversely alter or affect any aspects of
the residential design standards. Conditions are to remain"as is"in relation to this subject matter when
discussing Aspen Land Use Code,Chapter 26.410.
Request for Partial Demolition / Restoration of the Dining Room Addition Area — Victorian
Residence:
The intention of the existing parcel is to create two 6,000 square foot lots legally defined as such. We
are seeking the removal of the 227 square foot dining area specifically to eliminate any possibility of
encumbrance in the future potential rights of the created parcels.
Per Aspen Land Use Code, Section 26.415.080, we do believe our request for the partial
demolition of the secondary addition to the Victorian is warranted per the following requirement,
which at least one characteristic must be met. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated
that the application meets any one of the following criteria:
a. The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public
safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely
manner,
b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to
properly maintain the structure,
P40
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
The proposed 1967 addition provides no historical benefit to the greater whole of the existing Victorian
residence, nor is it feasible or even possible to attempt to relocate the existing home in its entirety due
to the existing limitations of the building's footprint. We are seeking the removal of the dining room area
and propose to return the affected area to its original 1890's condition to eliminate any possible
encumbrance to the created parcels a lot split may present in the future.
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.
We believe our request for partial demolition of the dining protrusion does meet all additional criterion
as described per the Aspen Land Use Code, Section 26.415.080. For reasons already stated, we do
not believe the building's said addition contributes to the historical time period of significance specific to
the main historical Victorian aspect of the property. We believe the removal of the said addition will, in
fact, begin to enhance the historic amenity of the property and improve the overall land use nature of
the area by eliminating the potential creation of an encroachment into the neighboring west side
property.
All will be presented to further assist in demonstrating our partial demolition request upon our hearing.
In closing, we would simply like to express our sincere gratitude in considering our request regarding
223 East Hallam Street. We look forward to presenting and discussing this matter with you further.
Supplemental graphic information is provided on the pages following for additional description and
clarification purposes.
Thank you very much,
14io
/�
Derek Skalko
Principal, 1 Friday Design Collaborative
T•• 7�5a�...,.+ *�Pi-'�'•'••"�=. •'�. sx. .+ ��r. '.tom Eiy. -
t�#JrGn
-...,r� _`ry^ � � Sri`: rf �, �y�y� i'`�""�'� � •�.
� y
v P
k�M����"a'r}��jYdy�•'c.�.�'k
_�t' P �qy...� �°�� t k�:�"yY,- tra`�+�"�..% 9Y'F •��` 2i .rte � ; � ,;.`
I „+� ::�C k'r ��:[ �� uhf a.!�� � r�. ,v • "��4.G� ",.�C ;r
• • •
of •• • • •• .•• • • ••• -• • • 1
r
a ♦
q�
P42
10
OF ct)i
3S ZIP ?r" Irff zfll Y1 2// Z117 215 i29 Z31
t7
2)
D L IV
72
II
P,
1:7
-D
6--d r.
�7
E:.E31.F—E:KF-R
'7 241 ?J3 21S :Y' ?VP "N
................
D
g F b H
Ld
IL 73
C-1-r,-T-
Sanborn Information for 223 East Hallam Residence—1898
P43
ATTACHMENT 3
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM
Project: _�7,2 3 110
- 4l ' - � C u�►- apt tT�
Applicant: 2.Z 3 tFA-57 Newt OWA JO: SH(P / `' P;= PErRS-K
Location: 223 lei HAUA"'► i �5 C',C7, . 11= (3Lio0K '?Z
Zone District: 9Z-- C=1
Lot Size: 12.0 " LAJ 1 t-�C X' I CSI ' 1"1-4atalf=1
Lot Area: i 21 cr�—_o c EE iZ7TA l_
(for the purposes of calculating Floor Area,Lot Area may be reduced for areas
within the high water mark,easements,and steep slopes. Please refer to the
definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.)
Commercial net leasable: Existing: W4 Proposed: H 1
�2 �La) Number of residential units: Existing: Proposed:— "3 �+ �w;c ►au +
Number of bedrooms: Existing Pro osed: C_;
1 u;caxtAl��
g� P
Proposed%of demolition(Historic properties only): --,:z-7 ,!5Q fit- 7L-
�5� �r�'+cs�iT7�; CvJ�'T�A•d�1
0rsa 12, -
DIMENSIONS:
I e96--1-Iao `34ro
Floor Area: Existing: LI650<•65Allowable. y A �� Proposed. � '� E2-34'7_5 J/Cm'�% ►
Principal bldg.height: Existing:aW'kAip Allowable: :27 Proposed:
111-1-M-0 -5AVIA15)
Access. bldg.height: Existing: i6`- " --Allowable: 26 Proposed:
On-Site parking: Existing: Required: .2 Proposed:
% Site coverage: Existing: Required. O�U Proposed: 24•S 4
%Open Space: Existing: OAA Required. Nh''' Proposed: N/'6`
RAC.A M Front Setback: Existing: Required: 0 Proposed. WA CSA�
t-
Rear Setback: Existing: '3 it Required: to 5 �w3rmes:-Proposed: NIA
Combined F/R: Existing: �Required: N/` Proposed: 1.1/,4 rx tom'
1=
Side Setback: Existing:&Alz-1'-�`�Required. i 5 Proposed: N5
w Side Setback: Existing: G'z Required. 1 Proposed.•
Combined Sides: Existing: 7-� Required: �7 Proposed: l-5' ice'- mac-
� r
Distance Between Existing l S Required: Proposed: I
Buildings
l/
Existing non-conformities or.encroachments: � �' j Z// '1 ' �� `���'� (i-5'M►,� 4
�. 2 1 F1Zc rYA ALI-r—:1t ()6'k-1I f J.,> /�Y-Z4GE 1 L G i=.4S i ->I1E ���V <l-i M i N
V(G'ra(.NJ i'3' �� �i1aC vq(et� i7 t kvmu„) { 3 �// �rzcsr? sxlT YA�?r7 (iCi' W►1iV,
Variations requested:
sEnr 3- ,ti w► / i�� s n
22-77 -!5,6.
��`5cY3i�.t Z ;lJ� — L
�j�1�3T7�V1 �t6�U Lv"'r- �LiT 1
Y�'�J77i� s
EXHIBIT—7—
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE y
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE C
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: ;2-23 �� ,Aspen,CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: OCUF_tn ,20k i z
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
I, �� ` � (name, please print)
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied
with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following
manner:
Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen(15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
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 in a conspicuous place on
the subject property at least fifteen(15) days prior to the public hearing and was
continuously visible from the" ay of 'a ' , 200_[Z , to and fz>5�.
including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted 60 f2y
notice (sign) is attached hereto.
XMailing 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, and, 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 any federal agency, state, county, municipal
government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental
agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject
to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners
shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no
more than sixty(60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the
owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
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 tent 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 has been available for public
inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen(15) days
prior to the public hearing on such amendments.
Sig ture
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this day
PATRICK S. RAWLEY WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF COLORADO My commission expires:
NOTARY ID#19994012259
My Commission Expires July 26,2016
Notary Public
ATTACHMENTS:
COPY OF THE PUBLICATION
PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN)
LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BY MAIL
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 223 EAST HALLAM AVENUE, MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND PARTIAL
DEMOLITION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday,November 14,
2012,at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission,
Council Chambers Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St.,Aspen,to consider an application
submitted by David Fleischer and Gina Berko and 223 Elm LLC, c/o Howie Mallory and Nora
Berko,the owners of 223 East Hallam Avenue,represented by Derek Skalko of 1 Friday Design
Collaborative. The applicant requests Minor Development review and partial demolition to remove
and restore a non-historic addition on the west elevation of the Victorian residence on the property.
The property is legally described as Lots C, D, E and F of Block 72, City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado and more commonly known as 223 East Hallam Avenue, Aspen, Colorado,
81611. For further information,contact Sara Adams at the City of Aspen Community Development
Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970)429.2778, saraadams@ci.aspen.co.us.
s/Ann Mullins,Chair
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on October 25,2012
City of Aspen Account
33 +►awl WLAd Ctq@�
114-E)t8T RLEEKER STREET ASSOC 202 ASPEN LLC 225 NORTH MILL ST LLC
COMMON AREA 2950 E BROAD ST 2ND FL 225 N MILL ST
114 E BLEEKER ST COLUMBUS,OH 43209 ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611
AMATO JOSEPH A ASPEN COMMUNITY UNITED CHALAL JOSEPH B
PO BOX 503 METHODIST CHURCH 31 ANNA ST
HIGHLAND MILLS, NY 10930 200 E BLEEKER ST OCEAN RIDGE, FL 33435
ASPEN, CO 81611
CITY OF ASPEN CJB REALTY INVESTORS LLC DOMINGUE FAMILY TRUST
ATTN FINANCE DEPT 6544 WENONGA CIR 600 SEMINOLE DR
130 S GALENA ST MISSION HILLS, KS 66208 WINTER PARK, FL 32789
ASPEN, CO 81611
GARRETT GULCH EQUITY VENTURE LLC GETTMAN ROSA H TRUST GSW FAMILY INV LP
2950 E BROAD ST 325 S FOREST PO BOX 2038
COLUMBUS,OH 43209 DENVER, CO 80246 WHEELING,WV 26003
HAYES MARY E&JAMES L FAM LP LLLP HODES ALAN&DEBORAH HODGSON PHILIP R 50%
209 E BLEEKER ST 114 N ASPEN ST. HODGSON PATRICIA H TRUST 50%
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 212 N MONARCH ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
HOGUET CONDO ASSOC HOGUET CONSTANCE M JEROME PROPERTY LLC
COMMON AREA 333 E 68TH ST 540 W MADISON ST
118 E BLEEKER ST NEW YORK, NY 10065 CHICAGO, IL 60661
ASPEN, CO 81611
JOHNSON RICHARD&MONTAE IMBT KRIBS KAREN REV LIV TRUST LE VOTAUX 11 CONDO ASSOC
6820 BRADBURY PO BOX 9994 COMMON AREA
DALLAS, TX 75230 ASPEN, CO 81612 117 N MONARCH ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
LIGHT HOLDINGS LLLP MADDEN WALTER ROSS 42.5% MATTINGLY MARK&ALIXE
801 BASELINE RD 218 N MONARCH ST 929 CAMINO VIEJO
BOULDER, CO 80302 ASPEN, CO 81611 SANTA BARBARA, CA 93108
MYRIN CUTHBERT L JR 57.5% PARZYBOK WILLIAM G JR TRUSTEE PENN PAUL E&SUSAN W
PO BOX 12365 3860 FOXCHASE WAY 3830 E 79TH ST
ASPEN, CO 81612 COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 809086901 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46260-3457
PUPPY SMITH LLC RANDALL MIDDLETON/HALLAM LP SADLER QUAL PERS RES TRUST#5 50%
205 S MILL ST SUITE 301A FIVE POST OAK PARK#2580 8536 N GOLF DR
ASPEN, CO 81611 4400 POST OAK PKWY PARADISE VALLEY,AZ 85253
HOUSTON,TX 77027
SE�UIR WILLIAM L&MARILYN SEMRAU FAMILY LLC SUTTON KERMIT S&JENNY W
PO BOX 4274 300 S SPRING ST#203 715 TENTH ST SOUTH
ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 816112806 NAPLES, FL 34102
US POSTAL SERVICE WATERS DANIEL E WHITMAN RANDALL A
WESTERN REGION C/O BOSTOCK VICTORIA C 4845 HAMMOCK LAKE DR
SAN BRUNO, CA 94099 8 COPPER BEECH RD CORAL GABLES, FL 33156
GREENWICH,CT 068304034
N.
t�� 9
i
I T�
i 1
PUBLIC NOTICE
f4,2012
Date: — - I
Time:sve_ - —
Place:130S GOWOSl. — r.
Purpose:
FarYr dnnofson a(a apMesbnc �
aaoioon and pptg resWrabw of(he
rest ebvakon of the ViCNrtan
iesder¢e.De"Ska*o of 1Fnday._
Colaharahmno ieserasamws__-
Qaud Fkmdw d Cme Berko.and
Ehn LLC,Uo Hone Ma"6 Nom
Betko,.P.0 Boy 7928.Aspen,.CO_ .
Forko#w mtpmwm CordW AaW
Piannmp C*at 970-WIID- 90