The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.20230111AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 11, 2023 4:30 PM, City Council Chambers 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 I.ROLL CALL II.MINUTES II.A Draft Minutes - 11/16/22 III.PUBLIC COMMENTS IV.COMMISSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS V.DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI.PROJECT MONITORING VI.A 135 E. Cooper VI.B Project Monitor List VII.STAFF COMMENTS VIII.CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT ISSUED IX.CALL UP REPORTS X.SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS XI.OLD BUSINESS XII.NEW BUSINESS XII.A 216 W. Hyman Avenue - Referral Comment to City Council, Establishment of minutes.hpc.20221116_DRAFT.pdf 135 E. Cooper Avenue Project Monitoring Memo.pdf Exhibit A_135 E cooper project monitoring sunroom roof form.pdf PROJECT MONITORING.doc 1 Transferable Development Rights (TDR) XII.BElection of Chair and Vice Chair XIII.ADJOURN XIV.NEXT RESOLUTION NUMBER 216_W_Hyman HPC Referral_Memo.pdf 216 W Hyman HPC Refferal_Reso.pdf ExhibitA_TDRCriteria.pdf Exhibit B_216 W Hyman TDR application.pdf TYPICAL PROCEEDING FORMAT FOR ALL PUBLIC HEARINGS (1 Hour, 10 Minutes for each Major Agenda Item) 1. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest (at beginning of agenda) 2. Presentation of proof of legal notice (at beginning of agenda) 3. Applicant presentation (20 minutes) 4. Board questions and clarifications of applicant (5 minutes) 5. Staff presentation (5 minutes) 6. Board questions and clarifications of staff (5 minutes) 7. Public comments (5 minutes total, or 3 minutes/ person or as determined by the Chair) 8. Close public comment portion of hearing 9. Applicant rebuttal/clarification (5 minutes) 10. Staff rebuttal/clarification (5 minutes) End of fact finding. Chairperson identifies the issues to be discussed. 11. Deliberation by the commission and findings based on criteria commences. No further input from applicant or staff unless invited by the Chair. Staff may ask to be recognized if there is a factual error to be corrected. If the item is to be continued, the Chair may provide a summary of areas to be restudied at their discretion, but the applicant is not to re-start discussion of the case or the board’s direction. (20 minutes) 12. Motion Updated: November 15, 2021 2 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16TH, 2022 Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:55pm. Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Roger Moyer, Peter Fornell, Jodi Surfas, and Kara Thompson. Staff present: Amy Simon, Planning Director Kevin Rayes, Planner Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Jim True, City Attorney Ben Anderson, Community Development Deputy Director Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk Risa Rushmore, Administrative Assistant MINUTES: Mr. Halferty moved to approve the minutes from 10/26/22. Mr. Fornell seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 4-0, motion passes. Mr. Moyer joined the meeting at 5:02pm. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer said he had been in front of the affordable housing project at 8th and Main and commented that since the historic resource and new addition are both painted white, he didn’t think anyone could tell the difference. He thought it was an issue that they should address at some point. He went on to comment that not having in-person meetings is ridiculous, because of the virtual meeting issues that are being experienced. Next, he described his belief that their job is not the applicant, it is the historic resource and the guidelines. Over his time on HPC he has learned that they can say no. Mr. Fornell said he respected Mr. Moyer’s comments but disagreed with his thought that their only job is the historic resource. He said that on one of the hearing items before them tonight, of the five issues before them to review, only two of them deal with the historic resource. They are making final decisions on matters that have nothing to do with historic preservation. He wishes their only task was to review historic assets, but they are also tasked with making final determinations on things like growth management quotas, transportation & parking, and certificates of affordable housing. He questioned why this is their job. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Ms. Johnson referenced a public comment that was made stating that Mr. Fornell should disqualify himself from one of tonight’s agenda items and that there was some context around why they felt that way. She stated that she had talked with Mr. Fornell and reviewed the public comment and didn’t believe that there was a conflict of interest in this case. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon said she had worked with Ms. Thompson and Mr. Halferty on their projects and would reach out to Mr. Moyer on another project soon. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16TH, 2022 STAFF COMMENTS: None. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. CALL UP REPORTS: Ms. Simon mentioned that two projects were called up to City Council. 434 E. Cooper, the Restoration Hardware project as well as the 520 E. Cooper project, where Pitkin County Dry Goods is located were both called up and Council upheld HPC’s decision on both projects. Ms. Thompson asked if Council had any additional comments on the projects. Ms. Simon said Council had brought up some concerns with the Restoration Hardware project being a large space only devoted to one tenant and some councilors also showed interest in the dynamic glass that HPC influenced the applicant to use. SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Johnson said that she reviewed public notice, and that notice was provided per the code for both agenda items. NEW BUSINESS: 413 E. Main St. – Minor Development Review and Commercial Design Review, PUBLIC HEARING Applicant Presentation: Gavin Merlino – Kuulla Studio Mr. Merlino started by mentioning that he had worked with Kate at Jing when they built a Covid temporary structure. He said that she wanted to take some elements from that enclosed heated space and try to make that work in a more aesthetic and functional way. He said it would be a two-part process that would first see an open-air porch structure built that will give them a bit more protection and privacy. This would consist of columns and a flat roof. They have a structural engineer on the project to make help minimize the size of the beams to make sure the structure does not appear too massive. The structure would also be completely within their property line. The second part of the project, which would go before City Council, would be to add temporary walls to the porch during the cold weather months. These would not be canvas or tent walls, but would be framed, properly insulated, and have functioning windows. He mentioned that what they are proposing to HPC tonight is a smaller footprint (192 square feet) than what was in the original packet. He then went over some of the differences. Mr. Ben Rose said they had originally proposed a larger footprint, but after feedback from City staff that they would be more inclined to favor a smaller footprint, they modified their proposal. Mr. Fornell mentioned the encroachment of the planter boxes onto the City right of way that Mr. Merlino had brought up and asked if they had been moved back onto their lot line. Mr. Merlino said that was to be determined as they are not sure if they would be using them. Ms. Thompson said as she understood it, that would be an encroachment easement that would be handled with the Engineering Dept. if they decide to use them. Mr. Merlino agreed. Mr. Fornell then asked if the moving of the planter boxes to within their lot line was a condition of approval, would they be ok with that, to which Mr. Rose said yes. Mr. Halferty asked if the windows represented were the sliders that were approved by HPC about a month ago to which Mr. Merlino said yes. Ms. Surfas asked if they had been installed yet to which Mr. Merlino said no, that they were waiting to see what the overall construction outlook is. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16TH, 2022 Mr. Halferty then asked about the drainage plan for the structure. Mr. Merlino went over their initial ideas to run downspouts to the existing drain on the property. Staff Presentation: Amy Simon – Planning Director Ms. Simon described the concerns that staff had raised about the design and size of the original proposed porch and thanked Mr. Merlino for his quick redesign. She said they had referred the project to the Engineering Department to make sure things like drainage were looked at. She suggested that HPC not make the issue of the planter boxes a condition of approval as it is really Engineering’s purview. She noted that the applicant would be approaching Council in a few weeks for a temporary use review regarding the proposed solid walls to be installed in the colder months, but that that is not on the table for HPC. She stated that staff is recommending approval of this restudy. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. BOARD DISCUSSION: Ms. Thompson thanked Mr. Merlino for his presentation and quick redesign and said she was in support of this reduced footprint. No other board members had any issues with the project. MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to approve the next resolution in the series with the revision to section #1, stating that HPC hereby approves Minor Development and Commercial Design Review with the reduced porch size as represented at the November 16th meeting. Mr. Halferty seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 5-0: All in favor, motion passes. 205 W. Main St. – 205 W. Main Street- Historic Preservation Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, Growth Management Quota System, Special Review, Transportation and Parking Management – CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Applicant Presentation: Stan Clauson – Clauson Rawley Associates Mr. Clauson started by introducing Ryan Sutton from Conservation Housing Partners and Brian Beazley with DJArchitects. He went on to review the project background and the history of the historic resource, highlighting the outstanding item to be addressed, being the Main St. façade at the 3rd floor. He then went over the items that were previously accepted at the last meeting and had no changes. These included the Major Development, Relocation, Growth Management, and Special Review for unit size and percentage below grade. He then went over the items previously discussed and that have been updated. These included the Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, due to the reduction of the 3rd floor, the Special Review for Floor Area, again due to the reduction of the 3rd floor, the Special review for Parking mitigation, now to have cash-in-lieu to be paid and Conceptual Infrastructure Design. He then reviewed the proposed updates to the FTE calculations and square footages which would result from the two options being proposed to reduce the 3rd floor area. He stated that there were no changes to the project location and again highlighted its proximity to the Molly Gibson lodge. Next, he went over more of the history of the historic resource and its original relocation to its current location. He mentioned that there are no changes to the site plan and parking. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16TH, 2022 Mr. Sutton went over the updates to the project which still included nine units but would result in a 1- bedroom reduction. He continued by describing the two proposed options (A & B) that were in response to HPC discussions at the last meeting. Option A moves the façade back 9 feet from the original proposal and places it behind the ridgeline of the historic resource. It also reduces on er of the units from a 2 bedroom to a 1 bedroom and from 866sf to 641sf. He showed site plan and elevation comparisons of this option to the original proposal. Option B moves the façade back 14 feet 6 inches from the original proposal and places it well behind the ridgeline of the historic resource. This option also reduces the unit from a 2 bedroom to a 1 bedroom and from 866sf to 561sf. He again showed site plan and elevation comparisons of this option to the original proposal. Renderings of both options were then shown. Mr. Clauson then showed a few pictures of precedent properties and made comparisons to this project. He then presented a wide picture streetscape study showing building proportions, scale, height, and width of the surrounding properties on Main St. Next a 3D model was presented and walk around views were shown from both pedestrian and driver perspectives. Mr. Clauson recognized HPC’s goal of protecting historic resources but noted that another goal is meeting the overall goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan and City Council. One of these key goals being affordable housing. He reminded the members that this project is intended to house employees of the Molly Gibson Lodge and meets all the parameters of the zone district. Ms. Thompson asked about the ridge height of the front element of the new structure on Main St. She said that Mr. Halferty noted at the last meeting, and she agreed, that it would be more appropriate pulled down to the ridge height of the historic resource and asked if there was a reason why they did not make that change. Mr. Clauson said their understanding was that pulling the elevation of the third floor back to the HC gridline was the agreed upon issue to be part of the restudy. He said reducing the ridgeline to match the resource has no basis in the Land Use code or Historic Preservation guidelines and would considerably reduce the amount of affordable housing. Staff Presentation: Amy Simon - Planning Director, Kevin Rayes - Planner Ms. Simon started by going over the history and relocation of the historic resource to its current location from Hallam St. She showed a site plan going over the proposed relocation of the historic resource 10’ north and 10’ east on the lot. She also noted that while the house has sat on the lot in its current location for a considerable amount of time and this location is well known, it was not originally built on the property. Referencing the applicant’s presentation, she said that the relocation to the corner of the lot would highlight the historic resource and it would be consistent with the placement of other homes in the area. She highlighted one of the recommended conditions of approval, being that the applicant would be asked to provide the standard $30,000 security deposit for relocation. She noted that the applicant had requested that that be due at permit issuance instead of permit submittal and the condition has been worded to say that. Next, she detailed the condition related to the restoration of the historic resource related to the over-framed roof and non-historic additions to be removed. She also went over conditions related to the front walkway, the proposed built-in BBQ in the shared courtyard, the westernmost carport roof redesign, footprint of the proposed lightwell at the southwest corner of the Victorian and the stormwater management plan. Next, she noted and went over the applicant’s response to HPC’s direction and showed elevations and renderings detailing the two options the applicant had presented. She said staff believed that either of the two options would be successful. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16TH, 2022 Mr. Rayes then went over the proposed Affordable Housing credits, growth management review and transportation and parking review. He reviewed the unit distribution between the three buildings and the breakdown of the proposed Affordable Housing Credits generated within the two new buildings and the historic resource. These totaled 23.8 FTEs. He then showed a table of the unit square footages and highlighted the two options the applicant had proposed for unit 6. Next, he went over the special review criteria for sub-grade floor area and detailed the four units that have subgrade floor area. He then went over the transportation and parking review details and reminded the HPC members that the applicant has removed their original request to have the parking mitigation cash-in-lieu waived and will now pay the mitigation through cash-in-lieu. The Floor Area Special Review was then detailed by Mr. Rayes for the two options proposed by the applicant after their restudy. Option 1 would be a 1.01:1 ratio totaling 7,586 sq. ft. (86 sq. ft. above what’s allowed by right) and Option 2 would be a 1.02:1 ratio totaling 7,667 sq. ft. (167 sq. ft. above what’s allowed by right). The Floor Area Special Area Review criteria was then detailed, and Mr. Rayes said that staff believes the criteria to be met. He then referenced some language in the Aspen Area Community Plan regarding affordable housing. He finished by stating that staff is recommending approval of the Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Growth Management, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, Transportation & Parking Management, Special Review for Subgrade Living Area, and Special review for Floor Area. Mr. Moyer asked Ms. Simon if this is being proposed to house employees of the Molly Gibson. Ms. Simon said that that is the applicant’s intention and clarified that this project is not the applicant’s mitigation for the hotel as they have provided affordable housing on-site for that project. This is a voluntary development of affordable housing which they may use for their employees, but it could be occupied by other residents. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ms. Simon noted that there were a number of letters that were provided to HPC members in the packet as well as a few that were emailed to them on Monday and Tuesday. Ms. Thompson asked for confirmation for the HPC members that they had read the letters sent via email. All members said they had read them. Mr. Rayes displayed a letter from Mr. David Scruggs while Mr. Scruggs made his comments. Mr. Scruggs mentioned that he was not opposed to affordable housing and thought it was good for this location but had issue with the quantity of housing that is being proposed for the location. He disagreed with the status of the application as described by the applicant. He said it was merely continued for restudy and there were no limitations to HPC’s review. He stated that HPC’s obligation is to preserve and protect historic assets. He stated that he thought this project should be denied and continued for restudy because it doesn’t follow the guidelines of the HPC, APCHA or the Land Use Code. Next, he went over the guidelines and why he thought they were not met. In closing he asked that they not sacrifice history here and that the application be denied. He made a few suggestions for what the project should be allowed, including a reduction of the number of units to 6 and not to relocate the historic resource. Mr. David Dowler noted that he had submitted a letter to the HPC and after looking at the drawings he did not see the new buildings as being respectful in scale to the historic resource. He agreed with Mr. Scruggs that the project should be restudied, and the number of units be reduced. Ms. Marsha Dowler requested more information related to the historic neighborhood behind the proposed project. She said the applicant’s presentation defined the neighborhood from Main St. only and the examples of deferential scale of similar projects were mainly in a commercial context. She REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16TH, 2022 thought it would be valuable for the applicant to submit a study that would map the patterning of the historic neighborhood immediately behind this project. Mr. Clauson responded to public comment by pointing out that the neighborhood in question here is the Main St. historic district. Those were the guidelines that were given to them and the guidelines they are to follow. Any properties across the alley are in a totally different zone district and have different parameters. They have met the parameters for the mixed-use district of Main St. which are significantly different than the residential districts. Mr. Moyer moved to extend the meeting. Ms. Thompson seconded. All in favor, motion passes. BOARD DISCUSSION: Ms. Thompson noted that HPC has to balance the Code and Guidelines in front of them, including the Aspen Area Community Plan and Historic Preservation Guidelines which are both subjective things that they need to interpret. She also noted that there are many land Use Code documents in front of them to review and approve, reminding members that they want to be fair to all applicants in the same zone district that need to meet the same guidelines. Ms. Thompson noted for the record that commissioner Barb Pitchford had joined the meeting at 6:55pm. Ms. Thompson clarified that no formal approvals were made at the last meeting. Discussions were had and recommendations were given to the applicant team. She then stated the items that were generally agreed upon at the last meeting included the Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, Transportation and Parking Management and Relocation and asked if there were any additional comments. There were none. She then brought up the Special Review items to allow for the maximum floor area increase and sub-grade living area percentages and asked if there were any additional comments from board members. There were none. She then moved on to Major Development and noted the discussions from the last meeting related to guidelines 11.3 and 11.4 and opened it up for further discussion. Mr. Moyer said he respected the 73 years of history of the house on the lot and was not opposed to the relocation of the historic resource as long as it met the guidelines. He did not feel the relocation would enhance the historic resource given the size of the proposal before them. He thought the mass and scale is outrageous and totally overwhelms the historic resource and that open space and porosity are virtually non-existent. He was not opposed to the affordable housing if it was reduced by 50% allowing the mass and scale to be reduced. He went on to describe his thoughts related to the affordable housing project at 8th and Main St. and that he believed the historic resource got lost. He felt if this project was to be approved with both buildings painted white someone walking by would not have a clue that there is a historic resource there. He was not prepared to approve this and would send it back and ask for a major reduction in the new additions. He thought that if this was a private person and not employee housing they would not be here. Mr. Fornell said that they have accommodated the movement of homes for affordable housing and free market development and the main reason was to afford the property owner the total use of their property which is one reason he is ok with this relocation. A second reason is that it has been moved once already. The third reason is that he is weighing community goals, one of which is the creation of affordable housing. He disagreed with Mr. Moyer about the 8th and Main project and described some differences between the historic resource and new additions on that property. He then stated he was satisfied with the scale and proportion of option B as proposed by the applicant. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16TH, 2022 Ms. Surfas stated that she supports affordable housing and lives in high density housing, but that she was not on HPC to approve and bend rules for affordable housing. She said that is what it feels like is happening. She felt that they are being asked to bend the guidelines that have been created to protect our town. She felt the mass and scale of the new structures are laughable. She said it needs to be restudied and if a few units are lost, that’s what needs to be done. Mr. Halferty thanked the applicant for the refinements and their proposal to build affordable housing. He stated that HPC’s purview is to preserve not just the historic resource but also the historic lot and district. He appreciated the revisions to the western structure but still thought it was too tall and too massive. In relation to guidelines 11.3 and 11.4 it is still challenging to what it does to the historic resource. He agreed with other members comments. He said that the reduction of one room in the revisions was commendable, but that more could be taken off. He said it was mainly the size of the third story that was challenging with the steep roofs and that the context shown from Main Street was helpful, but at the same time it is the Mixed-Use district and not the Residential or Commercial Core. He made additional comments about the open space, rain gardens and shading between the structures. He stated that he could support this project as it has merits, but still thought it needs to get smaller to better comply with guidelines 11.3 and 11.4. Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Johnson if it would be appropriate for Ms. Pitchford to participate in the discussion seeing that she was not present for the presentations. Ms. Johnson said it would not be appropriate for her to vote on this project, but she could stay and listen to the rest of the discussion. Ms. Thompson said she appreciated the revisions and agreed with Mr. Fornell about proposed option B. She also thought that it was important that the second story ridgeline not go above the ridgeline of the historic resource as it speaks to 11.4. She mentioned that she did not hear on the board a majority to move forward and wanted to discuss how to give better feedback to the applicant. She agreed with Ms. Surfas that this project is probably given special priority with staff given City Council’s direction regarding affordable housing. She went over some suggestions she heard from members about reducing that mass and scale and asked if there were any more suggestions. Mr. Moyer said it was pretty simple. When he looked at the interior spaces, he thought they were ridiculously small, and the storage was very limited. He suggested to reduce the number of rooms and the overall project and then they would meet the guidelines. He said it would not work by just shuffling a roof line or removing a room and again said just reduce the overall size. Mr. Fornell commented on Mr. Moyer’s statement about the size of the units, stating that APCHA provides for a reduction in their recommended unit size contingent on several factors that the applicant has responded to. He said he has seen several affordable housing units that are smaller than what is being proposed. He then asked Ms. Thompson to clarify which ridgeline she was referring to on the addition that she thought should match the historic. Ms. Thompson said the ridgeline on the addition to the west of the historic resource. Mr. Fornell then asked Ms. Surfas what rules she thought they were bending. Ms. Surfas responded saying she thought they were being asked to not look at this in the same way they look at a private residence because it’s affordable housing. Regarding guideline 11.3, she did not know how someone could look at the new building and say it was in similar proportion or scale to the historic resource. She said maybe it’s not bending the rules, but that they are being asked to have double standards. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16TH, 2022 Ms. Thompson said she understood Ms. Surfas’ perspective but thought it was different in this case since the new additions are not touching the resource where in private residences they are typically touching and made more to look like one building. That is why she was not as opposed to the massing here as the rest of the board. Mr. Fornell asked the applicant about the unit that was set back and reduced from a two to a one bedroom. He asked if it was reduced further to a studio, would that get them to the 1:1 floor area ratio. Mr. Clauson said yes. Mr. Fornell then asked if the ridgeline height of the western addition could be reduced without reducing the number of bedrooms and employees housed. Mr. Clauson said it would amount to a one-foot reduction in ridgeline height and was doable without losing bedrooms. Mr. Clauson also said they would very much like to see an approval at this meeting and then work with staff and monitor and would accept a condition of approval to lower the ridgeline of the front portion. He said they were not bending the rules, that they were working within the rules and that every parameter has been met. He said there was a clear mandate in the Land Use Code to provide additional opportunities for affordable housing that would not be afforded to a private residence. He stated that there is a difference between the Main St. Historic and Mixed-Use districts and that of the Residential district. MOTION: Mr. Fornell motioned to approve the next resolution in the series with two conditions. Condition #1, to use proposed option B and further reduce the size of that unit so long as that gets the project underneath the 1:1 floor area ratio, removing that Special Review request. Condition #2, to provide a design before Final review that moves the ridgeline height on the western addition down to at least the height of the historic asset. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Simon if the new structures were considered additions. Ms. Simon said no, it is considered a new structure on a landmarked lot, so there are different guidelines that apply. It also greatly influences the applicable guidelines when it comes to the compatibility between the two buildings and the fact that the new structure is not touching the historic resource is a victory in the historic preservation program. She said that they are certainly not bending the rules but understood that people had different perspectives about it. Mr. Halferty said the motion was close, but he could not support it. Ms. Surfas said she would not support the motion and the project needed to be restudied. She also wanted to state for the record that she did not think the applicant was bending the rules, but rather that staff was asking them to finesse how things are done. Mr. Moyer said that he made a mistake in supporting staff on the 8th and Main project and thought HPC blew it in approving it. He did not want to see that happen here. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, no; Ms. Surfas, no; Mr. Halferty, no; Ms. Thompson, yes. 2-3, motion does not pass. Mr. Fornell then motioned to continue to a subsequent meeting. Ms. Thompson seconded. There was then some discussion trying to provide some direction to the applicant. Mr. Fornell amended his motion to continue the meeting to December 14th. Ms. Thompson seconded. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16TH, 2022 Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 5- 0, motion passes. ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor; motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk Page 1 of 2 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Planning Director MEETING DATE: January 11, 2023 RE: 135 E. Cooper Avenue- Project Monitoring BACKGROUND: As part of the on-going construction of an HPC approved project at 135 E. Cooper, Staff and Project Monitor Kara Thompson were asked to review a proposed change to the roof form on an addition being made to a historic outbuilding. Staff and monitor do not support the amendment, so the applicant is approaching the board. HPC may provide direction for staff and monitor to grant approval, or could decline to provide this direction, leaving the applicant to build to the original design or pursue a Substantial Amendment, which is a public hearing process before HPC that allows for appeal to City Council. The guidelines for HPC to consider relating this addition to a historic structure are below. 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 must be compatible with the historic character of the primary building. • An addition must be subordinate, deferential, modest, and secondary in comparison to the architectural character of the primary building. • An addition that imitates the primary building’s historic style is not allowed. For example, a new faux Victorian detailed addition is inappropriate on an Aspen Victorian home. • An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. • Proposals on corner lots require particular attention to creating compatibility. 10.6 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. • An addition shall be distinguishable from the historic building and still be visually compatible with historic features. • A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material, or a modern interpretation of a historic style are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from historic construction to new construction. • Do not reference historic styles that have no basis in Aspen. • Consider these three aspects of an addition; form, materials, and fenestration. An addition must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Page 2 of 2 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com Departing from the historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design response. • Note that on a corner lot, departing from the form of the historic resource may not be allowed. • There is a spectrum of appropriate solutions to distinguishing new from old portions of a development. Some resources of particularly high significance or integrity may not be the right instance for a contrasting addition. 10.8 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. 10.11 Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building. • A simple roof form that does not compete with the historic building is appropriate. • On Aspen Victorian properties, a flat roof may only be used on an addition to a gable roofed structure if the addition is entirely one story in height, or if the flat roofed areas are limited, but the addition is primarily a pitched roof. 10.12 Design an addition to a historic structure that does not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. • Loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices, and eavelines must be avoided. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the proposed change to the addition does not comply with any of the guidelines above and makes the addition distracting and competitive with the simple gable roofed outbuilding. It is overly ornate, not deferential in character, exceeds the height of the eave that it is to remain tucked below and will increase visible light spill through a pitched glass roof. Staff does not support approval. ATTACHMENTS: A. Proposed Design 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM Amy Simon Aspen Planning Director via email: amy.simon@aspen.gov November 7, 2022 RE: 135 East Cooper Avenue, insubstantial HP amendment Dear Amy, Please consider an amendment to the roof form of a non-historic addition at 135 East Cooper Avenue to qualify as insubstantial for consideration by the Historic Preservation Commission assigned monitor. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415.070.e., there are two processes to amend an HPC approved project – substantial and insubstantial. Review criteria for insubstantial are addressed below. (1)Insubstantial amendments. a. Insubstantial amendments are minor modifications to HPC approved plans that: 4. Change the shape, location or material of a building element or feature but maintains the same quality and approximate appearance of that found in the approved plans. The applicant proposed to amend the roof form from a flat roof to a hip roof design. The proposed hip roof design attaches under the eave of the restored accessory historic building and relates better to the primary historic structure than the approved flat roof. The primary structure has a hip roof which would be mirrored in the proposed new roof form as shown below and attached as Exhibit 1. Figure 1: Historic photograph of 135 E. Cooper showing hip roof. Figure 2: Proposed hip roof form. The following HP Design Guidelines are met with the proposed roof form: 10.11 Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building. • A simple roof form that does not compete with the historic building is appropriate. • On Aspen Victorian properties, a flat roof may only be used on an addition to a gable roofed structure if the addition is entirely one story in height, or if the flat roofed areas are limited, but the addition is primarily a pitched roof. 10.12 Design an addition to a historic structure that does not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. • Loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices, and eavelines must be avoided. The proposed hip roof relates to the primary historic resource and ties both historic resources together as viewed from Aspen Street. Adding a hip roof addition to the accessory historic resource highlights the simple form of the secondary building through contrasting roof forms. Exhibit 1 includes a section to demonstrate there is no interruption of the eave on the historic resource. The same glass sunroom concept and the quality of the addition remain the same in the proposed amendment, the only change is the roof form. b. The Community Development Director may authorize insubstantial amendments to approved plans. We request to proceed as an insubstantial amendment to the HP monitor. c. Monitoring committees established by the HPC, composed of up to two (2) members of the Commission and the Historic Preservation Officer or assign, may also authorize insubstantial amendments. We request to proceed as an insubstantial amendment to the HP monitor. Figure 3: Approved flat roof form. Figure 4: Approved rendering for 135 E. Cooper project showing flat roof addition to accessory historic building. d. Decisions of the Community Development Director or monitoring committee are binding. The Community Development Director or monitoring committee may determine that the proposed changes qualify as a substantial amendment and remand the matter to the HPC. e. Disapproval of a request for an insubstantial amendment may be appealed to the HPC to be considered in accordance with the procedures for substantial amendments. f. Approval of insubstantial amendments of plans will be reported to the HPC at their regularly scheduled meetings. Thank you for the opportunity to present this minor roof form change. We feel that it improves the overall historic preservation project through a subtle roof form on a small roughly 140 sf non-historic addition. Please reach out with any questions. Kind Regards, Sara Adams, AICP BendonAdams, LLC Exhibit 1: Proposed plans, section, and elevations 14' - 4"8' - 7 1/8"14' - 4"10' - 11 1/8"8' - 7 1/8"10' - 5"10' - 11 1/8"10' - 5"8' - 7 1/8"10' - 5"METAL PANEL, TYP.10' - 5"10' - 11 1/8"METAL PANEL, TYP.These documents are the property of EAD. Any unauthorized use without the written consent of EAD is prohibited by law. EAD disclaims responsibility for these documents if they are used whole or in part at any other location and for any other application other than the original intent. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or reproduction of these documents is prohibited by law.350 MARKET ST. UNIT 309, BASALT, CO 81623Copyright c 2019 by EIGELBERGER ARCHITECTURE & DESIGNSCALE:Plot DateDrawn ByChecked ByProject No.DateIssue3/8" = 1'-0"Autodesk Docs://18019 - 135 East Cooper/US_ASE_EC135_A_V23.rvt10/6/2022 12:15:43 PMHPC 25GUEST HOUSEADD ON135 E. COOPER AVE.135 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, COLORADO 8161118019AuthorCheckerMODERN INTERPRETATIONS OF HISTORIC VICTORIANSCURRENT DESIGN -FLAT ROOF PROPOSED DESIGN -HIP ROOFPROPOSED HIP ROOF ELEVATIONSCURRENT FLAT ROOF ELEVATIONSEAST ELEVATIONNORTH ELEVATIONWEST ELEVATIONEAST ELEVATIONNORTH ELEVATIONWEST ELEVATION MAIN LEVEL100' -0"13.123UPPER LEVEL109' -9 5/8"ROOF PLATE HEIGHT115' -9"02.22.32.13.25 1/2"5' - 1 5/8"4 1/2"2' - 7 1/2"6"3' - 4 1/2" 3' - 3 1/2" 3' - 3 1/2" 3' - 4 1/2"6"13' - 4"W11E27D51A408b_______W23MAIN LEVEL100' -0"13.123UPPER LEVEL109' -9 5/8"ROOF PLATE HEIGHT115' -9"02.22.32.13.2E24E22W26MAIN LEVEL100' -0"UPPER LEVEL109' -9 5/8"ROOF PLATE HEIGHT115' -9"LJIJ15 1/2"7 5/8"2"4' - 2"2"4 1/2"2' - 7 1/2"8' - 7 1/8"6"2' - 3 5/8"1 7/8" 3' - 0" 1 7/8"2' - 3 5/8"E25E26W10e03W13W25MAIN LEVEL100' -0"UPPER LEVEL109' -9 5/8"ROOF PLATE HEIGHT115' -9"LH1 IJ13' - 1 5/8"2' - 7 5/8"2' - 7 5/8"2' - 7 1/2"4 1/2"2" 4' - 11 5/8"e04R5W24113.13.1223LLJJH1 H1 KK2A409_______IIJ1J1002.22.22.32.32.12.13.23.213' - 5 7/8"V.I.F.29' - 5 1/2"E22E24E25E26E27e0314' - 4"W11W101B-F1E-F1B-F1A1A1A1E-F1B-FFOYERKITCHENETTEDETACHEDDWELLINGBEDROOMDETACHEDDWELLINGBATHROOMEGRESS WELL 14' - 2"10' - 1 1/2"4' - 11 5/8"4' - 0"TO COMPLY WITH IRC 310*SEE NOTE 2 BELOWW1310' - 5"6"13' - 4"6"2' - 5 1/2" 3' - 0" 2' - 5 1/2" 2' - 0"MIN. (1) WINDOW TO BE OPERATED AS EGRESS, NEEDS TO REMAIN HISTORICe04D5W261A408b_______These documents are the property of EAD. Any unauthorized use without the written consent of EAD is prohibited by law. EAD disclaims responsibility for these documents if they are used whole or in part at any other location and for any other application other than the original intent. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or reproduction of these documents is prohibited by law.350 MARKET ST. UNIT 309, BASALT, CO 81623Copyright c 2019 by EIGELBERGER ARCHITECTURE & DESIGNSCALE:Plot DateDrawn ByChecked ByProject No.DateIssue1/4" = 1'-0"Autodesk Docs://18019 - 135 East Cooper/US_ASE_EC135_A_V23.rvt10/6/2022 12:15:45 PMA306ELEVATIONS ATGUEST HOUSEADDITION135 E. COOPER AVE.135 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, COLORADO 8161118019AuthorCheckerSCALE :1/4" = 1'-0"A3061NORTH ELEVATION GUEST HOUSESCALE :1/4" = 1'-0"A3062SOUTH ELEVATION GUEST HOUSESCALE :1/4" = 1'-0"A3063WEST ELEVATION GUEST HOUSESCALE :1/4" = 1'-0"A3064EAST ELEVATION GUEST HOUSESCALE :1/4" = 1'-0"A3065ENLARGED PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN FOYER2020.04.27 4 RND 1 COMMENT2020.07.21 5 RND 2 COMMENT MAIN LEVEL100' -0"IJ12' - 10 1/2"10' - 4 3/4"3' - 0 1/8"2' - 7"4' - 9 5/8"GLASS TO MEET .45 U VALUE PER IECC R402.3.5 METAL TUBING STRUCTURE WITH THERMAL BREAK AND INSULATED COREMETAL ANGLETHERMALLY BROKEN FRAME AND INSULATED GLASS TO MEET .45 U VALUE PER IECC R402.3.5 STEEL STRUCTURE PAINTED BLACKSKYLIGHT FRAME, SKYLIGHT TO MEET MIN. .70 U VALUE FOR SUNROOM PER IECC R402.3.5 STRUCTURAL COLUMN BEYOND, PAINTED BLACKPAINTED FLASHING OVER BLOCKING6"2' - 4"PAINTED BLACK STEEL PLATEW24SLOPE ROOF TO GUTTER 2' - 4 1/8"8' - 6 1/8"These documents are the property of EAD. Any unauthorized use without the written consent of EAD is prohibited by law. EAD disclaims responsibility for these documents if they are used whole or in part at any other location and for any other application other than the original intent. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or reproduction of these documents is prohibited by law.350 MARKET ST. UNIT 309, BASALT, CO 81623Copyright c 2019 by EIGELBERGER ARCHITECTURE & DESIGNSCALE:Plot DateDrawn ByChecked ByProject No.DateIssue1 1/2" = 1'-0"Autodesk Docs://18019 - 135 East Cooper/US_ASE_EC135_A_V23.rvt10/6/2022 12:10:59 PMA408bSECTION ATGUEST HOUSEADDITION - HIPROOF135 E. COOPER AVE.135 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, COLORADO 8161118019Natacha DenisCassondra WesterlindSCALE :1 1/2" = 1'-0"A408b1SECTION AT GUEST HOUSE ADDITION - HIP ROOFSCALE :A408b2GUEST HOUSE MUDROOM ADDITION772018.09.05 2 HPC REVIEW2019.08.12 3 CHANGE ORDER2020.04.27 4 RND 1 COMMENT2020.07.21 5 RND 2 COMMENT2021.07.01 7 C.O. 2 HPC PROJECT MONITORS - projects in bold are permitted or under construction 1/9/2023 Kara Thompson 931 Gibson 300 E. Hyman 201 E. Main 333 W. Bleeker 234 W. Francis Skier’s Chalet Steakhouse 423 N. Second 135 E. Cooper 101 W. Main (Molly Gibson Lodge) 720 E. Hyman 304 E. Hopkins 930 King 312 W. Hyman 520 E. Cooper Jeff Halferty 208 E. Main 533 W. Hallam 110 W. Main, Hotel Aspen 105 E. Hallam 134 E. Bleeker 300 E. Hyman 434 E. Cooper, Bidwell 414-420 E. Cooper, Red Onion/JAS 517 E. Hopkins Lift 1 corridor ski lift support structure 227 E. Bleeker 211 W. Hopkins 211 W. Main 204 S. Galena 215 E. Hallam 500 E. Durant Roger Moyer 105 E. Hallam 300 W. Main 227 E. Main 110 Neale 517 E. Hopkins Skier’s Chalet Lodge 202 E. Main 305-307 S. Mill, Grey Lady 320 E. Hyman (Wheeler Opera House, solar panels) 611 W. Main 132 W. Hopkins 500 E. Durant Sheri Sanzone 110 W. Main, Hotel Aspen 920 E. Hyman 209 E. Bleeker 820 E. Cooper 125 W. Main Skier’s Chalet Steakhouse Skier’s Chalet Lodge Lift One Park 423 N. Second 420 E. Hyman 121 W. Bleeker HPC PROJECT MONITORS - projects in bold are permitted or under construction 1/9/2023 Jodi Surfas 202 E. Main 305-307 S. Mill, Grey Lady 320 E. Hyman (Wheeler Opera House, solar panels) 611 W. Main Peter Fornell 304 E. Hopkins 930 King 135 W. Francis 233 W. Bleeker Barb Pitchford 121 W. Bleeker 312 W. Hyman 132 W. Hopkins Need a monitor: 413 E. Main Page 1 of 3 Memorandum TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Planning Director MEETING DATE: January 11, 2023 RE: 216 W. Hyman Avenue - Referral Comment to City Council, Establishment of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) APPLICANT /OWNER: Ann Mullins REPRESENTATIVE: BendonAdams LOCATION: Street Address: 216 W. Hyman Avenue Legal Description: Lots O and P, Block 53, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado Parcel Identification Number: PID#2735-124-63-006 CURRENT ZONING & USE Single-family home R-6, Medium Density Residential PROPOSED ZONING & USE: No change SUMMARY: The owner of 216 W. Hyman Avenue requests establishment of two Transferable Development Rights (TDRs). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports a positive recommendation from HPC to City Council to approve the removal of developable floor area from this property as a means to reduce future impacts to the Victorian era home on the site. Site Locator Map – 216 W. Hyman Page 2 of 3 BACKGROUND: 216 W. Hyman Avenue is a 6,000 sf lot that contains a Victorian era miner’s cottage which has been altered over time with an expansion on the east side, an enclosed front porch, a street-facing garage and a basement/rear addition. These alterations occurred during the long-time ownership of the property by Darcey and Ruth Brown, who also added some Bavarian influenced shutters and color scheme to the home. The scale and some forms and detailing of the 19th century structure remain and the property also represents early ski era architecture in the community. A detached art studio was constructed at the rear of the property in 2011. Figure 1 – Sanborn Map, 1904 Figure 2 – 216 W. Hyman as seen in 2015 REQUEST OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) The Applicant is requesting the following recommendation: • Transferable Development Rights (Section 26.535) for the establishment of two TDRs The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is a recommending body and Aspen City Council is the final review authority. PROJECT SUMMARY: 216 W. Hyman is a historically landmarked property that qualifies for the preservation benefit to sever and sell unused development rights by establishing TDRs in increments of 250 square feet. The applicant proposes to remove 500 square feet of developable floor area from the property, leaving approximately 500-850 square feet available for future expansion (or conversion to more TDRs), depending on whether the property remains a single-family home or becomes a duplex in the future. STAFF COMMENTS: For the purposes of creating TDRs, the maximum floor area currently allowed for this property is that of a single-family dwelling up to 3,240 square feet. According to the drawings provided in the application: Page 3 of 3 • Allowable Floor Area = 3,240 square feet • Existing floor area = 2,241 square feet, including two new lightwells recently approved by staff but not yet built • Total floor area remaining = 999 square feet The applicant requests approval to establish up to two TDRs, which will consume all but 499 square feet of allowed development rights on the site. The decision whether to proceed with the execution of the deed restrictions and issuance of one, two, or no TDR certificates is at the owner’s discretion. The value of the TDRs is set by the free-market and the City is not involved in the transaction. Staff finds that the application demonstrates the existence of unused development rights. The proposed conversion of floor area to TDRs will not create or increase any non-conformities on the site. Staff finds the criteria for establishing TDRs are met. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) support the request to establish up to two TDRs from this historic property. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution # __, Series of 2023 Exhibit A – Transferable Development Rights (TDR) / Staff Findings Exhibit B – Application HPC Resolution #, Series of 2023 Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION #, SERIES OF 2023 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC), RECOMMENDING IN FAVOR OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 216 W. HYMAN AVENUE, LOTS O AND P, BLOCK 53, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL ID: 2735-124-63-006 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Ann Mullins, represented by BendonAdams, requesting establishment of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) for the property located at 216 W. Hyman Avenue, Lots O and P, Block 53, City and Townsite of Aspen; and WHEREAS, for the approval of TDRs, HPC makes a recommendation to City Council based on the requirements of Municipal Code Section 26.535.070; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department reviewed the proposed application for compliance with the applicable review standards and recommended in favor of the establishment of Transferable Development Rights (TDRs); and WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on January 11, 2023. HPC considered the application, the staff memo and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and recommended in favor by a vote of x to x. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby recommends in favor of City Council approving Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) for the subject property as follows: Section 1: Transferable Development Rights Pursuant to the findings set forth above, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) does hereby recommend the establishment of up to two (2) TDRs, at the property owner’s discretion. Section 2: Material Representations All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department, the Historic Preservation Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. Section 3: Existing Litigation This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. HPC Resolution #, Series of 2023 Page 2 of 2 Section 4: Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 11th day of January, 2023. Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: ________________________________ ______________________________ Katharine Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Kara Thompson, Chair ATTEST: ______________________________ Mike Sears, Deputy City Clerk Page 1 of 3 Exhibit A Transferable Development Rights Criteria Staff Findings Section 26.535.070 A historic TDR certificate may be established by the Mayor if the City Council, pursuant to adoption of an ordinance, finds all the following standards met: A. The sending site is a historic landmark on which the development of a single-family or duplex residence is a permitted use, pursuant to Chapter 26.710, Zone Districts. Properties on which such development is a conditional use shall not be eligible. Staff Findings: 216 W. Hyman is a designated historic landmark that is an eligible sending site that can establish and sever transferable development rights (TDRs). Single-family residential and duplex development are permitted uses in the zone district where the property is located. Staff finds this criterion is met. B. It is demonstrated that the sending site has permitted unbuilt development rights, for either a single-family or duplex home, equaling or exceeding two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of floor area multiplied by the number of historic TDR certificates requested. Staff Findings: The applicant has provided as-built calculations indicating that at least 999 square feet of unbuilt floor area remains on the lot. Two TDRs totaling 500 square feet of floor area can be removed without creating any floor area deficit. Final floor area calculations shall be verified by the City’s Zoning Department prior to TDR issuance. Staff finds this criterion is met. C. It is demonstrated that the establishment of TDR certificates will not create a nonconformity. In cases where a nonconformity already exists, the action shall not increase the specific nonconformity. Staff Findings: The creation of TDRs will not create or increase a nonconformity. Staff finds this criterion is met. D. The analysis of unbuilt development right shall only include the actual built development, any approved development order, the allowable development right prescribed by zoning for a single-family or duplex residence, and shall not include the potential of the sending site to gain floor area bonuses, exemptions or similar potential development incentives. Properties in the MU Zone District which do not currently contain a single-family home or duplex established prior to the adoption of Ordinance #7, Series of 2005, shall be permitted to base the calculation of TDRs on 100% of the allowable floor area on an equivalent-sized lot in the R-6 zone district. This is only for the purpose of creating TDRs and does not permit the on-site development of 100% of the allowable floor area on an equivalent-sized Page 2 of 3 lot in the R-6 zone district. If the additional 20% of allowable floor area exceeds 500 square feet, the applicant may not request a floor area bonus from HPC at any time in the future. Any development order to develop floor area, beyond that remaining legally connected to the property after establishment of TDR Certificates, shall be considered null and void. Staff Findings: The calculations of unbuilt floor area view the property as a single family home with a maximum floor area of 3,240 square feet. The development on the site is approximately 2,241 square feet. Staff finds that unused floor area is available and this criterion is met. E. The proposed deed restriction permanently restricts the maximum development of the property (the sending site) to an allowable floor area not exceeding the allowance for a single-family or duplex residence minus two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of floor area multiplied by the number of historic TDR certificates established. For properties with multiple or unlimited floor areas for certain types of allowed uses, the maximum development of the property, independent of the established property use, shall be the floor area of a single-family or duplex residence (whichever is permitted) minus two hundred fifty (250) square feet of floor area multiplies by the number of historic TDR certificates established. The deed restriction shall not stipulate an absolute floor area, but shall stipulate a square footage reduction from the allowable floor area for a single-family or duplex residence, as may be amended from time to time. The sending site shall remain eligible for certain floor area incentives and/or exemptions as may be authorized by the City Land Use Code, as may be amended from time to time. The form of the deed restriction shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. Staff Findings: At the point of issuing a TDR certificate, the applicant will be required to file a deed restriction that will permanently reduce the allowable floor area by 250 square feet per TDR. All documents shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to execution. F. A real estate closing has been scheduled at which, upon satisfaction of all relevant requirements, the City shall execute and deliver the applicable number of historic TDR certificates to the sending site property owner and that property owner shall execute and deliver a deed restriction lessening the available development right of the subject property together with the appropriate fee for recording the deed restriction with the County Clerk and Recorder's office. Staff Findings: This is a mandatory process that the applicant must pursue. Page 3 of 3 G. It shall be the responsibility of the sending site property owner to provide building plans and a zoning analysis of the sending site to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Certain review fees may be required for the confirmation of built floor area. Staff Findings: The applicant has provided detailed floor area calculations as part of the proposal. Final calculations shall be reviewed by Zoning prior to the issuance of the TDR certificate. H. The sale, assignment, conveyance or other transfer or change in ownership of transferable development rights certificates shall be recorded in the real estate records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder and must be reported by the grantor to the City of Aspen Community Development Department within five (5) days of such transfer. The report of such transfer shall disclose the certificate number, the grantor, the grantee and the total value of the consideration paid for the certificate. Failure to timely or accurately report such transfer shall not render the transferable development right certificate void. Staff Findings: This is a mandatory process that the applicant must pursue. I. TDR certificates may be issued at the pace preferred by the property owner. Staff Findings: N/A J. City Council may find that the creation of TDRs is not the best preservation solution for the affected historic resource and deny the application to create TDRs. HPC shall provide Council with a recommendation. Staff Findings: The applicant is requesting HPC recommend in favor of establishing up to two (2) TDRs with this application. HPC is a recommending body and City Council is the final authority for granting the TDR request. 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM October 6, 2022 City of Aspen Community Development Department c/o Amy Simon/Historic Preservation sent via email Re: 216 West Hyman Avenue – Request to Establish TDRs Dear Ms. Feinberg Lopez, HPC and City Council, 216 West Hyman a 6,000sf designated historic property that contains a circa 1885 miner’s cabin. The property is zoned R-6, Medium Density Residential, which allows single family and duplex homes among other residential based uses. The property is owned by Ann Mullins and is used as a single family home. Ann respectfully requests to establish 2 TDRs. This request is not in conjunction with a development application. Ann is perfectly happy with the size of her home and prefers to permanently remove development pressure from the property by severing 500 sf of floor area. This property has not received a floor area bonus in the past. History The original owner appears to be Martha Yonkers. The property has been altered over time but the basic form of the miner’s cabin remains intact. One likely correct theory is that the two historic landmarks shown on lots O and P were combined into what is now 216 West Hyman Avenue likely around 1950. A review of building permit records shows that the basement and the garage were added in 1953, and the enclosed front porch and a new rear porch were both added in 1955. Figure 1: 1890 Sanborn Map Figure 2: AHS photograph of property circa 1953. In 2010, HPC approved a detached art studio at the rear of the property. On May 11, 2022, an administrative approval was granted to restore a non-street facing window, to remodel the interior, and to add Building Code compliant window wells that increased floor area by about 10 sf. A building permit for this approved project is expected to be submitted in fall 2022. TDR Review Criteria Sec. 26.535.070. - Review criteria for establishment of a historic transferable development right. A historic TDR certificate may be established by the Mayor of the City Council, pursuant to adoption of an ordinance, finds all the following standards met. (a) The sending site is a historic landmark on which the development of a single-family or duplex residence is a permitted use, pursuant to Chapter 26.710, Zone Districts. Properties on which such development is a conditional use shall not be eligible. Response –216 West Hallam Avenue is a historic landmark site and single family or duplex are permitted uses in the R-6 zone district. (b) It is demonstrated that the sending site has permitted unbuilt development rights, for either a single-family or duplex home, equaling or exceeding two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of floor area multiplied by the number of historic TDR certificates requested. Response – The allowable floor area is included as an exhibit and summarized below. The current property has 2,231.34 sf of allowable floor area. Table 1: Floor Area analysis Single Family Home Two Detached Homes or Duplex Allowable Floor Area 3,240 sf 3,600 sf Existing Floor Area 2,231.34 sf 2,231.34 sf Unbuilt Floor Area 1,008.66 sf 1,368.66 sf Unbuilt Floor Area After removal of 2 TDRS (500 sf) 508.66 sf 868.66 sf (c) It is demonstrated that the establishment of TDR certificates will not create a nonconformity. In cases where a nonconformity already exists, the action shall not increase the specific nonconformity. Response – A nonconformity is not created or increased as part of this request. (d) The analysis of unbuilt development right shall only include the actual built development, any approved development order, the allowable development right prescribed by zoning for a single-family or duplex residence, and shall not include the potential of the sending site to gain floor area bonuses, exemptions or similar potential development incentives. Properties in the MU Zone District which do not currently contain a single-family home or duplex established prior to the adoption of Ordinance #7, Series of 2005, shall be permitted to base the calculation of TDRs on one hundred percent (100%) of the allowable floor area on an equivalent-sized lot in the R-6 zone district. This is only for the purpose of creating TDRs and does not permit the on-site development of one hundred percent (100%) of the allowable floor area on an equivalent-sized lot in the R-6 zone district. If the additional twenty percent (20%) of allowable floor area exceeds five hundred (500) square feet, the applicant may not request a floor area bonus from HPC at any time in the future. Any development order to develop floor area, beyond that remaining legally connected to the property after establishment of TDR Certificates, shall be considered null and void. Response - The allowable floor area for two detached homes on the subject property is 3,600 sf and a total of 2,241.8 sf of allowable floor area is approved per the 2022 No Negative Effect approval which increases the existing floor area by 10 sf. Considering the 2022 No Negative Effect approval, there will be 1,358.2 sf of unused allowable floor area. Two TDRs equal to 500 sf of floor area is requested which, if severed, will leave 858.2 sf of available unbuilt floor area on the subject parcel if developed as two detached homes and 498.2 sf of available unbuilt floor area if the use continues as a single family home. 216 West Hallam has not received a floor area bonus.1 (e) The proposed deed restriction permanently restricts the maximum development of the property (the sending site) to an allowable floor area not exceeding the allowance for a single-family or duplex residence minus two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of floor area multiplied by the number of historic TDR certificates established. For properties with multiple or unlimited floor areas for certain types of allowed uses, the maximum development of the property, independent of the established property use, shall be the floor area of a single-family or duplex residence (whichever is permitted) minus two hundred fifty (250) square feet of floor area multiplies by the number of historic TDR certificates established. The deed restriction shall not stipulate an absolute floor area, but shall stipulate a square footage reduction from the allowable floor area for a single-family or duplex residence, as may be amended from time to time. The sending site shall remain eligible for certain floor area incentives and/or exemptions as may be authorized by the City Land Use Code, as may be amended from time to time. The form of the deed restriction shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. Response – A draft deed restriction is included in the application for review. It is understood that the property owner may elect to sever up to two TDR certificates and is not obligated to sever both TDRs. It is also understood that floor area equal to the number of TDRs issued is permanently severed from the property upon the recordation of the deed restriction, and not upon approval of an ordinance. (f) A real estate closing has been scheduled at which, upon satisfaction of all relevant requirements, the City shall execute and deliver the applicable number of historic TDR certificates to the sending site property owner and that property owner shall execute and deliver a deed restriction lessening the available development right of the subject property together with the appropriate fee for recording the deed restriction with the County Clerk and Recorder's office. Response – n/a. (g) It shall be the responsibility of the sending site property owner to provide building plans and a zoning analysis of the sending site to the satisfaction of the Community 1 The Land Use Code allows a 6,000 sf historic property to apply for bonus floor area up to 375 sf for a single family home and 15 sf for two detached homes or an attached duplex. Development Director. Certain review fees may be required for the confirmation of built floor area. Response – Please refer to Exhibit K for a zoning analysis and floor area calculations. (h) The sale, assignment, conveyance or other transfer or change in ownership of transferable development rights certificates shall be recorded in the real estate records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder and must be reported by the grantor to the City of Aspen Community Development Department within five (5) days of such transfer. The report of such transfer shall disclose the certificate number, the grantor, the grantee and the total value of the consideration paid for the certificate. Failure to timely or accurately report such transfer shall not render the transferable development right certificate void. Response – n/a. (i) TDR certificates may be issued at the pace preferred by the property owner. Response – It is understood that the property owner may elect to sever up to two TDR certificates and is not obligated to sever both TDRs. It is also understood that floor area equal to the number of TDRs issued is permanently severed from the property upon the recordation of the deed restriction, and not upon approval of an ordinance. (j) City Council may find that the creation of TDRs is not the best preservation solution for the affected historic resource and deny the application to create TDRs. HPC shall provide Council with a recommendation. Response – n/a. Thank you for your consideration of the TDR request. Please contact me with any questions or additional information that will aid your review. We look forward to hearing your comments and presenting this project to HPC and City Council for review. Sincerely, Sara Adams sara@bendonadams.com 970-925-2855 Exhibits A – Land Use application B – Pre-application summary C - Agreement to Pay D – HOA form E – Authorization to represent F – Proof of ownership G – Vicinity Map H – Mailing List I – Acknowledgement of TDRs J – Draft deed restriction K – No Negative Effect Approval and Application Drawings L - Floor Area Calculations and Survey November 2017 City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LAND USE APPLICATION Project Name and Address:_________________________________________________________________________ Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) _____________________________ APPLICANT: Name: ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Address: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone #: __________________________ email: __________________________________ REPRESENTIVATIVE: Name: _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Address:________________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone#: _____________________________ email:___________________________________ Description: Existing and Proposed Conditions Review: Administrative or Board Review Have you included the following?FEES DUE: $ ______________ Pre-Application Conference Summary Signed Fee Agreement HOA Compliance form All items listed in checklist on PreApplication Conference Summary Required Land Use Review(s): Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) required fields: Net Leasable square footage _________ Lodge Pillows______ Free Market dwelling units ______ Affordable Housing dwelling units_____ Essential Public Facility square footage ________ 216 W. Hyman Ave., Aspen CO 81611 273512463006 Margaret Ann Mullins 216 W. Hyman Ave., Aspen, CO 81611 Sara Adams 300 S. Spring Street, Aspen CO 81611 970-925-2855 sara@bendonadams.com historic single family home - request to establish 2 TDR's to permanently sever 500sf of floor area from the property. n/a n/a 1 n/an/a x x x x 1,300 PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PRE-22-105 DATE: October 10, 2022 PLANNER: Haley Hart, haley.hart@aspen.gov PROJECT ADDRESS: 216 West Hyman Ave PARCEL ID#: 273512463006 APPLICANT: Sara Adams, sara@bendonadams.com DESCRIPTION: The subject site is within the original City and Townsite of Aspen Subdivision, Block 53, Lot’s O and P, zoned Medium Density Residential (R-6). The subject property, which contains a circa 1885 miner’s cabin known as the ‘Pink House,’ is a Victorian-era property that is historically designated. Based on the applicants’ research on historic building permits, a basement and garage were added in 1953 and an enclosed front porch and rear porch were added in 1955. In 2010, HPC approved a detached art studio at the rear of the property. The applicant wishes to convert unused developable floor area from 216 West Hyman Ave, the Sending Site, into two (2) Transferable Development Rights (TDRs). TDRs are created in increments of 250 square feet and must be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) for a recommendation that will be presented in front of City Council. The applicant requests two (2) TDRs which would equate to 500 square feet total. City Council has final authority to approve or disapprove the establishment of TDRs by adoption of an ordinance (Section 26.535.050). Once approved, the applicant must file a deed restriction on the property noting that for each TDR created, the development rights on the site are reduced by 250 square feet. After the deed restrictions are recorded, Community Development staff will issue the TDR certificate to the owner. In order to determine if there is unused floor area to be sold, the City will require that the owner acquires a survey that will help staff determine maximum floor area for the site. The City will also require floor area calculations to determine the difference between the maximum floor area and the existing floor area to see how much is available to be turned into TDR’s. The applicant has submitted preliminary information that stated on May 11, 2022, an administrative approval was granted to restore a non-street facing window to remodel the interior and to add Building Code compliant window wells that increased total floor area by 10 square feet. Upon the issuance of this building permit, expected to be submitted Fall 2022, the applicant’s calculations of floor area for the property is 2,241.8 square feet. The allowable floor area for the subject property is 3,240 square feet for a single-family residence and 3,600 square feet for two detached dwellings or one duplex. The City plays no role in the sale of TDRs; however, the sale price of a TDR is required to be disclosed to Community Development within five days of any transaction. HPC will use the Land Use Code Sections and applicable criteria to provide a recommendation to City Council. City Council will make a determination according to the review standards identified in Section 26.535.070. RELEVANT ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS: Section Number Section Title 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.415.110 Historic Preservation – Benefits 26.535 Transferable Development Rights 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements 26.710.040 Medium-Density Residential Zone District (R-6) For your convenience – links to the Land Use Application and Land Use Code are below: Land Use Application Land Use Code REVIEW BY: Staff for determination of complete application and recommendation Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) for recommendation City Council for determination REQUIRED LAND USE REVIEW(S): Establishment of Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) PUBLIC HEARING: Yes, at HPC and City Council PLANNING FEES: $1,300 for four (4) billable hours of staff time. (Additional/ lesser hours will be billed/ refunded at a rate of $325 per hour.) REFERRAL FEES: None TOTAL DEPOSIT: $1,300 APPLICATION CHECKLIST – Please email the following application materials to haley.hart@aspen.gov as a single PDF:  Completed Land Use Application and signed fee Agreement.  Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).  Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application.  Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.  HOA Compliance form.  List of adjacent property owners for both properties within 300’ for public hearing.  A vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.  A notarized affidavit from the sending site property owners signifying acknowledgment of the following: • A deed restriction will permanently encumber the sending site and restrict that property’s development rights to below that allowed by right by zoning according to the number of historic TDR certificates established from that sending site. • For each certificate of development right issued by the City for the particular sending site, that property shall be allowed two hundred and fifty (25) square feet less of floor area, as permitted according to the property’s zoning, as amended. • The sending site property owner shall have no authority over the manner in which the certificate of development right is used by subsequent owners of the historic TDR certificate.  Site improvement survey of the sending site depicting: • Existing natural and man-made site features. • All legal easements and restrictions.  Dimensioned, scale drawings of the existing development on the sending site and a floor area analysis of all structures thereon.  A written response to each of the review criteria in Section 26.535.070 of the Municipal Code.  Proposed TDR deed restriction for the sending site. Once the application is deemed complete by staff, the following will then need to be submitted:  Total deposit for review of the application. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. Land Title Guarantee Company Customer Distribution PREVENT FRAUD - Please remember to call a member of our closing team when initiating a wire transfer or providing wiring instructions. Order Number:Q62014581 Date: 08/17/2022 Property Address:216 W HYMAN AVE, ASPEN, CO 81611 PLEASE CONTACT YOUR CLOSER OR CLOSER'S ASSISTANT FOR WIRE TRANSFER INSTRUCTIONS For Closing Assistance For Title Assistance Land Title Roaring Fork Valley Title Team 533 E HOPKINS #102 ASPEN, CO 81611 (970) 927-0405 (Work) (970) 925-0610 (Work Fax) valleyresponse@ltgc.com Seller/Owner MARGARET ANN MULLINS Delivered via: No Commitment Delivery BENDONADAMS Attention: ERIN WACKERLE 300 S SPRING STREET SUITE 202 ASPEN, CO 81611 (970) 925-2855 (Work) erin@bendonadams.com Delivered via: Electronic Mail Land Title Guarantee Company Estimate of Title Fees Order Number:Q62014581 Date: 08/17/2022 Property Address:216 W HYMAN AVE, ASPEN, CO 81611 Parties: MARGARET ANN MULLINS Visit Land Title's Website at www.ltgc.com for directions to any of our offices. Estimate of Title insurance Fees "TBD" Commitment $265.00 Total $265.00 If Land Title Guarantee Company will be closing this transaction, the fees listed above will be collected at closing. Thank you for your order! Note: The documents linked in this commitment should be reviewed carefully. These documents, such as covenants conditions and restrictions, may affect the title, ownership and use of the property. You may wish to engage legal assistance in order to fully understand and be aware of the implications of the effect of these documents on your property. Chain of Title Documents: Pitkin county recorded 07/23/2004 under reception no. 500040 Pitkin county recorded 10/11/1996 under reception no. 397956 Copyright 2006-2022 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. Property Address: 216 W HYMAN AVE, ASPEN, CO 81611 1.Effective Date: 08/05/2022 at 5:00 P.M. 2.Policy to be Issued and Proposed Insured: "TBD" Commitment Proposed Insured: $0.00 3.The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is: A FEE SIMPLE 4.Title to the estate or interest covered herein is at the effective date hereof vested in: MARGARET ANN MULLINS 5.The Land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: LOTS O AND P, BLOCK 53, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. ALTA COMMITMENT Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Schedule A Order Number:Q62014581 ALTA COMMITMENT Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Schedule B, Part I (Requirements) Order Number: Q62014581 All of the following Requirements must be met: This proposed Insured must notify the Company in writing of the name of any party not referred to in this Commitment who will obtain an interest in the Land or who will make a loan on the Land. The Company may then make additional Requirements or Exceptions. Pay the agreed amount for the estate or interest to be insured. Pay the premiums, fees, and charges for the Policy to the Company. Documents satisfactory to the Company that convey the Title or create the Mortgage to be insured, or both, must be properly authorized, executed, delivered, and recorded in the Public Records. THIS COMMITMENT IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY, AND NO POLICY WILL BE ISSUED PURSUANT HERETO. This commitment does not republish any covenants, condition, restriction, or limitation contained in any document referred to in this commitment to the extent that the specific covenant, conditions, restriction, or limitation violates state or federal law based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, handicap, familial status, or national origin. 1.Any facts, rights, interests, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records but that could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land. 2.Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records. 3.Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public Records. 4.Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the Public Records. 5.Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date of the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6.(a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records. 7.(a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water. 8.RESERVATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS AS SET FORTH IN THE DEED FROM THE CITY OF ASPEN RECORDED NOVEMBER 02, 1887 IN BOOK 59 AT PAGE 75, PROVIDING AS FOLLOWS: THAT NO TITLE SHALL BE HEREBY ACQUIRED TO ANY MINE OF GOLD, SILVER, CINNABAR OR COPPER OR TO ANY VALID MINING CLAIM OR POSSESSION HELD UNDER EXISTING LAWS. 9.RESERVATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS AS SET FORTH IN THE DEED FROM THE CITY OF ASPEN RECORDED MARCH 28, 1890 IN BOOK 79 AT PAGE 3, PROVIDING AS FOLLOWS: THAT NO TITLE SHALL BE HEREBY ACQUIRED TO ANY MINE OF GOLD, SILVER, CINNABAR OR COPPER OR TO ANY VALID MINING CLAIM OR POSSESSION HELD UNDER EXISTING LAWS. 10.TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS OF RESOLUTION BY THE CITY OF ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION, NO. 20, SERIES OF 2008 RECORDED AUGUST 29, 2008 AS RECEPTION NO. 552427. 11.TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS OF RESOLUTION BY THE CITY OF ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION, NO. 6, SERIES OF 2010 RECORDED JUNE 10, 2010 AS RECEPTION NO. 570389. 12.DEED OF TRUST DATED MARCH 29, 2013 FROM MARGARET ANN MULLINS TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF PITKIN COUNTY FOR THE USE OF CHERRY CREEK MORTGAGE CO, INC. TO SECURE THE SUM OF $392,000.00 RECORDED APRIL 08, 2013, UNDER RECEPTION NO. 598417. ALTA COMMITMENT Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Schedule B, Part II (Exceptions) Order Number: Q62014581 LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-122, notice is hereby given that: Note: Effective September 1, 1997, CRS 30-10-406 requires that all documents received for recording or filing in the clerk and recorder's office shall contain a top margin of at least one inch and a left, right and bottom margin of at least one half of an inch. The clerk and recorder may refuse to record or file any document that does not conform, except that, the requirement for the top margin shall not apply to documents using forms on which space is provided for recording or filing information at the top margin of the document. Note: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-2 requires that "Every title entity shall be responsible for all matters which appear of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title entity conducts the closing and is responsible for recording or filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction which was closed". Provided that Land Title Guarantee Company conducts the closing of the insured transaction and is responsible for recording the legal documents from the transaction, exception number 5 will not appear on the Owner's Title Policy and the Lenders Policy when issued. Note: Affirmative mechanic's lien protection for the Owner may be available (typically by deletion of Exception no. 4 of Schedule B, Section 2 of the Commitment from the Owner's Policy to be issued) upon compliance with the following conditions: No coverage will be given under any circumstances for labor or material for which the insured has contracted for or agreed to pay. The Subject real property may be located in a special taxing district.(A) A certificate of taxes due listing each taxing jurisdiction will be obtained from the county treasurer of the county in which the real property is located or that county treasurer's authorized agent unless the proposed insured provides written instructions to the contrary. (for an Owner's Policy of Title Insurance pertaining to a sale of residential real property). (B) The information regarding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board of County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor. (C) The land described in Schedule A of this commitment must be a single family residence which includes a condominium or townhouse unit. (A) No labor or materials have been furnished by mechanics or material-men for purposes of construction on the land described in Schedule A of this Commitment within the past 6 months. (B) The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against un-filed mechanic's and material-men's liens. (C) The Company must receive payment of the appropriate premium.(D) If there has been construction, improvements or major repairs undertaken on the property to be purchased within six months prior to the Date of Commitment, the requirements to obtain coverage for unrecorded liens will include: disclosure of certain construction information; financial information as to the seller, the builder and or the contractor; payment of the appropriate premium fully executed Indemnity Agreements satisfactory to the company, and, any additional requirements as may be necessary after an examination of the aforesaid information by the Company. (E) Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-123, notice is hereby given: This notice applies to owner's policy commitments disclosing that a mineral estate has been severed from the surface estate, in Schedule B-2. Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-1-128(6)(a), It is unlawful to knowingly provide false, incomplete, or misleading facts or information to an insurance company for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the company. Penalties may include imprisonment, fines, denial of insurance, and civil damages. Any insurance company or agent of an insurance company who knowingly provides false, incomplete, or misleading facts or information to a policyholder or claimant for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the policyholder or claimant with regard to a settlement or award payable from insurance proceeds shall be reported to the Colorado Division of Insurance within the Department of Regulatory Agencies. Note: Pursuant to Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-3, notice is hereby given of the availability of a closing protection letter for the lender, purchaser, lessee or seller in connection with this transaction. Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-1-11(4)(a)(1), Colorado notaries may remotely notarize real estate deeds and other documents using real-time audio-video communication technology. You may choose not to use remote notarization for any document. That there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased, or otherwise conveyed from the surface estate and that there is substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas, other minerals, or geothermal energy in the property; and (A) That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owner's permission. (B) JOINT NOTICE OF PRIVACY POLICY OF LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY, LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY OF SUMMIT COUNTY LAND TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY This Statement is provided to you as a customer of Land Title Guarantee Company as agent for Land Title Insurance Corporation and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company. We want you to know that we recognize and respect your privacy expectations and the requirements of federal and state privacy laws. Information security is one of our highest priorities. We recognize that maintaining your trust and confidence is the bedrock of our business. We maintain and regularly review internal and external safeguards against unauthorized access to your non-public personal information ("Personal Information"). In the course of our business, we may collect Personal Information about you from: applications or other forms we receive from you, including communications sent through TMX, our web-based transaction management system; your transactions with, or from the services being performed by us, our affiliates, or others; a consumer reporting agency, if such information is provided to us in connection with your transaction; and The public records maintained by governmental entities that we obtain either directly from those entities, or from our affiliates and non-affiliates. Our policies regarding the protection of the confidentiality and security of your Personal Information are as follows: We restrict access to all Personal Information about you to those employees who need to know that information in order to provide products and services to you. We may share your Personal Information with affiliated contractors or service providers who provide services in the course of our business, but only to the extent necessary for these providers to perform their services and to provide these services to you as may be required by your transaction. We maintain physical, electronic and procedural safeguards that comply with federal standards to protect your Personal Information from unauthorized access or intrusion. Employees who violate our strict policies and procedures regarding privacy are subject to disciplinary action. We regularly assess security standards and procedures to protect against unauthorized access to Personal Information. WE DO NOT DISCLOSE ANY PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOU WITH ANYONE FOR ANY PURPOSE THAT IS NOT STATED ABOVE OR PERMITTED BY LAW. Consistent with applicable privacy laws, there are some situations in which Personal Information may be disclosed. We may disclose your Personal Information when you direct or give us permission; when we are required by law to do so, for example, if we are served a subpoena; or when we suspect fraudulent or criminal activities. We also may disclose your Personal Information when otherwise permitted by applicable privacy laws such as, for example, when disclosure is needed to enforce our rights arising out of any agreement, transaction or relationship with you. Our policy regarding dispute resolution is as follows: Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to our privacy policy, or the breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. Commitment For Title Insurance Issued by Old Republic National Title Insurance Company NOTICE IMPORTANT—READ CAREFULLY: THIS COMMITMENT IS AN OFFER TO ISSUE ONE OR MORE TITLE INSURANCE POLICIES. ALL CLAIMS OR REMEDIES SOUGHT AGAINST THE COMPANY INVOLVING THE CONTENT OF THIS COMMITMENT OR THE POLICY MUST BE BASED SOLELY IN CONTRACT. THIS COMMITMENT IS NOT AN ABSTRACT OF TITLE, REPORT OF THE CONDITION OF TITLE, LEGAL OPINION, OPINION OF TITLE, OR OTHER REPRESENTATION OF THE STATUS OF TITLE. THE PROCEDURES USED BY THE COMPANY TO DETERMINE INSURABILITY OF THE TITLE, INCLUDING ANY SEARCH AND EXAMINATION, ARE PROPRIETARY TO THE COMPANY, WERE PERFORMED SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMPANY, AND CREATE NO EXTRACONTRACTUAL LIABILITY TO ANY PERSON, INCLUDING A PROPOSED INSURED. THE COMPANY’S OBLIGATION UNDER THIS COMMITMENT IS TO ISSUE A POLICY TO A PROPOSED INSURED IDENTIFIED IN SCHEDULE A IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS COMMITMENT. THE COMPANY HAS NO LIABILITY OR OBLIGATION INVOLVING THE CONTENT OF THIS COMMITMENT TO ANY OTHER PERSON. . COMMITMENT TO ISSUE POLICY Subject to the Notice; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and the Commitment Conditions, Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, a Minnesota corporation (the “Company”), commits to issue the Policy according to the terms and provisions of this Commitment. This Commitment is effective as of the Commitment Date shown in Schedule A for each Policy described in Schedule A, only when the Company has entered in Schedule A both the specified dollar amount as the Proposed Policy Amount and the name of the Proposed Insured. If all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have not been met within 6 months after the Commitment Date, this Commitment terminates and the Company’s liability and obligation end. COMMITMENT CONDITIONS 1. DEFINITIONS 2. If all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have not been met within the time period specified in the Commitment to Issue Policy, Commitment terminates and the Company’s liability and obligation end. 3. The Company’s liability and obligation is limited by and this Commitment is not valid without: 4. COMPANY’S RIGHT TO AMEND The Company may amend this Commitment at any time. If the Company amends this Commitment to add a defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim, or other matter recorded in the Public Records prior to the Commitment Date, any liability of the Company is limited by Commitment Condition 5. The Company shall not be liable for any other amendment to this Commitment. 5. LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY i. comply with the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; ii. eliminate, with the Company’s written consent, any Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; or iii. acquire the Title or create the Mortgage covered by this Commitment. “Knowledge” or “Known”: Actual or imputed knowledge, but not constructive notice imparted by the Public Records.(a) “Land”: The land described in Schedule A and affixed improvements that by law constitute real property. The term “Land” does not include any property beyond the lines of the area described in Schedule A, nor any right, title, interest, estate, or easement in abutting streets, roads, avenues, alleys, lanes, ways, or waterways, but this does not modify or limit the extent that a right of access to and from the Land is to be insured by the Policy. (b) “Mortgage”: A mortgage, deed of trust, or other security instrument, including one evidenced by electronic means authorized by law.(c) “Policy”: Each contract of title insurance, in a form adopted by the American Land Title Association, issued or to be issued by the Company pursuant to this Commitment. (d) “Proposed Insured”: Each person identified in Schedule A as the Proposed Insured of each Policy to be issued pursuant to this Commitment.(e) “Proposed Policy Amount”: Each dollar amount specified in Schedule A as the Proposed Policy Amount of each Policy to be issued pursuant to this Commitment. (f) “Public Records”: Records established under state statutes at the Commitment Date for the purpose of imparting constructive notice of matters relating to real property to purchasers for value and without Knowledge. (g) “Title”: The estate or interest described in Schedule A.(h) the Notice;(a) the Commitment to Issue Policy;(b) the Commitment Conditions;(c) Schedule A;(d) Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; and(e) Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and(f) a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.(g) The Company’s liability under Commitment Condition 4 is limited to the Proposed Insured’s actual expense incurred in the interval between the Company’s delivery to the Proposed Insured of the Commitment and the delivery of the amended Commitment, resulting from the Proposed Insured’s good faith reliance to: (a) The Company shall not be liable under Commitment Condition 5(a) if the Proposed Insured requested the amendment or had Knowledge of the matter and did not notify the Company about it in writing. (b) The Company will only have liability under Commitment Condition 4 if the Proposed Insured would not have incurred the expense had the Commitment included the added matter when the Commitment was first delivered to the Proposed Insured. (c) The Company’s liability shall not exceed the lesser of the Proposed Insured’s actual expense incurred in good faith and described in Commitment Conditions 5(a)(i) through 5(a)(iii) or the Proposed Policy Amount. (d) The Company shall not be liable for the content of the Transaction Identification Data, if any.(e) 6. LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY MUST BE BASED ON THIS COMMITMENT 7. IF THIS COMMITMENT HAS BEEN ISSUED BY AN ISSUING AGENT The issuing agent is the Company’s agent only for the limited purpose of issuing title insurance commitments and policies. The issuing agent is not the Company’s agent for the purpose of providing closing or settlement services. 8. PRO-FORMA POLICY The Company may provide, at the request of a Proposed Insured, a pro-forma policy illustrating the coverage that the Company may provide. A pro-forma policy neither reflects the status of Title at the time that the pro-forma policy is delivered to a Proposed Insured, nor is it a commitment to insure. 9. ARBITRATION The Policy contains an arbitration clause. All arbitrable matters when the Proposed Policy Amount is $2,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Proposed Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. A Proposed Insured may review a copy of the arbitration rules at http://www.alta.org/arbitration. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Land Title Insurance Corporation has caused its corporate name and seal to be affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown in Schedule A to be valid when countersigned by a validating officer or other authorized signatory. Issued by: Land Title Guarantee Company 3033 East First Avenue Suite 600 Denver, Colorado 80206 303-321-1880 Craig B. Rants, Senior Vice President This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Old Republic National Title Insurance Company. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II —Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form. Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. In no event shall the Company be obligated to issue the Policy referred to in this Commitment unless all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have been met to the satisfaction of the Company. (f) In any event, the Company’s liability is limited by the terms and provisions of the Policy.(g) Only a Proposed Insured identified in Schedule A, and no other person, may make a claim under this Commitment.(a) Any claim must be based in contract and must be restricted solely to the terms and provisions of this Commitment.(b) Until the Policy is issued, this Commitment, as last revised, is the exclusive and entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Commitment and supersedes all prior commitment negotiations, representations, and proposals of any kind, whether written or oral, express or implied, relating to the subject matter of this Commitment. (c) The deletion or modification of any Schedule B, Part II—Exception does not constitute an agreement or obligation to provide coverage beyond the terms and provisions of this Commitment or the Policy. (d) Any amendment or endorsement to this Commitment must be in writing and authenticated by a person authorized by the Company.(e) When the Policy is issued, all liability and obligation under this Commitment will end and the Company’s only liability will be under the Policy.(f) 127 127 124 135 127 127 127 124 222 108 127 205 124 211 127 124 222 211 127 204 124 132 127 222 222 124 124 127 200 127 124 204 212 108124 134 127 124 124124 124 213 124 214 127 210 221 204 124 204 122 127 222 233 301 311 335 333 314 15 19 214 220 235 232 232 303 232 232 301 232 315 232 315 234 232 322 237 312 232 301 301 301 216 232 300 325 232 300 301 232 232 301 124 150 111 119 124 117 160 311 123 108124 121 130 113 140 108S 1ST STS 1ST STS 1ST STS 1ST STS 1ST STS 1ST STW C O O P E R A V ES 2ND STS 2ND STW HOP K I N S A V E W HYM A N A V ES 2ND STS 2ND STW HY M A N A V E Date: 8/12/2022 Geographic Information Systems This map/drawing/image is a graphical representation of the features depicted and is not a legal representation. The accuracy may change depending on the enlargement or reduction. Copyright 2022 City of Aspen GIS 0 0.01 0.020.01 mi When printed at 8.5"x11" 4 Legend Hallam Bluff ESA Parcels Roads Zoomed In Scale: 1:1,349 216 W. Hyman Vicinity Map Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. The information maintained by the County may not be complete as to mineral estate ownership and that information should be determined by separate legal and property analysis. Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or data obtained on this web site. This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the margins such that they no longer line up on the labels sheet. Print actual size. From Parcel: 273512463006 on 10/06/2022 Instructions: Disclaimer: http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com 135 HOPKINS LTD AUSTIN, TX 78738 12400 HWY 71 W #350-371 212 WEST HOPKINS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 212 W HOPKINS AVE 214 WEST COOPER LLC OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 6 NE 63RD ST #220 220 WEST COOPER LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 625 E HYMAN AVE #201 235 W HOPKINS B LLC BOCA RATON, FL 33432 250 S OCEAN BLVD # 14A AJAX APARTMENTS CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 301 W HYMAN AVE AJAX FIRST LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 625 E HYMAN AVE #201 ALBANO DUPLEX CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 121 W HYMAN AVE ASPEN HIDEAWAYS LLC STUART, FL 34994 49 SW FLAGGER AVE #201 ASPEN SKIING COMPANY LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 1248 ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY ASPEN, CO 81611 210 E HYMAN AVE #202 AYARZA FRED & GENENE ASPEN, CO 81611 160 W COOPER AVE BACON SHIRLEY LIV TRUST MIAMI, FL 33133 3 GROVE ISLE DR # 1608 BERGHOFF KRISTIN TRUST INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46236 9112 WALNUT GROVE DR BERGHOFF MICHAEL R TRUST INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46236 9112 WALNUT GROVE DR BIELINSKI JUDITH R TRUST GLENVIEW, IL 60026 2121 TROWBRIDGE CT BIELINSKI ROBERT A JR CONIFER, CO 80433-8207 11141 MARKS DR BOURKEY888 LLC SINGAPORE 436853, 16 THIAM SIEW AVE BOWMAN AL MOUNT DORA, FL 32757 700 HELEN ST BRENNAN SAMANTHA SCOTT MILL VALLEY, CA 94941 408 TENNESSEE GLEN WY BRENNAN SHAWN TIFFANY MILL VALLEY, CA 94941 408 TENNESSEE GLEN WY BROMLEY WENDI TRUST HONOLULU, HI 96815-4627 2969 KALAKAUA AVE #1201 CHERNY ANDREA J ASPEN, CO 81611 301 WEST HYMAN AVE #5 CHRISTENSEN ROBERT M & CANDICE L ASPEN, CO 81611 1240 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR CITY OF ASPEN ASPEN, CO 81611 427 RIO GRANDE PL COHEN ALIX O & CRAIG S ROCKVILLE CENTRE, NY 11570 5 BUCKINGHAM RD COLES DAVID SEP A TRUST CULVER CITY, CA 90232 4223 DUQUESNE AVE COLES PETER SEP A TRUST MASSACHUSETTS, MA 02138 20 PRESCOTT ST #41 CONNOR WILLIAM E II TRUST RENO, NV 89502 990 S ROCK BLVD #F CORBETT RICHARD J & JILLIAN F ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 7955 COTTONWOODS CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 124 W HYMAN AVE DEAN FAMILY LTD PTSHP LLP BOULDER, CO 80301 590 DELLWOOD AVE DHM FAMILY TRST ATLANTA, GA 30309 2288 PEACHTREE RD, NW #12 EGBERT STEPHEN E ASPEN, CO 81611 301 W HYMAN AVE #1 FCB LLC SNOWMASS, CO 816549102 525 SHIELD O RD FIRESIDE ASPEN LP ROSEMONT, PA 19010 1062 E LANCASTER AVE #30B FIRESIDE TOWNHOMES CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 160 W COOPER AVE FISH EILEEN BOULDER, CO 80302 546 14TH ST GARET CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 400 E MAIN ST #2 GILDENHORN MICHAEL S BETHESDA, MD 20816 5008 BALTON RD GOLDSMITH HENRY JOSH PIKESVILLE, MD 21208 7902 BRYNMOR CT #402 GOSS CHESTER A IV ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 9642 GROVER FREDRICK W & PAULA J ST PETERSBURG, FL 337043717 725 BRIGHTWATERG BLVD NE GTMJ COLORADO LLC THE VILLAGES, FL 32162 3619 KIESSEL RD GUNN ROBERT W FAMILY TRST MARBLEHEAD, MA 01945 409 OCEAN AVE HALCYON ENTERPRISES LLC PRINCETON, NJ 08540 78 LOVERS LN HAPPY PLACE VH2 LLC WESTPORT, CT 06880 52 LYONS PLAINS RD HARPER MARILYN HILL & HILL ASPEN, CO 81612-7952 PO BOX 7952 HARRISON MARK N BOULDER, CO 80302 546 14TH ST HITE ANGELA R FAMILY TRUST WOODY CREEK, CO 81656 PO BOX 155 HITE HENRY HARRIS REVOC TRUST WOODY CREEK, CO 81656 PO BOX 155 HOLTZMAN L BART & PATRICIA G RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270 2 SURREY CT HYMAN STREET CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 719 W HYMAN AVE INVENTRIX LLC CHICAGO, IL 60606-5096 227 MONROE JES 2002 GRANTOR TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 221 N STARWOOD DR JLR QPRT TRUST CORAL GABLES, FL 33156 355 MARQUESA DR JOBLON MATTHEW ENGLEWOOD, CO 80013 43 COVINGTON CT KOCH TOWNHOMES CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA W HYMAN AVE KOENIG RAYMOND J NEW LONDON, CT 06320 PO BOX 284 LITTLE CLOUD ESTATE LLC ATLANTA, GA 30318 665 ANTONE ST NW LITTLE CLOUD HOMEOWNERS ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 201 N MILL ST MARTEN RANDOLPH MONDOVI, WI 54755 129 MARTEN ST MARTIN SCOTT M ASPEN, CO 81611 PO BOX 51 MCBEE LISA A CONIFER, CO 80433-8207 11141 MARKS DR MILLER BRITT C ASPEN, CO 816111625 301 W HYMAN AVE APT 4 MORGAN DONALD ATLANTA, GA 30309 2288 PEACHTREE RD, NW #12 NAUGHTON ANN N COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80906 36 BROADMOOR AVE NEVINS NATHALIE R ASPEN, CO 81611 127 NICHOLAS LN NORTON CAPITAL PARTNERS LLLP ASPEN, CO 81611 335 S SECOND ST PAN ABODE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 211 W HOPKINS AVE PITKIN COUNTY ASPEN, CO 81611 530 E MAIN ST #301 POWDERDAYSKIING LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 10261 RESSEL THOMAS G ASPEN, CO 816111625 301 W HYMAN AVE #7 REYNOLDS FRANK R IV ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 2725 ROSS PAULINE ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 9969 SALTER CLAUDE C ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 5000 SAND KATHERINE M ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 51 SANDS CASTLE DUPLEX CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 1554 SEIDER FAMILY TRUST MALIBU, CA 90265 26642 LATIGO SHORE DR SHADOW MOUNTAIN DUPLEX CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA W HOPKINS AVE SHADOW MOUNTAIN LODGE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA W HOPKINS AVE SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 232 W HYMAN AVE SHIELD JULIET E ASPEN, CO 81611 221 N STARWOOD DR SHOAF THOMAS L DALLAS, TX 752257639 3212 HANOVER ST SNOWFLAKE LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 140 W COOPER AVE SONNENBERG FAMILY TRUST BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 350 S BEVERLY DR # 300 STRAUCH ELAINE B GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 80111 4327 S YOSEMITE CT SWISS CHALET/KITZBUHEL PARTNERSHIP ASPEN, CO 81611 333 E DURANT AVE TARPLEY GERALD W JR & SUSAN ANN ARBOR, MI 48105 2255 PLACID WY THOMAS GAIL HICKS REV TRUST BEDFORD, VA 24523-1508 1242 HAMPTON RDG TIEMANN CAROLYN ASPEN, CO 81611 124 W HYMAN AVE #2D TRAN LAN D ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 2705 UNDERWOOD AMOS ASPEN, CO 81611 301 W HYMAN #6 VALLEY EXCHANGE PROPERTIES LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 122 W MAIN ST WARSHAW MARTIN R TRUST 1 ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2585 1058 SCOTT PL WEIGAND FAMILY LLC WICHITA, KS 67202 150 N MARKET WEST ASPEN MOUNTAIN CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 333 S SECOND ST WEST HOPKINS LLC LOS ANGELES, CA 900713429 350 S GRAND AVE #2000 WEST SIDE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 234 W HOPKINS AVE WILLIAMS ROBERT A REV TRUST ENCINO, CA 91436 16255 VENTURA BLVD #800 WINER CAROL G BETHESDA , MD 20817 6740 SELKIRK DR YONCE SUSAN DALLAS, TX 752257639 3212 HANOVER ST ZITELLI MARK C ASPEN, CO 81611 414 N 1ST ST 1 DEED RESTRICTION AND AGREEMENT FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A HISTORIC TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT PURSUANT TO ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE #___ , SERIES OF 20__ THIS DEED RESTRICTION AND AGREEMENT is made and entered into this _____ day of ______________, 20__, by Margaret Ann Mullins, (hereinafter referred to as “Owner”), whose address is 216 West Hyman Avenue, Lots O and P, Block 53, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, Parcel ID 2735-124-63-006, and The City of Aspen, a body politic and corporate pursuant to its Home-Rule Charter and the Constitution of the State of Colorado, acting through its City Council, (hereinafter the “City”); WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Owner owns real property more specifically described as; Lots O and P, Block 53, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, Parcel ID 2735-124-63-006 (hereinafter referred to as “Real Property”), which Real Property is designated as a Historic Site, as such are defined in the City of Aspen Land Use Code (“City Code”); and WHEREAS, Owner has submitted an affidavit, duly notarized, in compliance with Section 26.535.090.A.2 of the City Code, and supplied the necessary application materials identified in Section 26.535.090 showing compliance with the criteria set forth in Section 26.535.070 of the City Code; and WHEREAS, The Community Development Department has reviewed Owner’s application according to the review standards identified in 26.535.070 of the City Code, and has recommended approval of the application and the establishment of up to two (2) approved Historic TDR Certificates as set forth herein; and WHEREAS, City Council Ordinance #____, Series of 20___ (the “Ordinance”) was approved on ___(date)__________, establishing the above referenced Historic TDR Certificates, and requiring that a Deed Restriction be recorded in real property records of Pitkin County, designating the Real Property as a Sending Site and permanently restricting the development of the Real Property (the Sending Site) to an allowable Floor Area not exceeding the allowance for a single-family residence or duplex if allowed, minus two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of Floor Area multiplied by the number of Historic TDR Certificates established; and WHEREAS, in consideration of the establishment of one (1) or two (2) Historic TDR Certificates pursuant to the Ordinance and City Code, Owner agrees to restrict the Real Property as set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and obligations contained herein, Owner and the City hereby covenant and agree as follows: 2 1. Development of the Real Property (the Sending Site) is hereby permanently restricted to an allowable Floor Area not exceeding the allowance for a single- family residence or duplex as otherwise permitted by the City Code on the Real Property, minus any deductions resulting from previous issuance of TDR certificate(s) and minus 250 square feet, that being two hundred fifty (250) square feet of Floor Area multiplied by the one (1) Historic TDR Certificate hereby established. 2. The property owner may elect to sever up to two (2) TDR certificates from the property and is not required by Ordinance # ___, Series of 2022 to sever both TDR certificates. The property owner, at their sole discretion, may elect to sever no TDRs, one (1) TDR or two (2) TDRs fom the property. 3. In consideration of the foregoing, and pursuant to the City Code and the Ordinance, the City shall cause the issuance of one (1) Historic TDR Certificate, executed by the Mayor, allowing the transfer of development rights to a Receiver Site to be determined pursuant to the City Code. This Historic TDR Certificate may be sold, assigned, transferred, or conveyed. Transfer of title shall be evidenced by an assignment of ownership on the actual certificate document. Upon transfer, the new owner may request the City re-issue the certificate acknowledging the new owner. Reissuance shall not require adoption of a new ordinance. The market for such Historic TDR Certificates shall remain unrestricted and the City shall not prescribe or guarantee the monetary value of any Historic TDR Certificates. 4. This deed restriction shall not be construed to stipulate an absolute Floor Area on the Real Property, but only a square footage reduction from the allowable Floor Area, as that allowable Floor Area may be amended from time to time. 5. The Real Property (Sending Site) shall remain eligible for Floor Area incentives and/or exemptions as may be authorized by the City Code, as it may be amended from time to time. 6. This restriction may be modified only in a writing signed by both the Owner and the City. 7. Unless modified as stated above, this Agreement shall constitute a covenant running with the Real Property as a burden thereon for the benefit of, and shall be specifically enforceable by, the City Council of the City of Aspen by any appropriate legal action including, but not limited to, injunction or abatement. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGES] 3 IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this instrument on the date and year above first written. OWNER: By:___________________________ Margaret Ann Mullins STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ________ day of ______________, 20___, by ___________ Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires:___________________ _____________________________ Notary Public 4 APPROVAL OF CITY ATTORNEY By:___________________________ James R. True, City Attorney THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO a body politic and corporate pursuant to its Home-Rule Charter and the Constitution of the State of Colorado By:____________________________ Date:______________ Torre, Mayor STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of _________________, 20__, by_____________, as Mayor of the City of Aspen, Colorado. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires:___________________ _____________________________ Notary Public Certificate of No Negative Effect  Approved  Denied Applicant: Margaret Ann Mullins, 216 W Hyman, Aspen CO, 81611. Property: 216 W Hyman; Legally described as Block: 53 Lot: O & P., City and Townsite of Aspen, PID # 2737-124-63-006 Determination: This 11th day of May, 2022, the following alterations have been approved as represented in the land use application. Project Details and Review Criteria The applicant is undertaking work to modify the interior of the historic cottage, adding a non-street facing window and window wells in order to comply with code for egress from the basement. The project qualifies for a Certificate of No Negative Effect according to Section 26.415.070.B of the Municipal Code as it entails replacement of architectural features which creates no change to the exterior physical appearance of the building or structure. Based on a review of the applicable Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines, staff finds that the work will not diminish, eliminate or adversely affect the significant historic and/or architectural character of the subject property on which it is located and that the design guidelines applicable to this scope of work are met, with no conditions. _______________________________________ Natalie Feinberg Lopez, Principal Planner - Historic Preservation Expires 3 years from date of separately issued Development Order. Issuance of this certificate does not exempt the applicant from complying with all City codes, including land use and building codes. 216 W. Hyman Remodel EXISTING FAR CALCULATIONS 1/17/22 Wall Label Total Wall Area (SF) Exposed Wall Area (SF) 1 90.70 15.90 2 40.80 0.00 3 98.60 0.00 4 40.80 0.00 5 100.30 10.40 6 208.00 67.20 7 289.60 203.90 8 120.50 44.70 9 12.30 3.50 10 31.50 7.80 11 12.30 2.60 12 56.00 8.60 Overall Total Wall Area (SF) 1,101.40 Exposed Wall Area (SF) 364.60 % Exposed Wall Area (Exposed/Total) 33.10% Gross Floor Area (SF) 1,155.00 Countable Floor Area (SF) 382.34 Total Residence Lower Level Countable Floor Area (SF) 382.34 Gross Floor Area (SF) 1,361.00 Countable Floor Area (SF) 1,361.00 Excluding Stair Upper Level (SF) 24.00 Total Residence Main Level Countable Floor Area (SF) 1,337.00 Gross Floor Area (SF) 330.00 Countable Floor Area (SF) 330.00 Total Studio Main Level Countable Floor Area (SF) 330.00 Gross Floor Area (SF) 250.00 Countable Floor Area (SF) 250.00 Excluding Stair Upper Level (SF) 68.00 Total Studio Upper Level Countable Floor Area (SF) 182.00 Residence Lower Level (SF) 382.34 Residence Main Level (SF) 1,337.00 Studio Main Level (SF) 330.00 Studio Upper Level (SF) 182.00 Total Deck Area (SF) 132.00 15% of FAR Allowed (SF) 334.70 Deck Counted as FAR (SF) 0.00 Total Existing Floor Area (SF) 2,231.34 Allowable Floor Area 3,240.00 Remaining Floor Area 1,008.66 Studio Main Level Floor Area Calculation Total Existing Floor Area Calculation Residence Lower Level Residence Lower Level Wall Calculation Residence Lower Level Floor Area Calculation Residence Main Level Residence Main Level Floor Area Calculation Studio Main Level Studio Upper Level Studio Upper Level Floor Area Calculation