Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20130213 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 13, 2013 CITY COUNCIL MEETING ROOM 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO Please visit the sites on your own 5:00 INTRODUCTION A. Roll call B. Approval of minutes—January 9, 2013 C. Public Comments D. Commission member comments E. Disclosure of conflict of interest(actual and apparent) F. Project Monitoring G. Staff comments H. Certificates of No Negative Effect issued I. Submit public notice for agenda items OLD BUSINESS 5.10 A. 110 W. Main Street, Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design, Demolition, Public Amenity—CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING NEW BUSINESS 5.40 A. 208 E. Main Street, Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, Special Review and Variances- PUBLIC HEARING 6.50 B. 204 S. Galena, Substantial Amendment to Major Development- PUBLIC HEARING 7:30 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) HPC 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.Bleeker-Kribs 205 S. Spring-Hills Fox Crossing Red Butte Cemetery Boomerang 604 W. Main Lift One 316 E. Hopkins 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) 204 S. Galena 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 204 S. Galena M:\city\planning\hpc project monitoring\PROJECT MONITORING.doc 2/5/2013 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 110 W. Main Street- Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design, Public Amenity review, Demolition, Continued Public Hearing DATE: February 13, 2013 SUMMARY: On January 9th, HPC reviewed a Conceptual application for substantial redevelopment of the Hotel Aspen property at 110 W. Main Street. Minutes of the HPC meeting are attached. HPC continued the project for restudy of the following aspects of the project in particular: • restudy of the height and footprint of the residential buildings • revise the Garmisch Street head in parking area • provide more accurate context information Staff also emphasized to the applicant the need to address some of the referral comments that were also received on January 9th, at a meeting of the Development Review Committee (City Departments involved in the review and permitting processes.) Attached is a response from the applicant including a cover letter summarizing the changes proposed. The drawings represent an increase in the on-site public amenity space in the form of public outdoor dining space along Main Street. Staff finds this to be a very beneficial improvement to the liveliness of the property along the south fayade. The drawings also represent a restudy of the head in parking area along Garmisch Street. Staff has referred this plan to the Engineering Department for further input. Architecturally, the only modification that has been made to the residential units facing Bleeker Street is a 10" decrease in their height. Staff finds that this is a insubstantial response to the direction at the January 91h meeting. The new application contains more context study, which is very useful, however it seems to emphasize the contrast in scale on Bleeker. There has also been no progress on other concerns with the current plan, including inadequate distance between buildings for firefighting purposes, and undersized on-site utility/trash/recycling area. The proposed affordable housing units do not meet the minimum net livable area for 1 bedroom units and also do not meet Fair Housing requirements in that one of them is only accessible from the alley, rather than the street. Part of the project is proposed to be 1 be constructed on top of a sewer main. The applicant has not clearly stated an intention to pay to relocate the line. The application suggests that these issues can be addressed at Final, but that is not workable since Conceptual approval is binding upon the HPC in terms of location and form of the envelope of the structure(s), including its height, scale, massing and proportions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the project be continued to a date certain for for restudy of the free market residential units along Bleeker Street. These structures are taller than the surrounding neighborhood allows. There is less setback provided between the buildings than zoning would typically require. In addition, the project needs to be in compliance with issues raised during the Development Review Committee process, including the minimum distance between buildings for Building and Fire codes, the size of the utility/trash/recycling area, the size and accessibility of the affordable housing units, and the status of the sewer line relocation. Attachments: A. Staff memo from January 9, 2013 B. HPC minutes from January 9, 2013 C. Development review committee referral comments D. Revised application 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 110 W. MainStreet- Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design, Public Amenity review, Demolition, Public Hearing DATE: January 9, 2013 SUMMARY: 110 W. Main Street is a 27,000 square foot lot developed as a small lodge, Hotel Aspen. The property spans from Main Street to Bleeker Street and encompasses a vacated alley. The south half of the property is located in the Main Street Historic District and is zoned MU Mixed Use, while the north half of the property is not within HPC's typical purview in the West End neighborhood and is zoned R-6 Residential. The entire site has an LP Lodge Preservation Overlay. The Lodge Preservation Overlay allows some additional development options and flexibility for Aspen's traditional small lodges, many of which have historically been located in residential neighborhoods. The overlay allows all dimensional requirements, including floor area and height, to be approved on a case by case basis. The proposal before HPC is complete demolition of all the existing structures except for a portion of the current entry lobby, and replacement with new lodge units, affordable housing and two duplex structures. HPC is asked to focus review on overall issues of compatibility with the surrounding area. HPC's input will be important as the project continues through the Planning and Zoning and Council reviews, where the size of the project will be established. At the end of the process, HPC will hold a Final design review hearing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the project be continued for restudy of the free market residential units along Bleeker Street. These structures are taller than the surrounding neighborhood allows. There is less setback provided between the buildings than zoning would typically require. There is a substantial tree that is to be removed for the new construction. More information is needed regarding the existing and proposed Public Amenity space. Staff recommends any reduction be focused on returning the parking on the Garmisch street side to parallel, rather than head in parking. This would provide more green space and a better sidewalk for the public. APPLICANT: Hotel Aspen, represented by Stan Clauson Associates and Poss Architecture and Planning. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-61-800. 3 ADDRESS: 110 W. Main Street, Hotel Aspen Condominiums, City and Townsite of Aspen. CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. The design guidelines for conceptual review of a new building in the Main Street historic district are all located within the "Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives." The relevant guidelines are attached as "Exhibit A." Because the north half of the property is not in the historic district, a different set of design guidelines apply to review of its redevelopment; the Small Lodges Character Area guidelines, attached as"Exhibit B." The design guidelines acknowledge that the small lodges along Main Street were a departure from the Victorian era character of the neighborhood. The portion of the lodge that addresses Main Street is being retained, with changes to materials. No setback or form changes are proposed. The lobby portion of the hotel is close to the sidewalk,which is appropriate to the use. The remaining street fagade is substantially setback behind a pool area. The wall surrounding the pool is not characteristic of the street and could possibly be softened, while still meeting safety and privacy concerns. The project is also maintaining the existing setback condition along Garmisch Street, but the building is increasing in height. The zone district does allow flat roofed buildings to be 28' tall, with the opportunity to increase to 32' if found to be appropriate through Commercial Design 4 Review. The project requests a height of 32'10", which could be approved by Council through the PUD. The applicant should provide further explanation for the 10" overage. Some of the dimensions are driven by the fact that a portion of the existing construction is being retained. Staff finds few conflicts with the conceptual design guidelines relative to the front half of the property. We have more concerns with the compatibility of the rear development with the lower scaled residential neighborhood setting. First, staff recommends that the height of the proposed residential structures be restudied. The 28'-32' height limit is applicable, however the immediately surrounding buildings are limited to 25.' A three story, flat roofed building is not characteristic of the West End, and particularly of this blockface, which includes three Victorian era houses. Staff recommends a reduction in the height of these buildings. There is a related concern with the unit sizes, which exceed the maximum for the Mixed Use zone that is the guiding rule. The Bleeker Street lot line is 120' wide. A typical West End lot is 60' wide. There are some properties as large as 12,000 square feet, but they are typically subdivided into the smaller module. In any case, two duplexes would not normally be permitted on a property of this scale. Staff's primary concern is the inadequate setbacks relative to the surrounding neighborhood. Two 6,000 square foot lots would require a total protected setback of 30'. This proposal has 5' sideyards and 9' between the buildings, for a total of 19' of visual break in the fagade widths. Staff recommends the width of the proposed new duplexes be restudied. An additional site planning topic that HPC must discuss is public amenity. All projects in the Mixed Use zone district are required to provide a certain amount of public amenity space on their site, or request approval to pay a cash in lieu fee. Generally, on-site public amenity is in the form of some sort of usable open space. There are some locations where on-site open space is appropriate and some locations where creating an alignment with adjacent buildings is more important. Hotel Aspen currently has less than the minimum on-site amenity required of new development, and the amenity will be reduced through the reconfiguration of building footprints. The applicant proposes to pay a cash-in-lieu fee which will be directed towards streetscape improvements to the Garmisch Street head in parking area. The review criteria are: Provision of public amenity. The Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission, pursuant to the review procedures and criteria of Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Review, shall determine the appropriate method or combination of methods for providing this required amenity. One (1) or more of the following methods may be used such that the standard is reached. 1. On-site provision of public amenity. A portion of the parcel designed in a manner meeting Subsection 26.575.030.F., Design and operational standards for on-site public amenity. 2. Off-site provision of public amenity. Proposed public amenities and improvements to the pedestrian environment within proximity of the development site may be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design 5 Review. These may be improvements to private property, public property or public rights-of-way. An easement providing public access over an existing public amenity space for which no easement exists may be accepted if such easement provides permanent public access and is acceptable to the City Attorney. Off-site improvements shall equal or exceed the value of an otherwise required cash-in-lieu payment and be consistent with any public infrastructure or capital improvement plan for that area. 3. Cash-in-lieu provision. The City Council, upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, may accept a cash-in-lieu payment for any portion of required public amenity not otherwise physically provided, according to the procedures and limitations of Subsection 26.575.030.E, Cash-in-lieu payment. 4. Alternative method. The Commission,pursuant to Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Review, may accept any method of providing public amenity not otherwise described herein if the Commission finds that such method equals or exceeds the value,which may be nonmonetary community value, of an otherwise required cash-in-lieu payment. The part of the property where existing public amenity is being eliminated is along Bleeker Street. The existing structures are set back further from that lot line than the proposed buildings will be. Staff has concerns with the size of the new structures proposed along Bleeker, as described above. The result of the restudy would likely be more on-site public amenity. To the extent that the revised design still has less public amenity than exists today, staff does support use of funds on the Garmisch Sreet right-of-way, however, rather than creating landscape elements to break up the parking area, staff recommends the head in parking be eliminated and replaced with traditional parallel parking. There are numerous locations along Main Street where the right-of way has been devoted to parking, taking away from the pedestrian experience. This proposal includes a parking garage that has more parking spaces than are technically required by the redevelopment. To the extent that spaces are lost through conversion to parallel parking, they may be made up below grade. Whether the parking is head in or parallel, it is not allowed to be used exclusively for Hotel Aspen because it is on public property. DEMOLITION The existing buildings are to be almost entirely demolished. Because it is located in a historic district, HPC must grant Demolition approval. It is the intent of the historic preservation ordinance to preserve the historic and architectural resources that have demonstrated significance to the community. Consequently no demolition of properties designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures will be allowed unless approved by the HPC in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section. The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the property owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the 6 standards for demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a. The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. Staff Response: Staff supports demolition of this non-contributing structure finding that no documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance. 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 the application for restudy of the Bleeker Street residential units massing and site plan. On-site public amenity, and the treatment of the Garmisch Street right-of-way, should also be revised before a cash-in-lieu fee is accepted. Exhibits: A. Relevant Guidelines for the Main Street Historic District B. Relevant Guidelines for the Small Lodges Character Area C. Application 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2013 Willis recused himself. 110 W. Main Street— Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design, Demolition, Public Amenity— Public Hearing Proof of publication— Exhibit I Amy gave an overview of the project. This property is in the Main Street historic District and the property is 110 W. Main, Hotel Aspen. The property stretches from Main Street to Bleeker Street and encompasses what used to be an open alley. It has multiple zone districts overlaying the property. There is unresolved issues as to which zone district will apply. It has mixed use zoning on the Main Street side and R-6 on the residential side, West End side. It has a lodge preservation overlay. It is considered a PUD process and those boards can define the appropriate heights and setbacks for this project. The goal is to help the applicant develop something appropriate. It is a small lodge and the city has a lot of policies in place to encourage small lodges. Most of the property will be demolished and replaced except the lobby portion that you enter now and the portion of the building right behind the pool. There are 47 lodge units now and the end result will be 53. They are small size units under 300 square feet. The site will also have three affordable housing units and on the Bleeker Street side there is residential development proposed in the form of two duplexes. All the new development will have parking underneath. The alley runs into the side of the Hotel Aspen property and turns toward Bleeker Street. HPC's role is to review this according to the design guidelines: Commercial design guidelines and small lodge guidelines. The primary things to talk about are the height of the residential buildings along Bleeker Street. It is proposed to be 32 feet to essentially a flat roof. It is abutting a residential zone district which has a 25 foot height limit and we think that the residential buildings proposed which have three usable floors are a little out of scale. This block has three Victorians adjacent to the Hotel Aspen and we think some reduction in height is appropriate. We are also worried about the footprint on the buildings on the ground. They don't have quite the setbacks from the property line that is normal for the neighborhood and they don't have the distance between the buildings that is in the neighborhood. There is the concern that it is too much along the frontage. Another issue is the head in parking along Garmisch St. It is actually off the project site but relevant to the project. Staff is recommending to re-establish 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2013 the curb line and have parallel parking and trees etc. to improve the character on Garmisch and reduce some of the car/pedestrian conflicts. The project will accommodate some parking underground. There is a large tree on Bleeker Street and Parks is inclined to allow the removal of it. The alley has considerable utilities underground and there is concern how the applicant can excavate for a garage and build on top of it. The Fire Department and Building Dept. have concerns about the amount of separation between the buildings. Stan Clauson, Clauson Associates Stan said in the Aspen Area Community Plan it addresses having lodges with units of different sizes. With the zoning lodges that have rooms that are smaller than 300 square feet average get a package of benefits under the zoning code. There are four zones here, R-6, MU, LP overlay with a PUD. The total lodge development is 20,041 square feet and the average size of the lodge rooms is 292 square feet. The owners believe that there is a strong market for this and they have had a good reception for the small rooms. That size lodge room allows for 60% to be residential development which would be 10,249 square feet. In this particular case we are proposing to use 9,900 square feet. The subject site is 27,000 square feet, almost half a block. The townhouse height exceeds the 32 foot limit by 10 inches due to 3 stories. It is hard to do 3 stories in any less than that. There would be 14,056 square feet of affordable housing. The hotel is 28 feet in height. The existing lodge units are going to be reconfigured and restored to their original condition which had balconies. The balconies were subsequently enclosed making the units larger and that enclosure would be taken back and balconies restored to their original condition. The units would increase from 45 to 53 units. Stan said the height of 32 feet is not consistent with the R-6 which is 25 feet but would be carried through as part of the PUD. The affordable housing is being increased by 1,200 square feet. 2,600 square feet would be for the pool and bar which is accessible to the public. Stan did a power point identifying the different buildings and design. Stan said Poss and Associates did the design and the site plan was done in their office. Some of the significant changes are the residential units along Bleeker, two townhome structures. There would be considerable improvement to the entry and new landscaping all along the public ways. There would be enhanced sidewalks. There are no new curb cuts being proposed. All the new parking would be sub-grade. There is head in parking and on the other side of the street head 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2013 in parking for half of the block then parallel for the continuation. This street is quite wide. The height of the building at Main Street is 23 feet rising up to 29.5 and that height is set back 24 feet from the front fagade. The next section of building is at 28 feet and the highest point are the town houses at 32 feet. The townhouses do not have a full third floor and it is stepped back quite a bit. The parapet wall on the front is at 23 feet. The townhouses step back 10.5 feet on the alley side and 3 .5 feet on the front fagade. The middle elements are also stepped back 23 feet. 18% of the parcel is public amenity and a large part is where the buildings step back. The canopy will enhance the entry of the hotel but then we lose public amenity space which brings us to 13%. The monitory value difference can be put into improvements which would include Main Street, Garmisch and along Bleeker. We would also propose landscape islands incorporated with the head in parking. There would be 15 new sub-grade spaces including two handicapped spaces. The requirement for the new development is 9 spaces. There is an excess of six spaces yet on the other hand there is a huge parking deficiency with the whole project: We would give up three spaces for the islands to soften the head in parking but we point out Garmisch Street has the widest right-of-way of all the north/south street and it was formerally called Center Street and it is the dividing line for east and west. Garmisch has a lot of head in parking on both sides of Main Street. Going to parallel parking would be the loss of seven or eight parking-spaces. Amy said staff s concern are the Bleeker Street townhomes which are taller and wider than the neighborhood allows. Jay asked about the square footage of the town homes. Stan said they are around 12, 000 square feet. Kim Weil said the rooms are around 265 to 325 square feet. The rooms that face the pool are larger. There are eight of those. 100 square feet was added when they enclosed the balcony. We are proposing to open up the balcony again and that would make them about 325 square feet. Patrick said with the parallel parking 7 or so spaces would be lost. Kim Weil mentioned that parking is a concern on this site as most people drive here and the number of parking spaces is a big deal to a lodge like this. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2013 Stan said in general the landscaping on Main Street is rather dark with tall trees and very little at the fence line. There are various kinds of evergreens and aspens that intersperse with the cotton wood trees. The general idea would be to have a landscape plan that puts more interest on the ground plane. Sallie asked where does the application go from here. Amy said UPC needs to look at mass and scale of the site plan and it could be reduced or increased as they go through the process. Right now they don't have enough open space as required and what should they do about it. Currently there is 18% open space and it would be reduced to 13%. Staff's proposal is to re-establish the curb and have all parallel parking which makes,them lose 7 spaces but with their plan they would lose three spaces and we are only talking about four spaces basically. Maybe there is a middle ground and instead of having the islands they could have significant usable open space. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing comment section of the agenda item was closed. Issues: Height of residential units on Bleeker Setbacks inadequate Public amenity The reduction and cash-in-lieu Demolition Parking and existing vegetation Nora applauded the owner for having a small lodge and small rooms. I also like the idea of finding more green space in the back. The townhomes are huge and the houses in that area are small and we need to see that brought down and a little more broken up and smaller. Jay said he feels the height of the townhomes can be handled on that corner. The alley gives some breakup. They are losing public amenity because they are having an awning up high. With the push to keep this a small lodge in the historic district I am willing to overlook the 5% open space amenity. It 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2013 is nice that the round space on the corner is being kept. I feel the parking should remain as is and I am in support of the project as drawn. Sallie also said the small lodges are needed and she would take parking over open space any time. People are going to drive and need a place to park. The public amenity in the West End is parking. On the height and setbacks of the townhomes it could be reduced a little and I want this project to go through. Get the scale to appear a little smaller. Patrick said he likes the general setup of the project. Possibly look at half parking, half parallel or angled parking. The setbacks and heights should be relooked at. It is a great project and I hope it goes through. Ann said the guidelines for small lodges say they need to fit into the neighborhoods and convey the character and scale of the neighborhood. I don't have enough information about the context. We need a view plane. I need to understand more about what that neighborhood is. The alley is broken up to the east and then becomes very strong to the West. Heights and setbacks need to be looked at. I would also like to see an alternative to the parking. Parallel parking gives a protective barrier between the sidewalk and the street. Pull in parking is more intimidating. From Main Street to the Red Brick is an important circulation route. If you look at the small lodge guidelines there are more things that need to be restudied to adhere to those guidelines. Sallie said it would be good to have a sketch-up or 3D. Ann also suggested a site visit. Stan said in the context of the other small lodges in the area when you look at the Molly Gibson, the Annabelle Inn I think this project is very consistent with the other lodges but has its own unique detailing. It maintains traditional roof forms and materials. The curved entrance is one of the most distinctive features. We will be happy to work on the parking and we are eager to move this on. We can use the city flyover for the next meeting. MOTION: Ann made the motion to continue 110 W. Main Street until March 13th; second by Patrick. Motion carries 3-2. Sallie, no; Jay, no; Patrick, yes; Nora, yes; Ann, yes. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2013 Jay said this is the kind of development that we want to help along if you look at the big picture. It has an amazing effect on the city of keeping small lodges. The room amenities with windows floor to ceiling are going to be so much better. Sometimes you have to give a little on the financial engine to get what we need. This could go through with a restudy. Ann said this is an important location and in the Main Street Historic District. There are too many things that need restudied and everything is integral to each other. Nora said her concern is not the lodge it is the residential side. I am worried about that height on a small block and near one of the most used parks in town. My concern is the compatibility in the R-6 zone. Resolution regarding conflicts of interest Debbie Quinn, Attorney said Planning & Zoning has adopted the same resolution. MOTION: Jay moved to adopt resolution 92, 2013 as written; second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. Amy inquired about a special hearing for the Hotel Aspen. Amended motion on 110 W. Main —Hotel Aspen: Ann move to amend the motion to have a special UPC meeting on the Hotel Aspen February 201h; second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn; second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 13 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE COMMENTS Environmental Health After reviewing the proposed plans for 101 West Main Street — Hotel Aspen, Environmental Health requests the plans be changed to ensure the trash and recycling area measure, at the minimum, ten by twenty feet to meet Section 26.575.060 of the City of Aspen code. The current plans show a proposed trash and recycling area that measures approximately 15 feet by 10 feet. Separate from the City of Aspen code, the Environmental Health Department encourages the applicant to consider that best practices in waste management show the minimum space requirement for trash and recycling will not be large enough to handle the proposed size of the Hotel Aspen development. City staff strongly recommends the area be increased greatly in size to accommodate the bins listed below or that the applicant consider making space for a secondary trash and recycling collection area in another area of the development. This would create easier access for all users in all sections of the development. A development of this size will require the following bins in order to properly collect waste - One (1) 6-10 yard trash container or two (2) four yard containers - Three to four (3-4)toters for comingled recycling - One (1) toter for office paper recycling - Two (2)toters for newspaper and magazines - One (1) 6 yard bin for cardboard collection or a 4 yard container with area to stack extra - Space to grow to include one (1) 4 yard compost collection bin to further reduce trash generation and costs Water The development seems pretty conceptual at this point, Water requests individual taps to individual buildings, and location for a transformer w/associated easement on their property. Parks Landscaping within the Public Right of Way_ Landscaping in the public right of way will be subject to landscaping in the ROW requirements, Chapter 21.20. There shall be no plantings within the City ROW which are not approved by the City Parks Department and the Engineering Department. Where space permits, the applicant should recommend a tree species based on the trees recommended in the City of Aspen Arbor guide. The Parks Department will work with the applicant on the final approved tree species. Irrigation will be required with a specific planting medium appropriate for tree growth. Tree Permit: Per City Code 13.20 an approved tree permit will be required before any tree is removed or impacted under the drip line of the tree. Parks is requesting that the tree removal permit be approved prior to approval of building permits. If a permit is necessary, contact the Parks Department at 920-5120 or download the permit at www.aspenpitkin.com on the Natural Resource page, click on the tree permit tab. Mitigation for removals will be paid cash in lieu or as an on-site planting per City Code 13.20. Parks will approve a final landscape plan during the review of the tree removal permit based on the landscape estimates. Impact Fees: The Parks Department does not support the applicant's position to request a waiver for Park Impact Fees. The development includes improvements to the City's right of way and an increase in lodging and free market space. Both of which will add impacts to public park space requiring additional financial and maintenance responsibilities. Zoning It is difficult to review the project to without underlying zoning or an approved PUD. The.dimensional standards are as of yet unknown;for example, the allowable floor area, the height, setbacks. It is not accurate to list the residential component as `duplex' they are multi-family units. Transportation The Transportation Department Staff offers the following comments/questions regarding this application: REGULATORY COMMENTS: 1. The project will provide TDM/Air Quality Fees as required by the Land Use Code, Section 26.610.090 Current Impact Fees. Fees are estimated at$6,713.66. PROJECT COMMENTS: 1. The outbound Main Street bus lane may not be impacted by the project's construction and/or parking requirements. 2. The adjacent bus stop may not be impacted by the project's construction. QUESTIONS: 1. Has a trip generation for this project been determined? 2. Will a traffic generation study and TDM plan be completed as part of this project? 3. Will a guest courtesy van continue to be provided by the applicant? 4. Are any changes proposed to parking on Main Street, Garmisch Street, or Bleeker Street? Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District The applicant for this proposed development would have to commit to relocating the existing District owned main sanitary sewer line,which currently runs through the middle of Block 58. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation,perimeter,patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance establishments. Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells. Elevator shafts drains must flow thru o/s interceptor Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned capacity of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. The District would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the material cost difference for larger line). A "Line Extension Request" and a "Collection System Agreement" are required for this application. Both are ACSD Board of Director's action items. The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and requirements once detailed building and utility plans are available. MEMORANDUM TO: APCHA Board of Directors FROM: Cindy Christensen,APCHA Operations Manager THRU: Tom McCabe, APCHA Executive Director DATE: January 16, 2013 RE: Redevelopment of 110 West Main Street(Hotel Aspen) ISSUE: The applicant is seeking approval for the redevelopment of the Hotel Aspen property located at 110 West Main Street. BACKGROUND: The proposed project would reconfigure most of the existing lodge units to an average size of 292 square feet, along with the construction of two duplex units (four new free- market residential units). The addition of small lodge units is a goal of the Aspen Area Community Plan as well as a priority of City Council. The project will increase the number of lodge rooms from 45 units to 53 units, as well as provide four new free-market residential units. The Hotel Aspen currently contains a Category 2 studio deed-restricted unit. The redevelopment is proposed to include two additional two-bedroom, Category 2 rental units, providing mitigation for 4.5 FTE's. DISCUSSION: APCHA's referral will be based strictly on the required mitigation for the redevelopment. Mitigation for Additional Lodge Rooms: According to Section 26.470.100.A, Employee generation rates, of the Land Use Code, sixty percent (60%) of the employees generated by the additional commercial or lodge development are to be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. Employee generation rates are calculated at the rate of.3 employees per lodging bedroom. There are 8 additional lodge rooms that are being proposed. At 100% mitigation, 2.4 FTE's would need to be mitigated; at the 60% requirement in the Code, 1.44 FTE's would be the mitigation rate. However, due to the smaller unit configuration, the mitigation percentage is decreased to 10%. By providing the smaller units,the actual mitigation requirement for the 8 additional lodge rooms is .24 FTE's. 100%Rate 2.4 FTE's 60% Rate 1.44 FTE's 10%Rate .24 FTE Mitigation for the Four Residences: According to Section 26.470.050, the affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty percent (30%) of the additional free market residential net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Similar to the mitigation for the expanded lodge, the free-market net livable area would also be allowed to be mitigated at the 10%rate. The 11,546 square feet of residential net livable area would result in 1,157 square feet of required mitigation for the equivalent of 2.89 FTE's. This takes into account that for every 400 square feet of new structure, 1 FTE is generated. At 100%, mitigation would be 28.865; at the 30%, mitigation would be 8.66 FTE's; and at the required 10%, mitigation for the four residential units is 2.89 FTE's. 100%Rate 28.865 FTE's 30% Rate 8.66 FTE's 10%Rate 2.89 FTE's Total Mitigation: Under the Land Use Code, the total mitigation requirement is 3.13 FTE's. The two additional two- bedroom units provide mitigation for 4.5 FTE's, satisfying the mitigation requirement under the land use code; however, the proposal leaves a deficit of 26.765 FTE's to mitigate for the redevelopment of the Hotel Aspen property. 100% Rate 31.265 FTE's 60% or 30%Rate 10.1 FTE's 10%Rate 3.13 FTE's Proposed Affordable Housing Units: The two two-bedroom units mitigate for a total of 4.5 FTE's (2.25 per unit) and are currently proposed at 593 and 652 square feet. The current minimum square footage for newly deed restricted units according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines for a Category 1 and 2 two-bedroom unit is 850 square feet. Even at the allowed 20% reduction, the units are too small based on the Guidelines. The 20% reduction would allow the units to be 680 square feet; therefore, these units are not acceptable. Staff has been told by the applicant's representative that the units will be brought up to the required level. RECOMMENDATION: The APCHA Board discussed the request at their regular meeting held January 16, 2013, and recommend denial of the application. The APCHA Board is requesting the following information: 1. The Code section that allows an applicant to provide only 10%mitigation. 2. A community development department planner to discuss the reasoning behind allowing only 10%mitigation. 3. More time to review the application and get feedback from the Community Development Department and the applicant. The APCHA Board understood the reasoning for the 10%mitigation in the lodge room calculation, but not the four free-market residential homes. The mitigation for the four residential homes should not be allowed at 10%. The applicant also stated that providing the two two-bedroom units at 4.5 FTE's surpassed the mitigation requirement is an inaccurate statement in that they were still short by at least 4.4 FTE's(and actually by 5.84 FTE's if utilizing the percentages required in the Code). Date: January 17, 2013 Project: 110 W Main City of Aspen Engineering Department DRC Comments These comments are not intended to be exclusive,but an initial response to the project packet submitted for purpose of the DRC meeting. Drainage: General note: The design for the site must meet the Urban Runoff Management Plan Requirements. Staff was not able to determine whether or not the site will meet these requirements. A full review will be completed when adequate information is provided. A compliant drainage plan must be submitted with a building permit application. This includes detaining and providing water quality for the entire site. If the site chooses fee- in-lieu of detention (FIL), it can only be applied to existing impervious areas. All new impervious areas will need to discharge at historic rates. Staff was unable to determine whether or not the site is able to meet all the Drainage Principals: l.Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process. 2:Use the entire site when planning for stormwater quality treatment. 3.Avoid unnecessary impervious area. 4.Reduce runoff rates and volumes to more closely match natural conditions. 5.Integrate stormwater quality management and flood control. 6.Develop stormwater quality facilities that enhance the site,the community, and the environment. 7.Use a treatment train approach. 8.Design sustainable facilities that can be safely maintained. 9. Design and maintain facilities with public safety in mind. Sidewalk and Curb and Gutter: General note: All sidewalk, curb and gutter must meet the Engineering Standards as outlined in Title 21. A number of issues should be examined. This includes the following: 1. Curb and Gutter: a. Curb and gutter along Main Street should be replaced. b. Curb and gutter along Garmisch Street may require replacement. c. Curb and gutter along Bleeker Street may require replacement. 2. Sidewalks: a. In general,the sidewalks are in good condition. The maximum tolerance for vertical displacement is 1/4 inch. Damaged sidewalks exceeding this tolerance should be replaced. b. The sidewalk parallel to Bleeker Street should be extended to the property line. 3. Sidewalk Ramps: a. The ramp parallel to Garmisch Street located at the northeast corner of the property should be realigned to match the ramp located across Bleeker Street. b. A ramp should be added at the southeast corner of the property to enable access across Main Street. c. All ramps should be upgraded to meet current standards. By way of example, detectable warning pads should be added to the ramps. Construction Management—Engineering is concerned about the Construction Impacts of this site. The plan shall describe mitigation for: parking, staging/encroachments, and truck traffic. Note that the current code does not allow for any encroachments during the on-seasons (November 1 —April 15 and June 1 — Labor Day). Excavation Stabilization—Due to the proximity of the neighboring property and the excavation of the building the City will require an excavation stabilization plan prior to building permit submittal. Fee in Lieu—This project is considered a Major project and can opt to pay the Fee in Lieu for a portion of the detention requirements. Please refer to Section 2.12.140 of the Municipal Code. 7STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES (NC landscape architecture. planning. resort design 412 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 t.970/925-2323 f•970/92o-1628 info @scaplanning.com www.scaplanning.com :' ;T 1 February 2013 h Ms. Amy Guthrie s O F AbPEN City of Aspen Historic Preservation vEam , 130 S. Galena Street, 3rd Floor COMMUNITY Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Hotel Aspen / Supplemental Submission Dear Amy: On behalf of our client, please accept ten (10) sets of the revised architectural plans as well as ten (10) copies each of the Contextual Building Height Study, the Revised Garmisch Streetscape Plan, and the Conceptual Public Amenity Addition. This information responds to comments received at the Historic Preservation Commission meeting on 9 January 2013 and addresses the following topics: Height and Context The enclosed architectural plans,specifically sheets A300-A303,illustrate that the height of the free market units has been reduced to 32 feet, fully in conformance with the proposed underlying MU zone district. This has been accomplished by the reduction of floor to ceiling heights in the free market units and through utilizing building techniques in the structure which will reduce the height of the building. • The Contextual Building Height Study incorporates the surveyed heights of the buildings immediately adjacent to the Hotel Aspen. This drawing shows that many of the buildings around the Hotel Aspen are at or near 32 feet and in one case (the affordable housing building across Bleeker Street) up to 36 feet. We will also present a 3D model at the hearing which will provide additional contextual information. Parking and Streetscape As discussed at the hearing,we have introduced the parking compromise along Garmisch Street. The Revised Garmisch Streetscape Plan provides parallel parking on the half block of Garmisch Street closest to Bleeker Street and maintains the head-in parking closer to Main Street. The result of this compromise is the loss of three spaces along Garmisch Street. We have also modified the portion of the sidewalk along Garmisch Street nearest Bleeker Street to align with the sidewalks on the north side of Bleeker Street. Public Amenity Space The Conceptual Public Amenity Addition provides public access to the hotel restaurant through a patio area which will be immediately accessible off of Main Street. This additional public amenity space will be consistent and compatible with the immediate area and potentially provide welcomed vitality to this section of Main Street. Amy Guthrie, City of Aspen Historic Preservation Hotel Aspen /Supplemental Submission 2 ( Pag Kim Weil with Poss Architecture and Planning has had ongoing conversations with Denis Murray, Plans Examiner Manager with the City of Aspen, concerning various building department comments provided at the Design Review Committee meeting. Denis and Kim believe that they have identified approaches in building construction which will address Denis' concerns. Other concerns noted by staff, such as affordable housing access and the 10 foot required separation between free market units will be adequately addressed at final design. These changes have been made in the best spirit of compromise and with great interest in addressing the HPC's concerns. The Hotel Aspen is seeking to provide badly needed and desired small lodge units under challenging economic constraints. We hope that staff and the HPC will appreciate the sacrifice the owners are making here and support the project. Please call me with any questions. Very truly yours, Patrick S. Rawley, AICP, ASLA Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. Enclosure Cc: Michael Brown (w/ enclosure) Aaron Brown (w/ enclosure) Kim Weil (w/enclosure) s MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 208 E. Main Street- Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, Special Review And Variances,PUBLIC HEARING DATE: February 13, 2013 SUMMARY: 208 E. Main Street is a 3,000 square foot lot that is the location of Salon Tulio. The owner has just finalized a historic landmark lot split, approved by HPC and Council, which separated the subject property from the 3,000 square foot lot to the west. There are two existing buildings on the site; a Victorian era miner's cottage and a shed along the alley. The proposed development is demolition of a non-historic addition to the miner's cottage and replacement with a new residential unit. The shed will be placed on a new basement and connected to the residence. The buildable area is limited. The proposal includes setback variances and a parking waiver request, along with a reduction of the required on-site utility/trash/recycling area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC continue the project for restudy. Several guidelines are not met and the addition is larger than can be accommodated without negative impacts on the historic resources. APPLICANT: Michael Giordano,represented by Sara Upton. ADDRESS AND PARCEL ID: 208 E. Main Street, Lot 2, Main Street Victorians Historic Landmark Lot Split, Block 73, City and Townsite of Aspen, PID#2737-073-20-012. ZONING: MU, Mixed Use. CONCEPTUAL OR DEVELOPMENT 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 1 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 design guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. STAFF RESPONSE: A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit A." The property is eligible to create a free market residential unit of up to 1,500 square feet of floor area. For the most part, the basement level is exempt. The property is subject to 5' side and rear setback requirements. The historic structure is remaining in its original location and the placement of the shed is only being minimally adjusted. In order to achieve a unit of a size that suits the owner's needs, an addition that sits substantially into the west setback is proposed. The new construction does not include any of the usual separation from the historic resources that HPC typically requires. Staff cannot support the design of the addition so that it provides little to no west setback sand eliminates the appearance of the shed as a detached structure. Staff can support an exception to the requirement for a one story connector to the historic house only because of the limited visual benefit the connector would provide. The property cannot be easily viewed from the east or west and the two story addition is not easily seen from Main Street. The proposed addition features a flat roof, which is discouraged by the guidelines, and it is taller than the one story historic resources, aggravated by a third floor level enclosed staircase to a rooftop deck. In this particular circumstance, staff can support a flat roof because it helps to keep the profile of the addition low, and limits visibility from Main Street, as demonstrated in the attached perspective views. Staff does not support an enclosed staircase to the rooftop deck. The height of this element overwhelms the historic resources and is the most visible feature of the project. There are some other alternatives that might allow for an open air staircase that meets Building Code requirements. Parking for the new home and utility/trash/recycling for the commercial and residential uses on the site are challenging to accommodate. (These issues will be addressed more specifically later in the memo.) The following guidelines are of concern: 2 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. ❑ A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. ❑ An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. ❑ An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. ❑ An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. • An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. • A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic building. ❑ A 1-story connector is preferred. ❑ The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. ❑ The connector also should be proportional to the primary building. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. • Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate. • Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs. ON-SITE The shed is to be lifted in order to construct a new basement below it. It is moved slightly westward to allow a pathway for the commercial space to access the alley. This is a Building Code requirement. The following standards apply for relocating a historic property as per Section 26.415.090.0 of the Municipal Code: C. Standards for the Relocation of Designated Properties Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards: 1. It is considered a non-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 3 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for qpproval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; and 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. Staff Response: The shed on the site does not appear on the 1904 Sanborne Fire Insurance Map of the property. The applicant has provided an analysis of the history of the building, which dates its construction to approximately the 1930s. Staff finds the proposed relocation to be appropriate and without negative impact to the shed. The applicant will need to provide assurance that the building will be relocated safely to preserve the structure. The applicant also proposes to remove a non-original addition as part of the relocation. Staff has no concerns. SETBACK ARIANCES The new construction encroaches into the west and rear setbacks. Lightwells and an accessible ramp encroach into the east sideyard setback. The criteria for granting setback variances, per Section 26.415.110.0 of the Municipal Code are as follows. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. 4 Staff Response: For the new construction, the setback requirements should be respected to the greatest extent possible. At a minimum, a 3' distance from all lot lines is needed. Staff recommends a restudy of the west setback condition. UTILITY,TRASH,AND RECYCLE AREA It is very important to provide adequate area to service the utility and waste disposal needs for this property in a manner that does not negatively affect neighbors or the functionality of the alley. The project is slightly under the minimum required area for these uses, however the proposed space has been designed to meet requirements that the Environmental Health Department has indicated are scaled to this site. HPC can approve a reduction. The following standards shall apply: 1. A utility, trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated along the alley meeting the minimum standards established by Section 26.575.060, Utility/trash/recycle service areas, unless otherwise established according to said Section. 2. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property and along the alley. Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall be minimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site conditions, such as an historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed. 3. Delivery service areas shall be incorporated along the alley. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged. 4. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical. 5. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a public right-of-way at a pedestrian level.New buildings shall Staff Response: The designated area is adequately sized. Staff supports approval of this design. Environmental Health recommends a wildlife-proof enclosure since the neighborhood has a lot of bear activity. PARKING VARIANCE/CASH-IN-LIEU WAIVER Properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures may provide fewer on- site parking spaces than required, and/or receive a cash-in-lieu fee waiver if the standards below, found at Section 26.515.040 of the Municipal Code are met. 1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts on the on-street parking of the 5 neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. 2. An on-site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. 3. Existing or planned on-site or off-site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking. HPC must also find that the review standards of Section 26.415.110.0 of the Municipal Code are met. They require that: 1. The parking reduction and waiver of payment-in-lieu fees may be approved upon a finding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance or architectural character of a designated historic property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district. Staff Response: There is no on-site parking now. The new residential unit requires one parking space. A parking space that meets code requirements must be 8 %' wide and 18' long. The parking cannot physically fit on the property. A residential unit that is occupied as a primary residence is permitted to receive on-street parking permits, whether cars are accommodated on the private property or not. Staff finds that the City has a system in place for the applicant to request neighborhood parking permits. The site is located in the core of the City, on the bus route. When parking cannot be accommodated on-site, a cash-in-lieu payment is generally required in order to fund public parking facilities or other mobility enhancements. The fee per parking space is $30,000. The applicant requests this fee be waived as a preservation benefit. If not for the presence of the shed,the parking could be provided on the site. HPC should be aware that the Parking Department, which would be impacted by the fee waiver, has expressed that funds are needed for the repair of the existing parking garage and other projects. Parking Department would prefer the fee be required. HPC discussed this issue earlier, as part of a plan to convert some of the existing commercial space to residential. This project is a distinct proposal, however HPC previously determined that on-site parking can be waived,but the fee should be paid. 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. 6 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC continue the project for a restudy that will increase the west sideyard setback, eliminate the enclosed staircase to the rooftop deck, and create more of a detached appearance for the historic shed. Exhibits: A. Relevant design guidelines B. Application Exhibit A,Relevant Design Guidelines 8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved. ❑ When treating a historic secondary building, respect its character-defining features. These include its primary and roof materials, roof form,windows, doors and architectural details. ❑ If a secondary structure is not historically significant,then its preservation is optional. 8.2 If an existing secondary structure is beyond repair, then replacing it is encouraged. ❑ An exact reconstruction of the secondary structure may not be necessary in these cases. ❑ The replacement should be compatible with the overall character of the historic primary structure,while accommodating new uses. 8.5 Avoid moving a historic secondary structure from its original location. ❑ A secondary structure may only be repositioned on its original site to preserve its historic integrity. 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. ❑ In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. ❑ It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. ❑ Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. ❑ A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. ❑ Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house. ❑ The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. ❑ In general,moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. 9.2 Moving an existing building that contributes to the character of a historic district should be avoided. ❑ The significance of a building and the character of its setting will be considered. ❑ In general, relocating a contributing building in a district requires greater sensitivity than moving an individually-listed structure because the relative positioning of it reflects patterns of development, including spacing of side yards and front setbacks, that relate to other historic structures in the area. 9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the boundaries of its historic parcel. 7 ❑ If a historic building straddles two lots,then it may be shifted to sit entirely on one of the lots. Both lots shall remain landmarked properties. 9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. ❑ It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. ❑ It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. 9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space. ❑ In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential Design Standards). ❑ The size of a lightwell should be minimized. ❑ A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and will be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it should be surrounded by a simple fence or rail. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. ❑ A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. ❑ An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. ❑ An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. ❑ An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. ❑ An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. ❑ A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.5 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic alignments that may exist on the street. ❑ Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings in the area may align at approximately the same height. An addition should not be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. ❑ An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic building. ❑ A 1-story connector is preferred. ❑ The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. ❑ The connector also should be proportional to the primary building. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. 8 ❑ Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. ❑ Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. ❑ Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is recommended. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. ❑ Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate. ❑ Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs. 9 C is i 02/10/2012 Amy Guthrie Historic Preservation Commission 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 On Behalf Of: Michael and Shelley Tullio (Giordano) Salon Tullio Remodel/Addition 208 E. Main St. Aspen, CO 81611 Parcel ID: 273707320012 Lot L and Lot M, Block 73, City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin,State of Colorado Sara Upton of Upton Design LLC is authorized to act as the representative of the applicants listed above. Contact information is listed at the bottom of this document. Michael and Shelley Tullio are seeking to add residential and commercial square footage onto their historic house located at 208 E. Main Street,which is currently in use as a salon and a small condominium unit.A lot split between this unit and 202 E. Main Street(Aspen Home Consignment) would allow each lot owner the right to construct a single family unit with 1,500 square feet FAR.The proposed development includes increasing residential square footage and making improvements to the salon's mechanical space, break room and spa area. It is the intent of the Tullio's that appropriate respect be paid to each historic structure in their efforts to build a livable family dwelling that maintains the spirit of Aspen. Pertaining to the HPC Land Use Application Requirements,we offer the following comments in regard to the proposal we are submitting: Item 7: The development as it is proposed complies with the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines,outlined below: Existing Additions: 10.1 The shed roof addition located at the rear of the original house will be maintained in its present condition.A 1970's era addition placed a condominium at the rear of the shed addition,which obscured the original north fagade.The remodel/addition of the dwelling will not change this condition. An alley shed also exists on site; it is estimated that the shed was built sometime in the 1930's.The original shed structure will remain,with the minimum alterations necessary to bring it up to current code.The shed received a lean-to addition sometime after the 1930's, and that portion of the shed will be removed. 10.2 The 1970's addition will not be removed, but the exterior materials will be updated to be compatible with the new square footage being added. 10.3 It is our intent to give the new addition a character of its own,so that each historic resource can easily be identified.Additionally,the modern character of the addition creates an p.o.box 2324 basalt,co 81621 c 970 948 9667 f 970 927 3727 e w upton-design.com opportunity to utilize a flat roof,which allows the original house to maintain prominence when observed from Main Street.Since the new addition must connect to both structures, it would be difficult to make the detailing match each resource. Therefore,the new addition that is being proposed does not retain the historic character of the original house, or of the alley shed. 10.4 The new addition is easily recognized as a product of its own time through it's massing and use of materials. 10.5 All historic alignment of roof eaves will be preserved, due to the nature of the addition occurring at the back of the lot, and having no additional connection to the primary house. 10.6 The addition is compatible with the size and scale of the primary historic resource. The addition is set back from the primary facade, and the height of the addition is largely obscured when viewed from Main Street. 10.7 The connectors used in this project are not typical of the type described in the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. 10.7.1 The connectors to the alley shed is one story in height, and the two story mass is set back slightly from the shed's mass.The connector to the main house is two stories in height, but it occupies the same footprint as the dwelling that exists onsite. Further,the lean-to addition to the primary house allows the mass of the new development to be set back from the dominant roof line. 10.7.2 A ten foot long connector that is narrower that the width of the house would not provide any benefit to the addition, due to the narrow (30') lot width and the two-story height of the adjacent buildings.When viewed from Main Street, it would not be possible to interpret a"separation" if this type of connector were used. 10.7.3 Our interpretation of a connector is one that is no wider than the original house structure. 10.8 The new addition is placed toward the rear of the lot, giving both deference and priority to the original house. 10.9 The roof form that we are proposing does not follow the Historic Preservation Guidelines. If a gable roof were to be used on the two-story addition, it would draw attention away from the historic resource, and dominate the streetscape. In this situation that involves tight lots and adjacent structures,we feel that the use of a flat roof keeps the attention on the house's original massing when viewed from the street. 10.10 No historic details will be destroyed or obscured, due to the nature of the attachment to the historic structure (occupying the same space as the existing dwelling). 10.11 New materials will be similar (i.e.the use of wood siding is some areas), but will be detailed to make the addition a product of its own time. 10.12 No rooftop additions are being proposed for this project. 10.13 No rooftop additions are being proposed for this project. 10.14 The roof for of the new addition is not in character with the original form, but as stated in 10.9, using a gable roof on the addition would draw attention away from the historic resource. Item 14: This addition is classified as a mixed-use building, and is exempt from the requirement of Chapter 26.410 in its entirety.We will, however be requesting administrative variances for building into the west side setback.At the back of the lot,the alley shed protrudes into both the rear and east side setback, and once the lot split is complete,the existing structure is built right to the new property line. We request to build three feet into the five foot setback, allowing us to obtain as much F.A.R as possible,while still allowing construction to take place in the two foot space between the existing building and the line of the new footprint. We appreciate your time and consideration. Sara Boulet Upton,Architect p.o. box 2324 basalt,co 81621 c 970 948 9667 f 970 927 3727 a _-ara(a)upton-design.com w upton-design.com R E I D ARCHITECTS , i n c January 4,2012 Michael Tullio 208 E.Main Street Aspen,CO P` Dear Michael, _ Thanks for inviting me out to look at the outbuilding f�� located on the alley at 208 E. Main. I have looked at the ,rep building on site,reviewed some city records and spoke to some people familiar with the history of this outbuilding. Figure 1•view to east along alley The small wood frame building is comprised of a shallow pitched front gable roof volume and an attached shed roof volume on the west side. In the late 1980s,when the building was converted from a storage shed to a habitable space,there was a clear exterior wall along the west wall separating the main gable volume from the shed roof volume,indicating that the shed was a later addition. Much of the information I was able to collect is related to the remodel in the late 1980s and subsequent alterations. A review of the available Sanborn maps did not show a shed in this location (the 1898 Sanborn map did show a small square outbuilding in the northwest corner of the lot.) A cursory review of the available plat maps and other city documents did not provide any additional information on a construction date. This structure is currently assumed to have been built in the 1930s,though there may have been some indication that it is earlier than that based on the interior finishes found during the 80s remodel. The construction methods,materials and details of the gable roof form are consistent with those found in outbuildings from the 1880s into the mid 20`h century,which makes a specific date of construction difficult to determine. The 1980s remodel added the casement windows on the north side,a small fixed window on the south side and skylights on the east roof plane. The project also opened a portion of the shed roof form to create a porch area open to the alley and the side yard,added a French door in the west wall of the gable form and opened the back part of the shed volume to the inside of the gable form. Insulation was added to the walls from the inside, leaving the siding in place and a concrete slab was poured in the interior. The roofing was installed and insulated at this time. { 412 North Mill Street•PO Box 1303•Aspen, CO 81612 970 920 9225•vkrgreidarchitects.com R E I D • ARCHITECTS , inc c A later remodel enclosed the shed area and Opened The current outbuilding has a variety itto the interior of �ety of exterior finishes the gable form. ,patched areas and construction The number of alterations have had this is not uncommon for a utility Impact on the irate integrity,the location Y ing of this a e integrity°f the outbuilding, is located on setting,feeling and association In terms of the seven aspects o though is located the fey,and is in a setting ar still a feeling and association are clean g�'l several other it appreciable. The building workmanship,and materials there has been a historic real alley buildings. shed addition. m In terms of its design Its The building more impact'Particular) character. The addition of g retains is low pitched Y when we look at the character,but these elements he windows and skylights gable,minimal overhan s design. men are not so out of har cter as to destroy g and rustic g The workmanshi Pact on its original construction Pis consistent with a Y the integrity methods found on rustic outbuildin als a of the the shed addition however h the gable fo g The materials and as clean rm are Consistent with historic outbuildings, over the years,leaving been altered g its actual historic significance and reconstructed a number of times The shed addition appears in question. mixture of siding teri to be a mixture of rou be d' g materials, mixture ' h sawn and dhnensional lumber and a nnensional lumber and the g contem the vertical p �'�h framin poraty ones. The roof framin Plank sheathing Can be seen on he is-matched 2x g appears to outside,whereas the shed addition has o materials. On the north side vertical board siding able form,with clapboards on the construction. g showing a Cleat.distinction between vertical 2x framin g members �,i� e two pieces and period of The following pages show several photos of the current conditions.of the outbuilding. MY examination of the building and the available records lead altered and reconstructed to �Ue'but me to believe the shed addition to that the most it only has the a the extent that it no hon er re the outbuilding the least its c appearance of bein g tail's sufficient integrity.has been At current condition raises doubt istoric and not the actual tY• c component of the outbuilding. material subs bout its value as a significant historicCe' at Please feel free to call me with any questions. Suz Reid rc i s,inc. 412 North Mig Street•PO B 970 920 922o5 x•1303 Aspen CO 8 1612 V k Ca r e i da r h t e c s c o m 208 East Main Outbuilding photos 114112 View Of South uth side Of - a fixed door the Outbuilding '• '�•� door panel and the shed sidin 9, showing hed roof 9, an infilled view of northeast addition• howing the y corner of the o board and window utbuilding, some batten skylights with siding � y on shed clapboard on ab addition g le to Vertical structural scan be seen in he gap system Southwest c b_ orner p the the transition in Of the shed addition showing n the gap , the framing g 208 East Main Outbuilding Photos 1/4/12 i, 1 Detail at recessed wall adjacent to window on north side showing new Detail at shed addition southwest header. corner showing construction details �-% -7 _ 1 1 1980s window with new header Infilled opening on rear of gable form in clapboard siding - this siding is seen only on the north side of the gable form 319!FbtdNbjo!Pvrcvjrejoh!Qi pLpt 2CBC23 pol JIM a L' d f T Ef tbjrtbdsf df t t f e!x brrimelbdf oULp! Ef tbjftdt i f e!beejtjpo!t pvd x f t d x joepx !po!opsd !tjef !t i px joh!of x ! dpsof dt i pxjoh!dpot Laidypo!ef Lbjrh i f bef s( 2: 91 t !x joepx !x jd !of x !i f bef s .b"rrhe!pgf ojoh!po!sf bslpdhbcrfn!g)m !jo! drbecpbse!tjejoh!.!d jt !tjejoh!jt !t f f o!pom!po! d f !opsd !tjef !pdd f !hbcrfn!g)sn EXHIBIT AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE / REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE- 3 Q '� �m , 20/ 3 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) z, (name, please print) being or 1eylG,cntmg 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: y 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 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 hewing. A copy ofthe ommers and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (Continued on next page) Rezoning or text amendment: Whenever the official zoning district map is in or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision any way to be changed any text of this Title is to be amended, whether such of this Title, or whenever 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 � z r The foregoing"Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this2 Sday of n� , 201 by PUBLIQ RE- 208 E.MAIN STREET-TCONCEPTUAL MA- WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL JOR DEVELOPMENT,DEMOLITION,SPECIAL REVIEW AND VARIANCES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing My cossion expires. will be held on Wednesday,February 13,2013,at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m.before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission,in Council Chambers HPC will conslderalanlapplicat onnsubmited by Michael Giordano,owner of the property located at 208 E.Main Street,Lot 2,Main Street Victorians Historic Landmark Lot Split Subdivision Exemption, Not ublic Block 73, City and Townsite of Aspen, 1� '''"`JJ PID#2737-073-20-012. The applicant proposes to partially demolish a non-historic addition at the back of the existing Victorian house and replace it with a new addition. An existing outbuilding is to be minimally relocated along the alley as part of a basement excavation. Alternatives which may in- volve partial or total demolition of the shed will also be discussed. The applicant requests the follow- ing variances:up to a 3'east sideyard setback re- duction for new lightwells,a 32"east sideyard set- back reduction for existing side entry into the ).TTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: salon,up to a 5'east st sideyard reduction and a 5' • rear yard setback reduction for the shed and pro- r posed new basement below it,and up a 5'west L, sideyard setback reduction for an addition to the NATION applicant an structure and basement below it The THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) applicant requests a reduction in the required on- site parking and utilityttrash/recycle storage area. ERS AND GOVERNMENT AGENGIES NOTIED For further information,contact Amy Guthne at the City of Aspen Communityy Development Depart- ment,130 S.Galena St.,Aspen,CO,(970) 429-2758,amy.guthrieaciWofaspen.com cne r Asfpen Historic Preservation Commission CICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTIC Publishied in the Aspen Times Weekly on january .R 24, §24-65.5-1�J• 24,2013.[88284481 _ AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: O� d 14 �` ,Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: / 3 ,20./3 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) 1, � / , l ���� �U (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 on the day of �� , 20/3 , 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. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested,to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAs or PUDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially Planned Areas, 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. Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before in ,,this cfay of �� , 2013 by TODD A LAY WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO My commissi n expires: 1> - "A- /'g NOTARY ID 19994002103 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES IANMY 23,"IS Notary Public ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: COP Y O F THE P UB L I CA TION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN) EXHIB Rockin g Y P Lazy J Properties 202 East Main Street Aspen,Colorado 81612 970 309-7722 jakevickery @comcast.net February 13, 2013 TO: Historic Preservation Commission City of Aspen RE: 208 East Main Conceptual Major Development,Special Review and Variances This letter is to support staffs recommendations regarding restudy of the design of the above referenced property to reflect a minimum 3 foot westerly setback and elimination of the stair enclosure on the west side. The applicant proposes a zero lot line condition with zero setback which places an egregious impact on our property creating a long and high undifferentiated blank wall (indicated windows are not allowed by building code)and is both inappropriate and incompatible. Issues of fire protection, public safety, and maintenance also exist. Our property is an adjoining designated historic resource and is the sister building in this set of two miner's cottages. The lot split line was positioned according to the requirements of the HPC for the landmark lot split and in doing so created a zero lot line condition for the structure on lot 2 requiring a variance. We acted in good faith to go along with the variance to legitimize existing conditions for the purposes of the lot split with the understanding that any new or remodeled construction on the rear of the property would respect the new lot line, provide a minimum of 3 foot westerly side yard setback, and relocate all utility services and meters to the rear of the property. It appears that the applicant has acted in bad faith and proposed a design which inappropriately maximizes negative effect and impact on our historic property! The applicant's proposal makes constructive use of the shed and many options exist for redesign of the proposed structure to better finesse its execution,make the plan more efficient, respect the lot line and separation of the structures, and respect our adjoining property rights. Thank you for your consideration of our request. Sincer y, j J c H. Vickery(Jake) Della Pegolotti Hager, Rocking Lazy J Pr perties Co-owners, 202 East Main Street, Lot 1 Main Street Victorians Landmark Lot Split 202 East Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 970 309-7722 A<<EY BLOC _ E LOC K 3 DGF O�FMEN � _ 30.001 PROPOSED FENCE T LOCATION ` \ ` OUTLINE OF SECOND STORY ADDITION GRAVEL / GRAVEL — ®�r7r PARKING 100 PARKING o REAR SETBACK / 10 SH D 0.00, RO F / v / s.a. 3/ -7 / h , / ORIGINAL PORTION TOO EXISTING SHED BE REBUILT/RELOCATED TO COMPLY WITH EXISTING CODES jOj� ACCESS RAMP TO ALLEY C7 U G / / s-0• /�3 m 3 W r� l / Q 0 C J l �l a / / O // LOT 1 SIDE SETBACK if)0 LOT L // o LOT 2 � / 3000 SQ. FT. / O / / / 102- LOT M 3000 SQ. FT. , o co / PORCH / 1 /\ / �./ / ENCL. Q Q c) _ / / ENTRY O O �o�o 08" PINS i-- 104 l l +y / O ' t \10q Yz „ o 30, \ \ SIDE SETBACK FRONT SETBACK co/v \ 30.00 FRONT SETBACK \ SIDFVI/q� `Re �, \ K � COTTONWOOD \ COITTONWOOD SITE PLAN ASPEN j 208 E. MAIN REDEVELOPMENT o0 EAST � 8•• '41/v = 1 ST �� 0'-0.. RE�T 1 02-11-2013 p'o. box 2324 u ton _ basalt, co 81621 . • 970 948 9667 X � W EXHIBIT�t- Id AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: O2'_D � — � ,Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: fr�b / 3 20Z STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) (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 on the�I day of y/,� , 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. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAs or PUDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially Planned Areas, 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. Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before m this�Yday of j L�� , 2013 ,by Alt'/eji-10 CT%✓�t �?u WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL TODD A LAY NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO My cornmissi n expires: NOTARY ID 19994002103 MY COMMISSION EVIRE5 JANUARY 25,2015 M r r- Notary Public �-- l f ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPYOF THEPUBLICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN) PUBLrC NOTICE Date : Wed . , Feb. 13 , 2013 Timee. o P- m Place : :Council Chambers, City aII11 0 S . Galena . Aspen Purpose : H 'HPC will consider Conceptual review submitted by Michael Giordano, owner of this property including _ . construction of a new addition at the rear of the [-')arcel, & relocation and/or demolition of a shag on site , H PC i asked to consider setback variances for new construction and reduction of parking and utility tr-ash area , For further information contact Aspen Planning Dept. at 970-429-2758. �. #��'�1�'''°�� i t.z,.r_>�.n •ww+wrr s i=�.l '¢"�'Ff�Yy l j+ �r•,'PNr��" tr,t.;P`,, .! I cx a+., ;I ! eA �r{i+`I .�i' � I t x *maw xmwwawppll� i F RAMP AS ACCESSIBLE ROUTE TO ALLEY ON b EXISTING WINDOW WELL SIDESEfBACKLINE aD. OUTLINE OF ApdTON ASO`�E SALON-RESTROOM CLO. LINE DIVIDING HISTORIC -S 8 BEDROOM HOUSE FROM APARTMENT BATH a ADDITION D� w > BEDROOM W H QI I Y IN'�QCdC(W{']L__ SALON-SHAMPOO w!/OINTE AND ENTRY z_1° W Z _2'_7^ Z ROOM -3 11 FAMILY ROOM Z QQN O W UP Q BENCH - SIDESETBACKUNE — I WINDOW WELL Dp, b b BB GAL. BS GAL. ❑� __ - - TMSN RECYCLE 3Y QAL 2.OAL. PAPFA NAG g-sue - TULLIO RESIDENCE MAIN LEVEL PLAN,651 S.F.RESIDENCE, 1053 S.F.SALON V. 02-11-2013 EXISTING WINDOW I WELL I I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - —SIDE SETBACK LINE LO — — STOR. I SALON- SALON- SPA ROOM CRAWL SPACE COLOR MANICURES BEDRDOM Dd Ld y Z QI WINDOW WELL O O W I C BATH BREAK ROOM x ry I p.o. box 2324 FAMILY ROOM o basalt, co 81621 DP LL I 970 948 9667 — SIDE SETBACK LINE -J WINDOW WELL �C,LET UP LL TULLIO RESIDENCE BASEMENT PLAN,529 GROSS S.F. RESIDENCE,573 GROSS S.F.SALON 02-11-2013 a — � —SIDE SETBACK LINE —" — ROOF BELOW I i LA sa I I I I y I wl z I Z ml a I N Z � I a I ROOF TERRACE SIDE SUBACK UNE °" — b TULLIO RESIDENCE ROOF TERRACE,210 S.F. Ye" = 1'-oil 02-11-2013 b -SIDE SETBACK UNE - I — — — — — — — — — — — — — ---I ROOF BELOW I MASTER BR I I UP I 5 P I Ci � IV L- - - - - L N MASTER — I N I p.o. box 2324 BATH — I basalt, co 81621 Q 970 948 9667 • O - 0 J SIDE SETBACK LINE b TULLIO RESIDENCE '�'� UPPER LEVEL PLAN,746 S.F. Ye" 0 02-11-2013 GLASS RAILING AT ROOF TERRACE BEYOND GLASS RAILING AT ROOF TERRACE BEYOND HARDI-PANEL OR SIMILAR VERTICAL WOOD SIDING SIDING ON ADDITION BEYOND HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING t r !w I(EiP# EXISTING SALON STRUCTURE ❑❑❑ ^! ij TO REMAIN INTACT I I I I ! ! It TULLIO RESIDENCE TULLIO RESIDENCE SOUTH ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION 02-11-2013 02-11-2013 p.o. box 2324 basalt, co 81621 970 948 9667 • 0 1 HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING ORIGINAL PORTION OF EXISTING SHED TO REMAIN HARDI-PANEL OR SIMILAR SIDING TULLIO RESIDENCE WEST ELEVATION Ye" = 1.-0" 02-11-2013 STAIR ENCLOSURE BEYOND RAILING AT ROOF TERRACE HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING E p.o. box 2324 basalt, co 81621 E i I 970 948 9667 ORIGINAL PORTION OF EXISTING SHED TO REMAIN, SHED TO BE RAISED SO FLOOR LEVEL IS ABOVE GRADE TULUO RESIDENCE 4 EAST ELEVATION 0 Y8.. = 1--0" 02-11-2013 • MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Justin Barker, City Planner RE: 204 S. Galena Street- Amendment to Final Major Development and Final Commercial Design review, Public Hearing DATE: February 13, 2013 SUMMARY: 204 S. Galena Street is a 9,030 square foot lot that currently contains a one story commercial building (constructed in 1992 and occupied by Gap) and a surface parking area. The properly is located in the Commercial Core Historic District. In December 2012, HPC granted Final approval for complete demolition of the existing structure and replacement with a new commercial building that occupies the full lot on the ground level, and a portion of the second level. During the review, the applicant represented to HPC that the proposal would not increase existing net leasable commercial area, which would require affordable housing mitigation. As specific tenants have stepped forward, the program is being increased, with retail space in the basement and a proposed enlargement to the upper floor restaurant. The applicant will need to apply for Growth Management allocations for the increased net leasable space. Affordable housing, which is proposed to be in the form of cash-in-lieu payment, off-site units, or affordable housing credits,will be addressed through that process. The only exterior changes are on the second level. At Final review, an elevator overrun was shown on the approved plans, but not in the renderings. The amendment renderings have included the elevator overrun, the expanded restaurant space on the second level, and a 30" tall firewall on the east property line. The firewall has been determined to be unnecessary if specific non-combustible framing is used for the roof instead. HPC Substantial Amendment review is needed. Staff recommends Amendment to Final approval with conditions. APPLICANT: 204 S. Galena LLC owner,represented by Charles Cunniffe Architects. PARCEL ID: 2737-073-40-001. ADDRESS: 204 S. Galena Street, Lots A,B, And C,Block 94, City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: CC, Commercial Core, Historic District Overlay. 1 MAJOR DEVELOPMENT- SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT Land Use Code Section 26.415.070.E.2: Substantial Amendment: All changes to approved plans that materially modify the location, size, shape, materials, design, detailing or appearance of the building elements as originally depicted must be approved by the HPC as a substantial amendment. 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. Staff Response: The attached drawings graphically represent the specific areas of the project that are proposed for revision and provide a comparison of the approved and proposed conditions. For new development in the Commercial Core Historic District, the guidelines found in the 2007 Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines along with relevant preservation guidelines within the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Guidelines are applied. Commercial design review must address the following criteria: A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the standards. B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the facade of the building may be required to comply with this Section. C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means. 2 With regard to the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines, the following guidelines are not being adequately met. Guideline 6.49 Incorporate an airlock entry into the plan for all new structures. The HPC Final approval included a condition that airlocks be provided. Plans must be amended for building permit submittal. Airlocks are not counted as net leasable space, so the revision is needed in order to properly calculate affordable housing mitigation. Guideline 6.58 The roofscape should be designed with the same design attention as secondary elevations of the building. The application states that any rooftop mechanical will be placed to the rear of the roof and screened. The plans do not indicate where this screened area will be located. Information must be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the mechanical plans are finalized, prior to building permit application. HPC Final approval included a condition that no mechanical equipment or vents of any type may be placed on top of the second floor mass. At Conceptual, HPC members expressed an interest in ensuring that the roof plane be as "clean" as represented in the project elevations. Staff has requested submittal of a mechanical plan to verify that no equipment, other than the elevator overrun, will be placed on top the second story mass. The applicant has stated that they are still in the early stages of mechanical coordination and do not have a finalized plan yet. Some mechanical equipment will be housed in the basement. Staff is concerned that appropriate locations for rooftop equipment are not designated in the plans. 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 an Amendment to Final Major Development and Commercial approval with the following conditions. All conditions except for #8-9 are carried forward from HPC Final Resolution#34, Series of 2012. 1. A lighting plan, Exhibit II of the December 12, 2012 meeting record, was reviewed and approved by HPC. 2. Prior to building permit application, amend the floor plans to include an airlock entry for each tenant space. 3 3. Prior to building permit application, provide a plan indicating all rooftop mechanical and screening for review and approval by staff and monitor. No mechanical equipment or vents may be placed on top of the second floor mass. 4. The applicant has represented that the requirement to provide 10% of the lot area dedicated to public amenity space will be satisfied by an upper floor restaurant deck, an option that is permissible within the Commercial design guidelines. If the restaurant use is removed, compliance with the Public Amenity requirements in effect at that time will be required. 5. Replacement of the existing 7 on-site parking spaces shall be by cash-in-lieu payment. 6. The applicant has demonstrated in the Conceptual review that the project is below the Courthouse View Plane as it crosses the property. 7. Verify net leasable commercial and non-unit calculations with the City Zoning Officer prior to building permit application. 8. Prior to building permit application, apply for and receive Growth Management allocations for proposed net leasable increase. 9. Eliminate the firewall depicted in this application, along the east property line. Exhibits: Resolution# Series of 2013 A. Relevant HPC Guidelines B. Application Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Design Guidelines, Final Review Roofscape 6.57 A larger building should reflect the traditional lot width in the form and variation of its roof in order to maintain the scale of the area. This should be achieved through the following: • A set back of the top floor from the front fagade • Reflect the traditional lot width in the roof plane 6.58 The roofscape should be designed with the same design attention as the secondary elevations of the building. ❑ Group and screen mechanical units from view. ❑ Locate mechanical equipment to the rear of the roof area. ❑ Position, articulate and design rooftop enclosures or structures to reflect the modulation and character of the building. ❑ Use materials which complement the design of the building fagades ❑ Design roof garden areas to be unobtrusive from the street. ❑ Use 'green roof design best practice, where feasible. Mechanical Equipment& Service Areas 14.14 Minimize the visual impacts of service areas as seen from the street. ❑ When it is feasible, screen service areas from view, especially those associated with commercial and multifamily developments. 4 ❑ This includes locations for trash containers and loading docks. ❑ Service areas should be accessed off of the alley, if one exists. 14.15 Minimize the visual impacts of mechanical equipment as seen from the public way. ❑ Mechanical equipment may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does not create a negative visual impact. ❑ Mechanical equipment or vents on a roof must be grouped together to minimize their visual impact. Where rooftop units are visible, provide screening with materials that are compatible with those of the building itself. ❑ Screen ground-mounted units with fences, stone walls or hedges. ❑ A window air conditioning unit may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does not create a negative visual impact. ❑ Use low-profile mechanical units on rooftops so they will not be visible from the street or alley. Also minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Use smaller satellite dishes and mount them low to the ground and away from front yards, significant building facades or highly visible roof planes. ❑ Paint telecommunications and mechanical equipment in muted colors that will minimize their appearance by blending with their backgrounds. 5 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING AN AMENDMENT TO FINAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 204 SOUTH GALENA STREET,LOTS A,B AND C,BLOCK 94, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION#_, SERIES OF 2013 PARCEL ID: 2737-073-40-001 WHEREAS, the applicant, 204 South Galena LLC, represented by Charles Cunniffe Architects, has requested an Amendment to Final Major Development and Commercial Design review for the property located at 204 S. Galena Street, Lots A, B, And C, Block 94, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, for approval of an amendment, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine that Section 26.415 of the Municipal Code, is met; and WHEREAS,Justin Barker, in his staff report dated February 13, 2013, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards were met, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on February 13, 2013, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and approved the application with conditions by a vote of_to_ NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants an Amendment to Final Major Development and Commercial Design approval for the property located at 204 S. Galena Street, Lots A, B, And C, Block 94, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: 1. A lighting plan, Exhibit II of the December 12, 2012 meeting record, was reviewed and approved by HPC. 2. Prior to building permit application, amend the floor plans to include an airlock entry for each tenant space. 3. Prior to building permit application, provide a plan indicating all rooftop mechanical and screening for review and approval by staff and monitor. No mechanical equipment or vents may be placed on top of the second floor mass. 4. The applicant has represented that the requirement to provide 10% of the lot area dedicated to public amenity space will be satisfied by an upper floor restaurant deck, an option that is permissible within the Commercial design guidelines. If the restaurant use is removed, compliance with the Public Amenity requirements in effect at that time will be required. 5. Replacement of the existing 7 on-site parking spaces shall be by cash-in-lieu payment. 204 S. Galena Street HPC Resolution# , Series of 2013 Page 1 of 2 6. The applicant has demonstrated in the Conceptual review that the project is below the Courthouse View Plane as it crosses the property. 7. Verify net leasable commercial and non-unit calculations with the City Zoning Officer prior to building permit application. 8. Prior to building permit application, apply for and receive Growth Management allocations for proposed net leasable increase. 9. Eliminate the firewall depicted in this application, along the east property line. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 13th day of February, 2013. Ann Mullins, Chair Approved as to Form: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 204 S. Galena Street HPC Resolution#_, Series of 2013 Page 2 of 2 — --- - EXHIBIT-� a�3E.r•rn�s, I.$ er+O AND MOTes !n O 2lt/Mn;rtil IS:?l Cii FEO ~ / O ,TILfit l:< A 5l4.tY(Cvi ACa CSIE4 Ii:=ESS "EC<' L)Ct Y.lN) flitE IA=CJY,+.E ICti ft'ivl!!'?D Y: '��ti• `•�'!f`I CRS£1.),'f(f)171)11 CATS r.!•iilr 1. 2111 r+ ' fptU uC•1 ✓\\ el S EII IO�Ni. L—S.P13$IN EY(E1CH V-t0' I Af D (Off !v`fFILF�[r-i t vzz—11r Fh1 EII F).)3 S SE1 Fff 0 t0 :0 [ )N I Ilt'ttS( ) F 6'Ef v!S1 ET iV /i A 1EE LV}S S}/F IJ1F S}9 E``[[JAf1IVY 1!S[[pp CA�EE 4.CIi/CES M'YdZv7 0.152 Fl. jS).6) •S 197 Ai4>. PA.,f EA ri f!)l1C1 f0'({!!II�MX'!E YFEY(lI.\f { Y) 11)'• MIS ItE1 LJ.,I 7/l I,,,co[E Flp /Ttl.l 2101 EEE YhII(\ V iCiril TY }.IAP rltt.l� pKlNS by N tom, � 7' `Y'••-�" i4 D 'c <•r.•ut `, /,yam Rve - �{.:�•• �C.'t �`M f, •, - lr.if� `l1 CCt._rF)E -�H ���. L' •1111 slut rltl 1 ILLE�! . \ 1 of t �''•'��'_�'�:�:� un.,•.. 1P)2 <r 1 5 8Q d 0278 STORY 8UI LDI NG / �••• �•• _ CEIIIFI UIIEH: ` I,-V'4I31CM0 Imes TYII l/l)Effie(?i(11f S0 fFIENi" f - - ff[[(}{j1��,0 Sutt41(o plJpE lh() (J 1,11p(ht-<T 1CCFiN fIEIE�[EV~ ifs UCE}1 AS tFl; fWr`II IMf ifllA 111 � O h,V." fp 1J v+S f+E 0))0 I!E0 J } t C��!t C H`JSf y1F [(J.a4. s St•,ELici;RR1lE (7I Q MIS st41Et!S SJiO MESS it$//fJE2 YIE9 itk M 'RE.1.0 o YI iN �FUi.l7,f7��t'!)ESC1 EECCI. r 7 0! e E / 1 DISK 25Al / �• .,\4ii',r•i1•`;'% ?. A 424} Ic a f f •!.. +s 1t)fi..s IMPROVEMENT SURVEY CF It Is A.9 m c I U`CI SI.CLIT J4)TCtvsllt t+AM, C11T OF MIN C(�N tE it 4f t)IAIM Sf 4�COIL))t-0 C<Nr11hlr4: 9.0)0 50 FI•J• PREPARED BY ASPEN' SURVEY ENGINEERS. INC. 210 SOUTH 6AL(fIA STREEI WV1_ COLORADO 61611 fl!OIlE/FA.K (970) 925.7616 DATE .hTB '� }JI) I)O25A HOPKINS AVE. NEW PLANTER STRESS PROPERN LINE www.cunniffe.com I I F NEW PLANTER S TREES w I � � - z 0 0 I z g I U a w w I J a z H � z I U w w I c� I I I I NEW PLANTER a TREES 0 0 I I w U I I U) ° I I Q W O I z -j JO IJ I Q ujw I c� o D_cn N< I � a I C I CV DRAWING, PROPOSED-- ISSUE: I DATE: HPG-nf+ENDnENT]/13/13 JOB N0. 1132 NORTH SHEET NO. � ENLARGED PROPOSED SITE PLAN A1 .2 ZONING ALLOV44SLE FAR•18060 5F ALLOPIABLE PECK AREA-18060 X 15%.7109 5F EXISTING FLOOR AREA SCHEDULE TOP FLOOR Level NAME FLOOR AREA COMMENTS CIRCULATION . LOWER LEVEL STORAGE 5969 5F EXEMPT 182 SF MAIN LEVEL RETAIL 5890 5F Grand total 5890 5F PROP05ED FLOOR AREA SCHEDULE Level NAME FLOOR AREA COMMENTS LOWER LEVEL AREA 6 MECHANICAL 11208 SF EXEMPT UPPER LEVEL PATIO AREA 2659 5F EXEMPT UPPER LEVEL TOP FLOOR GIRGULATION 182 5F EXEMPT UPPER LEVEL TOP-FLOOR DUMBWAITER 9 5F EXEMPT www.cunniffe.com MAIN LEVEL AREA 8218 5F UPPER LEVEL RE5TAURANT AREA 5029 5F 13301 5F TOP-FLOOR ' Grand total DUMBWAITER 9 SF 3 SECOND FLOOR ii DN U) I � Iun u LL Lu U P LL F- U- 12 zw) 8 C) U - J a r � O I - EXISTING FIRST FLOOR = PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR 2 LU LU -- + - LlJ Y)0 F_ U) <;a Z w0 W <v J Q w „�...- va 04 O N I ,I j Fro 1 cuwLAnoHs ISSUE: DATE: IU � HFC-nMENOr-SENT i�v13 _ JOB NO.1132 ` g-EETNO. r EXISTING BASEMENT _ _ PROPOSED BASEMENT A0.2 1116"=P_U" z • gESTAURANT LOBBY 325 SF E705TM6 NET LEASABLE AREA sGNEat-E rOMMON CIRC PROPOSED NET LEASABLE AREA SCNPDULE �vel NAME AREA LCVEL NAME �� 80 SF COMMON GIRL �1 9F � LOWER LEVEL RETAIL A 5650 5F . LOWER LEVEL COMMON GIRG TO SF EXEMPT RETAIL A 56.11 5F LOWER LEVEL 135 5F EXEMPT LEVELEVEL 11320 5F LOWER LEVEL COMMON GIRG brand total COMMON GIRO Not EnUOaed EXEMPT LOWER LEVEL CORRIDOR 116 5F EXEMPT LOWER LEVEL 291 SF EXEMPT LOWER LEVEL VKY YeLLS 2-10 5F EXEMPT LOWER LEVEL ELECTRICAL 114 5F EXEMPT LOWER LEVEL ELECTRICAL T SF EXEMPT LOWER LEVEL ELEV MEGH 66 SF EXEMPT LOWER LEVEL ELEVATOR LOBBY 114 5F EXEMPT LOWER LEVEL MECHANICAL 111 SF EXEMPT LOWER LEVEL MECHANICAL -11 5F EXEMPT LOWER LEVEL SPRINKLER T 5F EXEMPT LOWER LEVEL WATER :i Not En COMMON CIRC, EXEMPT SF yyW W.CUnnlffe.rAT MAN LEVEL 6O SF EXEMPT „ MAN LEVEL COMMON GIRG COMMON CIRC 161 5F EXEMPT MAIN LEVEL 365 5F EXEMPT MAN LEVEL COMMON GIRG. DUMBWAITER 12 SF �BWATf� 10 5F EXEMPT 12 SF MAIN LEVEL Not Enclosed EXEMPT MAIN LEVEL SERVICE 60 5F EXEMPT UPPER LEVEL COMMON GIRG COMMON GIRG Not EnUOSed EXEMPT UPPER LEVEL DUMB WATER 125FEXEMPT PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR LEVEL UPPER LEVEL PATIO 2629 5F EXEMPT Co -1'0" (n RETAIL 6 4456 SF /~l °r LOWER LEVEL 135 5F MAN LEVEL RE5TNIRANT LOBBY 1 U 323 5F MAM LEVEL RETAIL A 1 COMM 224 ON CIRC w MAN LEVEL RETAL B of RETAIL G 2256 5F Enclosed RESTAURANT LOBS MAN LEVEL 1251 5F 135 SF r= MAN LEVEL RETAIL D 1321 BF C) MAIN' LEVEL RETAIL E 4619 9F 5..E LL UPPER LEVEL RESTAURANT RESTAURANT LOBBY 325 5F COMMON CIRC UPPER LEVEL 169'14 SF 167 SF LL I r rOMMON CIRC Z 80 SF z COMMON CIRC. � a 365 SF U J Q r U L DUMBWAITER � 10 SF SERVICE Not Enclosed -__ PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR ~ 2 w EXISTING FIRST FLOOR w P __- � ,116"=1._0•• � �Q Z O Enclosed z J 0 CORRIDOR E EV MECH r, MMON CIRC ELEVATOR LOBBY w <0 FI FCTRICAL SPRINKLER WATER 227 SF 66 SF J 174 SF 77 SF 77 SF 116 SF 77 SF Q N Z oy _ N Q mEcHANICAL (n 171 SF COMMON CIRC d' ......n.' 70 SF O N COMMON CIRC 135 SF DRAWING: wD�eAS'el.e weFi. ISSUE: DATE: rU�.+rrD�o+*IrJlns JOB NO.1132 COMMON CIRC Not Enclosed SHEET NO. PROPOSED BASEMENT A0.4 4 EXISTING BASEMENT DRY WELLS MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL � sMa 3 291 SF 174 SF 270 S 8 E 4D.4 A3.1 E.5 . � I I Q Q Q I i i I i i I I I 30-0 30-01. 30-0.. I 1 i www.cunniffe.com - I I I CORRIDOR ELEVATOR EG CORRIDOR LOBBY S A II 7 STAIR — ---- A4.1 - II c=— ------J MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL MECHANICAL p CHASE W ATER PRIMKLE LEVATOR ,i ------------- - MECH 1 --- II - II 3 HIGH EL.8 FOUNDATION LEDGE 2 I 6-0 V m 1( I II I I I i 3 A3.2 w I I u- 1 y I II A3.1 ME 2 CHASE AL U II U) II I j SPACE G LLI - 41 - - --- - - - � _ II i I II W ---- II u I I I i - --- •o vII --- ------ E --------------------1�---- - --- -- - --, --- ---- --- ------- Q H F- °__=====11 °- - -- - - - --- (n GRESS STAI z o JL L L _ _ _� 6CHANICAL ELECTRICAL Z J J — — Q O UP J C9 V L DRY WELLS MI ' 0 0_ ---i I— cli I I i I 1 2 3 I 4 A3.2 5 I 6 7 8 D1 1 4 1 D2 Q Q Q I Q I O DRAVWG LOWER I..EVFl FLOOa PLAN ISSUE: DATE: HPL-AMENDMENT 1/31/13 NORTH NORTH 2 EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN (T) PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN .IDB 118"=1'-0" NO.1132 SHEETNO. A2.1 I 23'-C,3/4" 23--r,3 D1 21'-,7/8" I. EL,99 www.cunniffe.com A DA v LOBBY 14 E,e IL - - --- -- - - -- - -71! UP I -nT1 FrIT1 MITI IN SPACE A 1 --AAtJLLI-ULLIIJ ELEV'T FY EGRESS U) 1111 i TB:1�ITH STAIR TENANT Z5H OUT-----I I r- IN Ljj 171,1 -G) RE5TROC�M T 5 1�. TENANT�I OUT a: III 3 SPACE B ACCESS I ESTIBULE 3 < . III 111 III jj1 24C31 -0 LL w LL ( III I II I 11111 11 IL z III L (D2 ACCESS .L '--�-CORRIIDOR w Q SPACE C 4 Re5TROOM T,15 rD WITH RE5TROOM T,13D"TH TENANT FINISH OUT III 1 TENANT rl SPACE D 111 - VEL.100-0 RESTAURANT ui TER w LL, F-1 II U) U) J!L-!I-�- - - - - - - GRES r I-W @1 EL I I 100-0' LU-i IIIIIJ L1.111111i L!Ju- (4)q&-CAL -j 0 I - - - - - - $ R%RdE I RECYCLING ui < CONTAINERS II SPACE E IrRASIH C,6 Z RE5TROOM T ED ITH 4-YD-b'-b..X I-(" Lu ROLLING TRASH GONTAINFIR p cf) rjII TENANT FINISH OUT 1 04< Yj 3 iEL 11 r- ,-ter DdjI(�D _ ,I_==jl IF C) I ---------- --------- V-7 3/8'' 1 RF-r-E55 UNDER 5TAIR.FOR ELF-TRICIAL D'e'-ONNECT5 6 8 D1 O 6. DRM N—G: R"Op RECESS FOR -N—EL IL—PLAN 6A5 METER* ISSUE: DATE: H -7T NORTH NORTH PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN r,'\ EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLAN I JOB NO.1132 SHMTNO. A2.2 n8 wvw.cunniffexom ——————————————— f------------- PLANTER LOBBY EL,116-O� DN III - - - - - - - - - - - ELEV 0 .......... LU 3 w LL LL or zIII i — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — PATIO I RESTAURANT RESTAURANT U) III I KITCHEN I LLJ LLI III I w U) MEN EL 116-0 STORAGE I Q z 0 LU-j 0 z --j <C) w III 0 MOP CO IDO Cj Z I < LU !L — —— — — — Vl%-IN I (D C)U) IIi 11 i - IF 04< L-4— u' M EGRESS ---- ---II PUNTER nil STAJR 4.3 C) — —————————————————————J- 6m DRAVAIG ISSUE: DATE: NORTH NORTH (17) (-,-) PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN t-,`\ EXISTING ROOF PLAN FJOBNO).11329 Q�) Q) 118" 1 FSHEETNO. A2.3 v w .cunniffe.com �- I o V _ o Q EXISTING WEST ELEVATION EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION 4 3 Z Z o � z U V) a w w J a a Q � i U w MECHANICAL SCREEN MECHANICAL SCREEN W Lu ——_ T,O,100F O T.O.FRO / --- - --. _ _--. --- ._--. --- 128=0 uj Q - --.— PPER L_EYEL '`� .-�"-- -- --- --- --- ._--.---. - --- .--- --. - - ----- - UPPER LEVEL Q W U _- —._- .-- - - — -- - -- --- - - - — - _ - E—.-- cvi --- .-- .— NQ J N E 6 V Q O(n Q : v : e e :'. — --- MAI.N- LEVEL h AI RN 100=0" 21'-6" 11 b" 22'-0 17'-6' 21'-&" l 22'-0" 46'-6" DRAWING'. EXiE-FiEVATIONS ISSUE: DATE: HPL-AMENDMENT]/13/13 2 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION =_ - 1/8"=1'-0" JOB N0. 1132 1/6"=1'-0" SHEET N0. All www.cunniffe.com I C) w ui LL Q EXISTING EAST ELEVATION 2 EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION Ua wu J � a Q � U w MECHANICAL SCREEN �MECHANICAL SCREEN ——_—— _ W W — 4 T.O.ROOF (� F-C) 4, T.O.ROOF — — _—_—_—.—_—_—_ —125-0 J Cn --------- --------- --- ----------- — _—. _—_ —128{J —_ _---_-__ Q Z _LQF f"I.6Ht_- - .1 wO Lij J Z UPPER LEVEL Q W _UPPER LEVEL .—_—. _ _ __—__. _—_—_ _—_—___ _ _—_—_— —116-0' UI V OL O Cn C\I Q ® N MAIN LEVEL —_ _—_ 10 —. _ MA_IN LEVE L _ — _—_ .—_ _—_—_—_ ._. .___. .—___ .__—_—_—_—_—_—_—_— X00-0' 0-0 21'-6" DRAWING: L �Rlo Pi^T—s ISSUE: DATE: HPG AMENDMENT 3/13/13 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION - 1 - JOB N0. 1132 SHEET N0. -, �A3.2 I i p E 4.4 4.5 www.cunniffe.com I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I U) sr R L_ - _ _- _.- __ __ - - _ -.. — _ __ _ -__. _-_.. - -_ _ - T.O.12 -OE W LL I I 2 LL PATIO -r LL .»,.` — —UPPER—LEVEL = 8 —_ --_ _—.-- - .-- - --- --- - - - 112L U JL —.MAIN LEVEL — — — — — — --- ---- — — -- — — -- — — -- — - — —— — — — — — — Too_O -111 I I cn i—o III II II II II 4 I i Q wo III—III —III -I a II III I' III III III I I w ° III III III III - I MECHANICAL J Z III '. III . III III I CHASE Q C6 W -III -III -I - III III ELEVATOR N Q III=III III—III I I ELECTRICAL MECHANIC P� CORRIDOR i CORRIDOR EGRESS STAIR LOBBY II II II II C' - 1 I I I-1 I I III-III I I-I I I - ° 1- II III-III - -------------------- ----------------------------- ------ r_ - - - LOWER LEVEL - - _ - - - - = 77-77 TR-_7777 -T _nnr T nr-r TT-rrr�n=T�T-7r�n T-rrr�P T-rrr_��Frrr=m=1 =1 1-1 1 =1 1 1=1 =1 =1 -I 1=1'rr-7n-'I I I -III III -III I I III III III I I �� TIT I I III I —1 I I 181 A I I— I I-11 I -1 I IJ 11=1 I I—III-1 I—III—III-1 I I-111=1 I'-1 I I I I —I I CI I I—III—I I L— I =1 I I-1 11-1 I I-1 I I —I III—I 1-1 I L—III-1 I-1 I I—I I I L—III—I I L—III—I I'-1 I LI 11=1 I I—III DRAVMIG I I 6UiLDiNG SEGTIGN ISSUE: DATE: NPG-AMENDMENT 1/31/13 A BUILDING SECTION A JOB NO.1132 S-EEf NO. A4.1 i i D E 4.4 4.5 www.cunniffe.com I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I � T.O.ROOF uu - -—- - .—- -—- ----- -—- - -—-—- -—------- ----- 128-0 Q RESTAURANT i LL F PATIO 4 £� ` _- I RESTAURANT KITCHEN LL -- - - -- - - - - -- U I I I I i J a I I i Q I I I 2 ACCESS U ORRIDOR ac I I I SPACE C I I I I H MAIN LEVEL w 100 O N LJ_ U 11 -III III -II I I I Q z o III -III -III 1=1 I I z Q o — - —III III— —III i I I MECHANICAL w U U III =I —III III= F I I CHASE W —III —III—III —III I I o U) III -III -III -I I I N Q — �— - - SPACE I =1 III—III—III— =1 j j N III -III -III -I -—R�-0 H_iI t -H1 t -FN �ti- - _ _—I L _ —- - -_ -_ _ III—III—III—III— = =- -1 I I—III—III—I�— 111_111 _ _ II II II - Il= k -I I_I I-III-I 1 -III-III-III I I_I 1-I I I_I I_I 1-1 I =1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1 =1 I- 1 -I 1- III I-III-I_I-III III-III-III _I-III-III-III- -I -1 -III -III -III- -III-III -_I III III III _ _ _ - -I -III-II I-III-III-III= III-III-III-III 1-III-I -III-III-III-III-I -III-III-III -I 1=-I- II-III-III -III I-III-III- BuI�,NG SEGTiON III- I -III I -III-III-III-III I I-III-III-III-III I I-III III-III I _ _ - - — =III=III—III—III= —III=III—III— —I I — = = = — — —''.. —III III III—�= = — = =_— — = = t— = —III—III—III L— ISSUE: DATE: 1II-1 -I I-III- -II 1=III-III-III-II-I 1-- - - - 1=1 1=1 1 1=1 =1 1=III-1 1-1 1=1 11 11_1II III- - _ �PG-AMENDMENT 131/13 111- I' III I III III III III II III III II -_ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - I-III-III-III-III-I I-III-III-III-III-I I -III-III-III-III-'I -III- I -III-III- I I-III I-III-III-III-III-I I-III-III-III-1 I I-III-III-I I'-III-III III-III- I -I III- I -III- I -III-III-III-III- I I-III-III III-III-I I-III-1 I I-III-III-I I-III-I I -III-III�III�I�I I I III I I �11111 � 111�1�111�I I I�I� I I�I�I I I��I I I I��I I I I I I I���I I I�I�I 111��1 1��1111��1111��11111�1111�11_-I I I �I �` I'I'�I II�Ky'-'-r�I.=.�I —III III IT III III III III III III III III III III III III III �WLIDI VV SEtCTIO) R NO.1132 SI FtTNO. A4.2 E � i 4.5 4.4 www.cunniffe.com I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I U) � I I [ —.---.-- .-- .-- --_ I I _ - . - - - OF .--- ----. --_ _— — _ .-- ------. --- --- --- --. — - - —2180 - _---_-------_ - W Q LL I I � Q I <L WALK-IN FRZ WOMEN I PATIO LL Z II `m Z 8 ---- -- --- — — - I I _ . UPPER LEVEL _ — ----- --- _---- -- 116=0" U I � SERVICE/TRASH AREA EGRESS STAIR I SPACE E I I MAIN LEVEL W 100-0° W . - .-- --.-- --' -- 11111111111111 _-- R �o z O = = = C.9 + L II 1 -III -I III =1 =1 1= Q �a -III III -III =1 N Q EGRESS STAIR 111- � f I_'= III III III � 1 } f I1 11 1 11 II 11 LOWER LEVEL a° O — - -- - - - - _---- - - - - - — — -111-1 — — - - - - — - - - rl - -III—III—I -1 —III —III—III —I —III —I a —III—III _i—I -1I 11 II {I =III=III= _I 1-1 1=1 = I= I I I—I I I—I I I—I —I —I I I I_I I—III— —I _ 1= —I —III— —I I I —I I I — I_I —III I1=1 Mill,—I 1=1 —I 1=1 —I 1=1 1—I 1=1I 1= —I 1=1 =1 —I I1=1 I1=1 I1=1 1=1 =1 I1=1 1=1 1=1 —I —III—I_—I 1=1 1=1 I1=1 =1 1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1 —III— I—III—III— —III _ — _ _ _ _ _ — — — —III I_�I 1=1 1=1 1= 1=I I I=I=1 I I=I 11=1 11=1 11=1 1 :_iWINO —III—III—I —III-1 I—III—III— I—III—III= 1= —_I—III—I —III—I 1= — —I 1= —III III—I —III—III — _ — — _ — AUE- - - 1=111.—II - III-III I BUILDING SECTION C 1/4"_1 t0„ SFEETNO. A4.3 B 3 F+ 2 A4.1 www.cunniffe.com I I I I I I I I I I I � I I I r.o.ROOF ^ W Lli 2b o - - - - — I ~ - I I I U m M RESTAURANT .,-:. I PATIO - Z Z 8 UPPER 16 I -— ---- -0�� U - - - cn I I I J a j I Q I � I I I SPACE A SPACE B SPACE C i SPACED SPACE E I H - —- -nalNl�o o W - - - — - - — —— — — - - - - - - I 4 �o III IIIIIII I I Q zo 11=1 I =1 I 4 I I=1 I , I j I w ° j I I j Q ui w (IIIIIII IIIIIII I C) 111 IIIIIII I I DRY WELLS MECHANICAL SPACE G I I I O =IIIIIII IIIIIII I. I I - - N ,- I LOWER LEVEL ffkH Ifi _ --� — =iii—iii— i— =iii=iii-iii=iii=iii—i .n=1 1 =III—I —iii—i I—T -iii=iii—iii—iii=l—i—iii=iii—Iii—iii _— iii =iii—i — — - III=I 1=III=III—III- III, I I 1=III= =I 1=I -1 - _ - _-1 I--III- III III- 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 -1 -I -III-III- 1= - III III- III- 1=1 =1 1=1 1=1 =1 III1 1= 1=1 1=1 I- 1=1 1=_ _ - -- - - - - III-III-III I- -III =1 1=1 1=1 -I =1 1=1 -I I -I – III=' —III—III— III— III—III—III—III—=— III—III—III—III— —III—_ III— —III—I DPA"` i I — I—III—III III—'I III— I I—III—III— I I—III—I I III III—III—III—I I—III III III—III—I I III—I I'—III—III—I I III I III III III—III I 1 I I III II III I I I BuILDMG SECTION I ` ISSUE: DATE: mollNPG-AMENDMENT 1/31/13 BUILDING SECTION D D "NO.1132 SHfNO. A4.4 a B 4.3 Ilk L nAi AMU I www.cunniffe.com I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I U - ----- -- — --- -- T.O.II BOOF� W LL Lu H I I Q m r MEN WOMEN I LLL – RESTAURANT { _ UPPER LEVEL D yzo�y <7 U d - - - - I U) � I J a TZ I I < I I I I I SPACE D SPACE E SPACE A SPACE B SPACE C i I I I I - - - - - - -IAINI�-0 W � W 1—I —III I cf) U I_I 111 11111111111 q I I Z w o = 11 II=1II a IIII III= I I t ` W o { ,, J z III—III I I { Q a III= III—III I I I U N< - III III I Q SPACE G I ELECTRICAL { ! '.{ CA _ III-III { ? 4 RRIDO ELEVATOR MECH III=1I III—III =1II III=III ; I LOWE EVE = -- _ ----- --- �-0 L N 11=1 I =1 11=1 I '— I=i t —TI—I i 1=i i I_ I I-i i 1 1=1 i 1-1 i 1=1 i I—I i 1=i I—III—I 11=1 i I—I 11=1 i I—I i I—I I —'i I, _ _ _ _ _ I_I I I—III—III—III—I 1=1 11=1 11=1 I I-1 11=1 '—III—I I'=1 11=1 I I—I I —III I I _I I —III—I III—III— I I—III—III—III III I I III I I III III—I I III—I III—III—III—III— I.—III— I I—III—III— I I 6uILDING SECTION ISSUE: DATE: HPG-AMENDMENT V31/13 BUILDING SECTION E E JOB NO.1132 SFEE7NO. A4.5 EXHIBIT1. Ij-/ 3 �/3 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 204 5!cffi W-pip, qmgr Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 1 F,vA�Y 13 ,20L STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) 1, 4r:;R<A praAtsn (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 on the Zvi 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. L Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) NR 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, SPAs or PUDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement. Nflc 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 -rN The foregoing"Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this 13 day of Ett c aM , 20_LZt,by E f j t..a, �e l o k Y p WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL ..Ue TONI ROSE My commission expires: C7 SWERSKY •QF Notary Public MY CM o Erb Q81ZM15 ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPY OF THE PUBLICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 1' s :R: (I ft PUBLIC NOTICE y Date: Wednesday, Feb. 13, 2013 Time: 5:00 p.m. Place:City Hall, 130 S. Galena ----- - ----------- - -- • Street�A�en ___ _. urpose: HPC_will_consider an-ap.pl cation bY-ZQ4S- Galena, LLG,,-c/o_ShF an &Howard 201_S_Ntill,Ste 201 Aspen CO, affecting this propel. T_he ��H ant requests amendment tc a_p Koval gr:itedk_HPC_for demolition&replacement of this building:T -"-rgposal is to enlarge the second_floor of the new structure For further inform contact Aspen --- -' Planning Dept.at 970-429-2758. LICr Wednesday, Feb. 13. 2013 ate: rime: 5_ao P.n Place : City Hal! , 130 S. rq!pn=7 Street -Asp en Purpose: C will consider anapi c a-, f by 204 S . .Galena LLB c 0 $l e n n & Howa - - rd_.._._,.201__...5_. Ste.20! As CO, affecting this . .property. Th applicant requests amend approval_grante.d by HI�C .. demolition & re lacernent 0 i. building, Ti p prop€ sal is to ',niar c the becond flow Of tt : e new `}r'ucture_ Fcr further inforr�atiorrr : Asp Planning c)ept. � - _ . -4 -X75 The Aspen Times 01128/2013 Copy Reduced to%d%%from original to fit letter page THE ASPEN TIMES.CO M Monday,January 28,2013 0 A17 SPORTS NFC blows out AFC, Tiger in control at Torrey Pines 62-35, in Pro Bowl Th,Aa otl dPress Oskar Garda Due to the fog that wiped out an The As oted Press entire day of golf,the Farmers Insm- ance Open was never going to end HONOLULU—Sack-happy defensive end J.1.Watt on Sunday. went out for a couple ofpasses as a wide receiver,retiring Tiger Woods just made it look as if center Jeff Saturday snapped to two Mannings on oppo- it was over. site teams,and the NFC blew past the AFC,62-35,in a Pro Hands thrust in the pockets of lds Bowl that could be the league's last. rain pants,Woods walked off Torrey Whether the NFL's all-star game will return or not is a Pinesin the chill oftwilightwith a six- question league officials will ponder the next few months. shot lead and only 11 more holes And the players gave plenty to consider on both sides of standinginthewayofwinningon the Gregory Bull AP the argument Sunday. public course along the Pacific Ocean Tiger Woods hits his second shot on the sixth hole during the fourth round The NFC was unstoppable on offense,with nearly each for the eighth time in his pro career. of the Farmers Insurance Open at the Torrey Pines Golf Course on Sunday player putting up fantasy-worthy lines in limited play. He drove the ball with superb in San Diego. The AFC,meanwhile,had five turnovers and scored most control in the third round on his way of its points well after the game was no longer competi- to a 3-tinder 69 to build a four-shot Snedeker played 13 holes of the was going his way in the final hour. five, lead after three rounds.He lost con- final round.Watney played eight His tee shot was so far left on No. Minnesota tight end Kyle Rudolph was voted the trol with his driver in the fourth holes.Bothwereat 11-underpar. 2 that the ball finished in the first cut game's MVP with five catches for 122 yards and a touch- round and still managed three Woods played 25 holes.He start- of rough in the sixth fairway.He still down. birdies in seven holes. ed with a two-shot lead and tripled saved par.Woods made a birdie putt Watt,who had 20,sacks for Houston,lined up as a "All we can do tomorrow is go out it before darkness suspended the of about 10 feet on No.3,and then wide receiver on the AFC's third play from scrimmage and try to make him think about it a final round. wound up well right of the cart path but missed a pass from Denver quarterback Peyton little bit and see what happens,"said "It was a long day,...and I played and blocked by a tree on the fourth Manning.He was targeted one more time but didn't Nick Wamey, one of two former well today,"Woods said."Overall, hole. He carved a punch shot make a catch. winners at Torrey Pines who faced I'm very pleased that I was able to around the tree,safely in front of the He later showed a television camera a bloody left the tough task of trying to make up build on my lead" green,and his chip banged into the pinkie,joking with NBC telecasters that the players were six shots on Woods. Thick fog washed out all of Satur- pin and dropped for birdie. Ong. The other was defending champi- day,forcing players to go from sun- Two holes later,from a mangled "Hey,Commish,we're playing hard,"Watt said as he on Brandt Snedeker. rise to sunset Sunday.They finished lie in the right rough,he smashed a showed his bloodied finger. "I've got a guy at the top of the the third round,took about 30 min- 5-wood that ran onto the green and Roger Goodell has said the Pro Bowl won't be played leaderboard that doesn't like giving utes for lunch and went right back set up a two-putt birdie. again if play didn't improve this year.Last year,fans in up leads,"Snedeker said."So I have onto the golf course. Snedeker was seven shots behind Hawaii booed as linemen were clearly not trying.On one to go catch him:' Woods finished 54 holes at 14- after three rounds,the same deficit play in that game,Minnesota defensive end Jared Allen Woods was at 17-under par for under 202 and was four shots ahead he faced a year ago.Only now he's did a barrel roll to switch positions with a teammate. the tournament and will resume his of Canadian rookie Brad Fritsch.It trying to chase down Woods, If players were coasting this time around,it was less round on the par-3 eighth hole.CBS was the 16th time in his PGA Tour already a seven-time winner at Tor- obvious.The AFC just played poorly.And fans didn't boo Sports wants to televise today's fin- career that Woods had a 54-hole rey Pines with a daunting record much—the stands were relatively empty even though ish—no surprise with Woods in the lead of at least four shots. from in front.Woods is 38-2 on the the game sold enough tickets to lift a local television lead—so play won't start until 2 If that wasn't enough to make the PGA Tour when he has the outright blackout. p.m.EST. outcome look inevitable,everything lead going into the last round. our buyers paid record low prices 1 111 Looking for Deals Call Us! o • .• RE:204 S. GALENA STREET,AMENDMENT we sold 201% TO FINAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND FINAL of the single family homes � V�I� COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW in the Aspen core in 2012! Courtlandt Blaine Kirk NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, February 13, 2013, at a meeting to • begin at 5:00 p.m.before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St.,Aspen,to consider an application submitted by 204 S. Galena,LLC,c/o Sherman and Howard,201 N.Mill Street, Suite 201,Aspen,CO,81611. The application affects the property located at 204 S.Galena Street,Lots A,B,and C, Block 94,City and Townsite of Aspen,CO,Parcel ID#2737- 073-40-001.The applicant requests an amendment to the final design review granted by HPC in December 2012 for a new two story structure to replace the existing building. The applicant proposes to increase square footage on the second story. For further information, contact Amy Guthrie at the City of Aspen Community Development Department,130 S.Galena St.,Aspen,CO,(970)429-2758, amy.guthrie@cityofaspen.com. s/Ann Mullins Chair,Aspen Historic Preservation Commission All contents©Copyright 2006 The Aspen Times and aspentimes.com January 28,2013 9:16 pm/Powered by TECNAVIA Easy PeelO Labels i A Bend along line to � p 5160® Use Avery'&Template 51600 reed Paper expose Pop-Up Edgelm � ��`1 � 400 HYMAN LLC 517 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC 530 HOPKINS LLC 6829 QUEENFERRY CIR 517 E HOPKINS AVE 5301/2 E HOPKINS BOCA RATON,FL 33496 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ALH HOLDING CO ALPINE BANK ASPEN ARCADES ASSOCIATES LTD LLC 435 E MAIN ST ATTN ERIN WIENCEK C/O KRUGER&CO ASPEN,CO 81611 PO BOX 10000 400 E HYMAN AVE GLENWOOD SPRINGS,CO 81602 ASPEN,GO 81611 ARCHDIOCESE OF DENVER ASPEN CORE VENTURES LLC ASPEN FILM SAINT MARYS C/O KATIE REED MGMT 110 E HALLAM ST#102 1300 S STEELE ST 418 E COOPER AVE#207 ASPEN,GO 81611 DENVER,GO 80210 ASPEN,GO 81611 ASPEN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ASPEN PLAZA LLC AUSTIN LAWRENCE CONNER LLC 420 E HOPKINS AVE PO BOX 1709 C/O STEVE MARCUS 532 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 BASS CAHN 601 LLC BLAU JEFF T BPOE ASPEN LODGE#224 C/O RELATED COMPAINES PO BOX 4060 60 COLUMBUS CIRCLE FL 19 210 S GALENA ST#21 ASPEN,CO 8161?_ ASPEN,CO 81611 NEW YORK,NY 10023 BRAND BUILDING CONDO ASSOC CANTINA BUILDING LLC CARLSON BRUCE E TRUST 205 S GALENA ST PO BOX 1247 PO BOX 3587 ASPEN,GO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81612 CICUREL CARY CITY OF ASPEN PUBLIC FACILITIES COLLINS BLOCK LLC 2615 N LAKEWOOD AUTH 205 S GALENA ST CHICAGO,IL 60614 ATTN FINANCE DEPT ASPEN,GO 81611 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN,CO 81611 COTTONWOOD VENTURES I LLC COTTONWOOD VENTURES II LLC COX JAMES E&NANCY 410 E HYMAN AVE ATTN JANA FREDERICK C/O KRUGER&CO ASPEN,GO 81611 300 CRESCENT CT#1000 400 E HYMAN AVE DALLAS,TX 75201 ASPEN,GO 81611 DENSON JAMES D DOLE MARGARET M DUVIKE INC PO BOX 1614 C/O FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF C/O AERSCAPE LTD TUBAC,AZ 85646 CEDARIDGE 230 S MILL ST PO BOX 8455 ASPEN,GO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 EXELCEDAR INC 20% F&M VENTURES LLC FOOTLOOSE MOCCASIN MAKERS INC 534 E HYMAN AVE C/O MORRIS&FYRWALD RE C/O MANUEL GOUVEIA ASPEN,GO 81611 415 E HYMAN AVE 44 SILVERADO CT. ASPEN,GO 81611 CANON CITY,GO 81212 ttiyuettes faciles a peter ; A Repliez h is hachure afin rte www.avery.com Utillsez le abarit AVERY®5160® Sens a r6veler le rehord Pop-Up",' 1-800-GO-AVERY 5 cltargement A �, Easy PeelO Labels Benalon line t� i A Y® 560® Use Avery©Template 5160® Feet Paper expose p'g p g in V , GELD LLC GODIVA HOLDINGS LLC HALL CHARLES L C/O LOWELL MEYER 435 E MAIN ST PO BOX 1819 PO BOX 1247 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81612-1247 HINDERSTEIN FAM REV TRUST HORSE ISLAND LLC HORSEFINS LLC 4415 HONEYMOON BAY RD 415 E HYMAN AVE#16 601 E HOPKINS AVE GREENBANK,WA 98253 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 HYMAN MALL COMMERCIAL CONDOS ISIS GROUP JARDEN CORPORATION LLC C/O COURTNEY LORD 2381 EXECUTIVE CENTER DR 290 HEATHER LN 9 PYRAMID RD BOCA RATON,FL 33431 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 KANDYCOM INC KANTZER TAYLOR MICHAEL FAMILY KREVOYoSUSANNE SEPARATE PROP 766 SINGING WOOD DR TRUST#1 TRST 5010 ARCADIA,CA 91006 216 SEVENTEENTH ST 2311 LA MESA DR MANHATTAN BEACH,CA 90266 SANTA MONICA,CA 90402 LEVY LAWRENCE F&CAROL LOMA ALTA CORPORATION LUCKYSTAR LLC 980 N MICHIGAN AVE#400 PO BOX 886 PO BOX 7755 CHICAGO, IL 60611 LANCASTER,TX 75146-0886 ASPEN,CO 81612 MASON&MORSE INC MTN ENTERPRISES 80B OSA TRUST 50% 514 E HYMAN AVE C/O HILL`S OF SNOWMASS C/O KREVOY SUSANNE BELZBERG ASPEN,CO 81611 PO BOX.x739 2311 LA MESA DR EAGLE,CO 816315739 SANTA MONICA,CA 90402 PITKIN CENTER CONDO OWNERS PITKIN COUNTY BANK 80% SILVER SLAM COMMERCIAL LLC ASSOC 534 E HYMAN AVE C/O RELATED COMPANIES/JEFF BLAU 517 W NORTH ST ASPEN,CO 81611 60 COLUMBUS CIR ASPEN,CO 81611 NEW YORK, NY 10023 SJA ASSOCIATES LLC SLAM RESIDENTIAL LLC TAYLOR FAMILY INVESTMENTS CO 418 E COOPER AVE#207 2100 E MAPLE RD STE 200 602 E HYMAN#201 ASPEN,CO 81611 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 ASPEN,CO 81611 WALL JANET REV TRUST WENDELIN ASSOC WHEELER BLOCK BUILDING LLC 9762 BURNLEY PL 150 METRO PARK TKG MANAGEMENT INC CIO BEVERLY HILLS,CA 90210 ROCHESTER,NY 14623 211 N STADIUM BLVD STE 201 COLUMBIA, MO 65203 WILLIAMS DEXTER M WOODS FAMILY LP WRIGHT CHRISTOPHER N 82 W LUPINE DR PO BOX 11468 13 BRAMLEY RD ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 LONDON W10 6SP UK, k1cluettes faciles a peter A Repliez h la hachure afin de i www.avery.com Utilisez le abarit AVERYD 5160® Sens de r6vgler le rebord Pop•Up7m i 1-800-GO-AVERY ! J chargement j b