Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20141210 AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING December 10, 2014 5:00 PM City Council Meeting Room 130 S. Galena St. 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISITS A. Please visit the Hotel Jerome property on your own II. INTRODUCTION (15 MIN.) A. Roll call B. Approval of minutes November 19, 2014 C. Public Comments D. Commissioner member comments E. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) F. Project Monitoring G. Staff comments H. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued I. Submit public notice for agenda items III. OLD BUSINESS A. A. 232 East Bleeker (5:10) Conceptual Major Development, On-site Relocation, Demolition of Existing Garage and Variances, PUBLIC HEARING, CONTINUED FROM OCT. 15th IV. NEW BUSINESS A. A. 330 E. Main St. (Hotel Jerome) and 310 E. Main St. (6:10) Planned Development Project Review, Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, Commercial Design Conceptual Review, Growth Management Reviews, Subdivision, PUBLIC HEARING V. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: resolution #37 TYPICAL PROCEEDING- 1 HOUR, 10 MINUTES FOR MAJOR AGENDA ITEM, NEW BUSINESS Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH) Staff presentation ( 5 minutes ) Board questions and clarifications ( 5 minutes ) Applicant presentation ( 20 minutes ) Board questions and clarifications ( 5 minutes ) Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) ( 5 minutes ) Applicant Rebuttal Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed (5 minutes ) HPC discussion ( 15 minutes ) Motion ( 5 minutes ) *Make sure the motion includes what criteria are met or not met. No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting of at least four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require the concurring vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes of the members of the commission then present and voting. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19, 2014 1 Vice-chair, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Sallie Golden, Nora Berko, Jim DeFrancia and Patrick Sagal. John Whipple was absent. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Sara Adams, Senior Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MINUTES: Nora moved to approve the minutes of October 22, second by Jim. All in favor, motion carried. 135 E. Cooper – Minor Development – Continue the public hearing to April 8, 2015 Jim made the motion to continue the public hearing for 135 E. Cooper to April 8, 2015, second by Willis. All in favor, motion carried. 232 E. Bleeker – Conceptual Major Development, On-Site Relocation, Demolition of Existing Garage and Variances, Continue the public hearing to December 10, 2014 Jim made the motion to continue 232 E. Bleeker to Dec. 10 , 2014, second by Willis. All in favor, motion carried 113 W. Hopkins – Minor Development, Public Hearing Debbie said the applicant left the affidavit at the office. Kim Raymond stated it was posted within 15 days of the meeting. Kim said she can provide the notice to the Clerk’s office tomorrow and the photograph. Amy said the property is facing Paepcke Park and it is a Victorian era house that has had a number of expansions and alterations made to it. On the east side of the house there is a lower roof section. At some point the historic pitch was extended out toward the rear to create a kitchen and the head height is very low. The applicant would like to change the roof pitch and in P1 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19, 2014 2 doing so staff is looking to re-establish the original historic corner of the building. The applicant would like to change the roof pitch over the kitchen to try and show new and old. Staff recommends approval as drawn. Kim said the building is facing Paepcke Park. On the back side there is a little flat roof which is the original roof on the back side of the building. We would like to take off the sloping roof. We would take the existing wall and move it in six inches to expose the corner of the original building. By doing that we will brace under the foundation and add more framing under the wall and add a flat roof a little taller above that. It will be taller but under the existing gable ridge. The windows would be replaced with the same proportion but slightly taller when the roof goes up. It would take six square feet off the building. Patrick this would be a good time to be able bring the side back so that both sides are at the correct pitch. Amy said the piece to the right might be original. The owner is not changing anything else. Willis opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. MOTION: Jim moved to approve resolution #34 for the minor development on 113 W. Hopkins subject to the conditions recommended by staff; second by Nora. Roll call vote: Sallie, yes; Jim, yes; Willis, yes; Nora, yes; Patrick, yes. 232 E. Main Street – Planned Development – Project Review, Growth Management, Conceptual Commercial Design, Conceptual Major Development in a Historic District, Waivers and Variances Willis said there was an inquiry at the attorney’s office over a conflict of interest. Howie Mallory submitted a letter stating a position on this application and the inquiry was regarding Nora’s potential for conflict of interest based on her relationship with Howie and it was looked into by the attorney’s office and reviewed and it was found that there was no conflict of interest. Nora is independent and can make up her own opinions and that she can be fair and impartial in this situation. P2 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19, 2014 3 Debbie said our determination was that Nora can be fair and impartial despite the fact that her husband took a position in this case. Debbie reviewed the affidavit of publication as well the affidavit of post, mailing of notice and neighborhood outreach. Mitch Haas said the neighborhood outreach is the same thing that is being presented with a few additional things. Debbie said the notice has been appropriately provided, Exhibit I. Sara said the proposed development has a gas station and a small commercial building on the property. The property is about 6,000 square feet and located in the mixed use historic district. You are asked to make a recommendation to city council on all aspects of the project. The applicant has requested that all the reviews be consolidated at city council which is a way to streamline the process. The proposal is for a three story lodge building, commercial on the first floor and 40 lodge rooms at 180 square feet in size. There is also roof deck proposed as the public amenity space for the project. It is proposed to be publicly accessible. Variations are also being requested. The purpose of the project review is to use the underlying zone district as a guide which is the mixed use zone district and to ensure that the proposal fits into the context of the neighborhood. To summarize the variances they are requested height variances, floor area, parking waiver, a waiver of affordable housing and a waiver of impact fees. All the waivers will be decided by city council. The location of the project is a very transitional location. It is where the mixed use zone district turns into the commercial core historic district. Each have very different dimensional requirements for their zone district. In the commercial you can have a 0 setback in the commercial core, a ten foot front yard setback for the mixed use zone district and height in the mixed use is between 28 and 32 feet. The height for the commercial core is between 38 and 40 feet. This is important because we are in a transitional location and we are talking about context. How can this development play into the transition of the downtown commercial core. Staff is supportive of the small lodge rooms that are proposed and supportive of the location for this project, commercial on the first floor and lodging on the upper floors. We are also supportive of the design. We find that the gabled roof and flat roof and the punched window openings are reminiscent of historic resources that you find in the mixed use zone district and downtown. We are recommending that the mass and scale P3 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19, 2014 4 be reduced. This is a challenging context. The Cortina lodge which is adjacent should be taken into account for some sort of height reduction. The applicant will present new design studies that would reduce the height. Staff is recommending continuation until Dec. 3 rd . HPC is also being asked to make a recommendation on growth management review and the demolition. Staff is in support of the demolition. Regarding growth management mitigation instead of using the lodge generation rate use the lodge preservation rate which results in a smaller number of FTE that are generated which is 2.98 to 1.78. Jim asked about the setbacks and parking reduction. Sara said staff is supportive of the zero setbacks that are being requested. The Cortina Lodge also has a zero front yard setback. They are also asking for zero parking. Staff is in support of a parking reduction. They are working with the City to develop some alternative parking options. Possibly having some parking spaces reserved in the parking garage. Patrick inquired about the height in different zone districts. Sara said mixed use is 28 feet and 32 feet can occur through commercial design review. The request is for a planned development approval. Mark Hunt, applicant Mitch Haas, Haas Planning Charles Cunniffe, Cunniffe Architects Jay Maytin Spiro Tsaparas Mark said they are proud of the design and we feel it pays respect to the West End. Mitch said this is a redevelopment for a straight lodge. There is no free market component on this project and no fractional ownership interest being sold. The average square unit is less than 190 square feet. The project requires several variances which is typical in Aspen. All the spaces in the project are open to the public except for the actual lodge rooms. The roof top terrace is open to the public, the restaurant and retail and lower amenities are also open to the public. If you want to watch the 4 th of July parade the decks are open. We are looking for a fun atmosphere. The proposal is for P4 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19, 2014 5 37 rooms. In the lodge preservation the employee generation is .3 employees per room. Using the .3 employees and sticking with the standard generation rates for the commercial spaces we came up with a total employee generation of 17.1 total employees. Given the size of our rooms being under 300 net livable square feet the code provides that the mitigation is 10%. Our total mitigation is essentially 1.7 employees. We are proposing that the 1.7 employees not be mitigated by city council. We will have two of these lodges with overlap of employees. The HPC is allowed to reduce an employee generation requirement contributable to a free market residential component. We are asking that you reduce the lodging component by 1.7 employees to get us down to not having a mitigation requirement for employees. Affordable lodging is one of council’s ten goals. We are not providing on-site parking. The lot is essentially 6,000 square feet and you can’t ramp down. The parking requirement is 21 ½ parking spaces. The code could be as low as 19 parking spaces. Clearly we can’t provide it on- site and we have been working with the city to use to potentially use some of the city’s parking. We have been told that 45 spaces could be available for the two lodges in the fall, spring and winter seasons and ½ that in the summer season. The cross town shuttle picks up at the site. Bus passes will be provided for the employees and we will have a bike share program. We are trying to reduce the auto dependency. Mitch said the Floradora and Smith Elisha house are at approximately 38 feet to the ridge height. 7 th and Main affordable housing is at three stories and the Jewish Community Center’s height is at 40 feet. The Christiana and Hotel Jerome are both higher buildings. The streetscape will greatly be improved with the wide sidewalks detached from the curbs. On Monarch there will be two parking spaces for pickup and drop off. The roof top terrace will triple the open space amenity. There is also a variance requested for the trash area. The standard is 20 feet wide by ten feet deep. We are 15 feet wide by 20 feet deep. Our proposal is 300 square feet. We are trying to bring back the younger demographic. Mark Hunt went through the prospectives. We have taken off the third floor of the transition piece next to the Cortina Lodge. We have made a gesture from the roof less of a pitch on the west side. The top of Car’s pharmacy aligns up with the ridge. We are using handmade brick with different dimensions and corten steel. We are asking for concessions from the city and we are excited and proud of what we are putting in front of you. We are anxious to hear all the opinions. P5 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19, 2014 6 Jay Maytin said he asked Mark to join his team because we need these lodges and there are huge benefits for your community. A lodge should be able to sustain itself without the residential financial engine. I know of no developer presenting without the need of the penthouse or home. We have been sold on the fact that projects cannot be done without the need of the penthouse or home. This proposal has no private areas and provides a lodge for the community and our visitors to stay in a moderate facility not found anywhere else in Aspen. The requirement of the height is for the public. The city often grants approval of penthouses on top of projects to keep the commercial rentals inexpensive. The variances will benefit everyone. In my experience in attending HPC and City Council meetings the direction has been to get rid of those private components which increase mass, scale and height. Mark is bringing forward a proposal that fits the direction of our community needs and the Aspen Area Community plan and it fill the gap with real affordable accommodations. A sky lodge or two. These lodges will create skier interaction. People staying there will use the common areas and will create social energy that this town lacks. The rooms are small so the visitor will be out spending money in our community. This lodge will create return visitors and a new crop of aspen vacationers, a younger crowd that can grow old while coming to Aspen year after year. Off- season visitors will have a cheaper place to stay. Our community needs more beds. Mark is offering something back to your community. This proposal does not compete with any other business. The two lodges will create the demographic diversity that our town lacks. Jim inquired about the materials. Mark said the lower level is glass which is the base of the building which is meant to read lighter. Then there is poured formed concrete. The heavy part of the roof is corten steel. The inlay is a handmade brick. Sallie asked where the 19 parking spaces will go. Mitch Haas said they would go in the parking garage. People can walk back and forth or use the shuttle service. Sallie said the ski teams etc. could be driving in due to the cost of a plane ticket. P6 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19, 2014 7 Mark said the parking garage is under utilized. This can be a win win for the city. Sara said a recommendation would be made to city council that the off-site parking be addressed and then city council would work out the conditions and it would be in their approval. Mitch also said lodges can get lodge parking permits that allow guests to park up to a week at a time in any residential zone. Nora inquired about the function of the fourth floor. Mark said it is a gathering space that utilized the peak of the roof. It is an open roof. Nora said it is impossible to park in the West End already. It would be helpful to have the garage arrangement in place before approval is given. If height is an issue can some of the commercial be taken out and the building be scaled down to three stories. Charles said when you look at the entire project you need to look at the proportions and shape and scale. If it becomes squatty you lose the design. Mark said you could knock off the peak and have a flat roof and hit the 32 foot height. In this design the peak is appropriate. Charles said if that was done you would lose the uniqueness of the building. Typically it is 15 square feet per person on the roof and there is a regulation from the fire department as to how many people could be on the roof. The roof could hold around 180 people. Patrick said if the roof is open you will get the west wind in the afternoon that will keep the roof top cold. Possibly the parapet could be changed in a different direction. Willis asked about the ceiling heights. Charles said the heights are 12 feet on the first floor, floor to floor. P7 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19, 2014 8 Mark said food and beverage would be on the ground floor in order to service the rooms. There would also be athletic and ski type retail included. Vice-chair, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. Ben Genshaft, representing Monarch Holdings LLC and Dr. Joseph Chalal Ben said he represents the two owners on 117 N. Monarch. It is a duplex condominium first and second floor. It is directly on the other side of the alley from the development. My clients are the most effected by the development. Their homes will be in the shadow of this building. They are also concerned about the neighborhood and the mass and scale and height is too big. This building will be very visible coming into Aspen and there is a lot of traffic around this corner. Even if there was a five foot setback in the rear would be very important to my clients just to give some space. My clients request that the setback not be waived. The roof top as a public amenity is also a concern and the public might have a difficult time finding their way to the third floor. My clients respectfully request that the project be denied. Craig Cordts Pearce said he has lived here for 20 years. Craig said he is excited about that corner being alive and have energy and action. This development will bring young people to Aspen and see après skiing again. I don’t want that corner to have development that is boring. Justin McDuffy said he has been a bar tender in Aspen for 8 years. He came to this meeting out of curiosity. There are not a lot of youth in town in the tourist industry. The idea of this would do a nice job of being able to stem some of that and bring some people in that are younger and bring tourist that will come years to come. The building is very nice and neighbors will be affected by it but you can’t have everything. This will be a great addition. Mak Keeling said he has been a resident in the valley for ten years. There are multiple things about this project that I enjoy. The openness to the community is pleasing. The roof top is great. There are plenty of buildings coming from the S curves that are drastically taller and some are shorter. This building gives the north side of the road character. This is an excellent transition. Kim Raymond said the concept of the lodge and the affordable lodging is a great idea. The concern is being consistent with all the projects. All the P8 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19, 2014 9 parking requirements and variances that are required for the different projects should be consistent. A project a block away from here asked for one car parking variance and didn’t get it. This is a busy corner and the parking is a big thing to keep in mind. Working with the city and the Rio Grande parking is a good concept but as Sallie said most people staying in affordable lodging will be driving into town. With the parking garage you get ten or twelve parking spaces for each lodge which is not even half of what they are required to provide. I feel the building is tall with no setbacks and maybe it can be set back a little bit. Carl Bergman said he is the neighbor to the east. I have lived her since 1963 and my game is retail 100%. The main objections are the height and the parking. This lodge will take away our parking on the side of Carl’s. This project is going to put my business out of business which is Carl’s pharmacy. All the lodges along Main Street have their own parking. Katie Bergman said the parking is our main concern. Bleeker Street is full all the time with the two hour parking. Who is going to make sure people use the parking spaces at the garage. What happens when there aren’t any parking spaces left in the Rio Grande Parking garage. It will take service people to make this happen. We are one of the few businesses in town that try to have the needs in the store that people want. Jeff Warner said creating an open space and retail on the lower is a good idea. A partially covered roof top is a good amenity. Jeff inquired about the parking. Sara said for commercial you are required to have one space per 1,000 square feet of net leasable but you can also pay out of that if you are in the commercial core. For lodging it is ½ space per unit. Terry Butler said she owns the Residence Hotel and has been in town for 47 years. My lodge is the smallest lodge in Aspen. I have no parking. I have lived in the hotel for 26 years and own and operate it but I do not own the building and have a 50 year lease. I have watched downtown become a second and third floor empty 16 million pent house arena. Without even trying I can come up with 13. There is nothing this developer or another developer coming into town that we are all going to be happy with. This is going to be a compromise. I also agree that the parking has to be looked it. It is so nice to have somebody build something in town that doesn’t have all P9 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19, 2014 10 the 16 million dollar empty pent houses on the top floor. As far as the youth in my hotel I always try to keep one room under $300. I have 8 suites and it is not easy staying in business. I have tried to train my people to fly in and take a cab. We use the parking garage a lot and it is underused. We aren’t getting everything we want and at one point in time we have to decide which developer is perhaps better than the next one coming or is the one we got in front of us about as good as it is going to get. We need to be realistic at looking at these things or we can just continue to look at the gasoline station which wasn’t even pretty when they built it 60 years ago. We need to be for something and not always against it. Mark Hesselschwertz said this is his 44 ski season. I am a fan of Mr. Cunniffe’s architecture. The applicant is trying to figure out what to do with a 6 million dollar piece of realestate. The roof top public amenity is not going to be used by the public except for the 4 of July parade. The roof top deck is going to be in the view of the people to the north. The snow coming off that roof top is going to be falling on the heads of everyone on the sidewalk. The mass and scale is inappropriate for this mixed use zone. I love the idea of a lodge for ski bums and the idea of having affordable lodging. Parking is a huge problem. It is very busy here in the summer and it is impossible to come into town with a car in the summer. Jim Ferry said he has been coming here for 8 years. Jim said he has know the Hunt’s for 15 years and the possibility of having more hotel rooms in Aspen is nothing but good. As far as their attention to detail and how that building will look as a gateway coming into Aspen you are in good hands. Sara said Mary Hayes relayed that she is against the roof deck because it makes it four stories. The second point is that the basement should be parking because the surrounding streets are full already. Exhibit II Letter from Howie Mallory, Junee Kirk, Joseph Chalal, Jim Smith, Phyllis Bronson, Steve Goldenberg, Walt Madden Paul Auvil, John Fezza, Ben Genshaft and Monarch Holdings LLC. Charles said we have lost fun places in town as new development excludes the young and restless that come to Aspen to party. This is like a starter lodge for the young and young families. Every other business will benefit. P10 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19, 2014 11 Mitch said there is a whole chapter in the Aspen Area Plan that talks about getting rid of our auto dependency. There is another chapter on economic sustainability. This is a great opportunity to get affordable lodging. The rooms are 190 square feet. Carl’s parking is not Carl’s parking it is in the public right-of-way. No project in Aspen is going to make everyone happy. Mark Hunt said the fact is this property isn’t going to be a gas station. I don’t think a 5 foot setback in the back is going to make a difference. I understand that parking is important and that people are going to drive here. We are addressing the parking and it isn’t onsite. It is a 59 foot lot and we couldn’t park on this lot if we wanted to by the time you tried to ramp in. An elevator would be more taxing on the alley. The location is in the downtown. The people will get their car valeted and they won’t see their car until they leave town. This town is interesting and you go one block in any direction and it’s a completely different neighborhood. It is not logical to think that we can put 21 ½ cars on this site. We all need to be glad that town is busy otherwise we wouldn’t have the things that are available to us like the ARC, school, etc. I was asked to put my best foot forward and I am not nervous about my investors. Regardless or not if this building ever gets built I’m proud of it and I feel we did a good job. I do hope we get a chance to building it but if this isn’t what this community wants we aren’t going to force it down someone’s throat. Willis closed the public hearing. Willis identified the issues: Waivers and impact fees Parking Affordable housing mitigation as it relates to GMQS Dimensional variances on all four sides Mass and scale Height Sara said council will look strongly on HPC’s design recommendations since that is typically your role in the process. Willis said regarding the waivers, impact fees and affordable housing mitigation I am all for giving monetary benefits for bringing forward such a unique and creative project. The project avoids penthouses and affordable housing stuck in a dark corner and it is designed as a single program and that hasn’t been done since the 70’s. This is astounding and it will be generating P11 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19, 2014 12 a lot of excitement at that corner. The rooms are small and it will be a starter lodge. As for the noise and roof top deck people have been used to power tools generating from the garage for many years. It is not our purview to solve acoustic issues. People always get upset with the height but the form and representation comes first. The form is vernacular, industrial and cool and at the same time has a hipster appeal. Variations in design is what creates the excitement throughout the town. The entrance on Monarch is appropriate. We can’t solve the parking tonight and it will take some time. We are getting so much here and it is commendable. Jim said you get an affordable lodge but where are you going to eat. In the winter the driving range is reduced to 350 miles which barely gets you past Denver out to Limon. I find the request for the waivers questionable as they relate to affordable lodging. Is the affordable lodging truly addressing the public need. The affordability is going to drive the parking issues. The board needs to see a vehicle access plan. The height is no issue but the mass could be softened up some. The snow sliding off the roof and how that will be dealt with needs addressed. Sallie said this is not the venue for personal attacks. If we can relieve fees that cut down on the impact I am all for that. The architecture is fine. At the next meeting the snow issue needs addressed and possibly look at a five foot setback on the back. This is a good project. The parking also needs to be further reviewed. Nora said we all applaud the concept. The mass and scale is an issue and the building is too big for the lot and doesn’t fit on the site. Setbacks are in place for the livability of the neighbors and waiving them doesn’t do anyone a favor and it makes it unlivable for everybody. This is a mixed use zone and transition is not the zoning. The project should adhere to the dimensions that are in the zoning which is mixed. It breaks the Smuggler ridge line as you come into town and you can no longer see Smuggler. The landmarks on either side need respected. The parking at the Rio Grande needs to be a condition. The building should come back with the mixed us dimensional requirements. Patrick thanked the public for coming. The fee waivers are OK and the Cortina side elevation is fine. The people behind are going to have a 25 foot wall either five feet away or on the alley. On the Monarch side and Main side should have the face changed so that it isn’t a solid wall. Possibly Ski P12 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19, 2014 13 Co. could partner with the developer on both the properties in the hopes of making a package deal for those coming to stay at the lodge. The pitched roof is appropriate but council can decide if they want a pitched roof or flat roof. MOTION: Jim moved to continue 232 E. Main to December 3 rd . second by Sallie, All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Jim moved to adjourn, second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk P13 II.B. HPC Review 12.10.2014 232 E. Bleeker Page 1 of 13 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 232 E. Bleeker –Conceptual Major Development, On-Site Relocation, Demolition of Existing Garage and Variances, CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: December 10, 2014 ________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: 232 E. Bleeker is a landmark designated 6,000 square foot corner lot with a Victorian era home and a more recently constructed garage on the site. The house appears to have originally been built as a one story log cabin, but by 1904, according to Sanborne Maps, it was a two story structure, close in form to the existing building. Planning office files indicate that at some point the original porch was removed. The existing porch, dormers, skylights, some of the decorative trim, and shutters were all added in the 1980s. The top right photo shows the house in 1980, the lower photo is from 2000. A new owner would like to add a second unit to the property. HPC is asked to review relocation of the Victorian, demolition of the garage, and Conceptual design for the dwelling to be added. Setback variances, a floor area bonus, and Residential Design Standards variances are requested. HPC reviewed this project on October 15 th and continued it for restudy of the design and variance requests. APPLICANT: 232 Bleeker LLC, represented by Kim Raymond Architects. PARCEL ID: 2737-073-16-006. P14 III.A. HPC Review 12.10.2014 232 E. Bleeker Page 2 of 13 CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ADDRESS: 232 E. Bleeker Street, Lots R and S, Block 72, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6. The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project’s conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list of the relevant HPC design guidelines is attached as “Exhibit A.” The existing Victorian has a footprint of approximately 1,200 square feet. There is a 300 square foot single stall garage along the alley. The 1904 Sanborn map is shown at the right. The garage, which the applicant represents was built in approximately the 1950s, does not appear on this Victorian era diagram. Instead there is an alley structure, now gone, in the northwest corner of the lot. When this project was submitted for review, there were two large cottonwoods in place along Bleeker which would need to be preserved as part of this project. The trees have since been determined to be hazardous and were removed. There is one remaining cluster of cottonwoods along the Monarch property line which must be protected. The architect has designed the eastern P15 III.A. HPC Review 12.10.2014 232 E. Bleeker Page 3 of 13 side of the project to address the direction of the Parks Department. The applicant wishes to add a second unit on the site, creating a duplex. This is an option that is available to historic properties at least 6,000 square feet in size. Non-landmarked properties need a lot of at least 9,000 square feet to create a duplex. Duplexes have a larger allowed floor area than single family homes. In this case, developing a duplex allows 360 square feet more floor area than single family (3,600 square feet of floor area, vs. 3,240.) Duplex units must share a common unpierced wall of at least 10 feet in length. For landmarks, the abutting area is allowed to be above grade, or below grade. In addition to the increased floor area allowed for a duplex, the applicant requests a floor area bonus. Originally the request was for 500 square feet, but for this meeting the request has been reduced to 448 square feet. Duplexes require four on-site parking spaces, where a single family home requires two. The project includes one garage parking space per home. Initially the applicant requested a waiver of the other two spaces, but the updated site plan fits two uncovered spaces along the alley. The existing driveway from Monarch Street to the garage will be removed. At the October meeting, the applicant proposed to move the Victorian house forward about 6’. The minimum front yard setback was provided, but the rear yard required a variance. For this meeting, the proposal has been revised so that the house moves forward an addition 4’, requiring a front setback variance, but the rear yard setback is met. This forward shift has allowed the additional on-site parking mentioned above and may decrease some impacts on the alley. The east-west placement of the historic resource will remain approximately as it is. A one story, 10 foot long connector is proposed to link the Victorian to the new addition. The historic resource will continue to be accessed from Bleeker Street. The new unit accesses from Monarch. The project will meet the minimum setback of 5’ on each side, but will not meet the required combined sideyard setback of 15’. The floor area bonus and setback variance requests will be addressed according to their specific criteria below. In terms of Conceptual design review, staff has concerns with the architectural relationship between the old and new construction. At the previous meeting, HPC saw two design options; one with an essentially flat roof, the other with a gable form. Staff recommended that neither version reflected the essential design characteristics or proportions of the Victorian. HPC indicated some openness to the flat roof design, and that is the only proposal in the current packet. Staff is concerned that these three design guidelines are not met: 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. P16 III.A. HPC Review 12.10.2014 232 E. Bleeker Page 4 of 13 A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. Regarding roof pitch, if this were an interior lot, staff would agree that keeping the new construction low profile would be a high priority. However, a corner lot has different considerations. In this case, staff finds that there is not visually compatibility between the historic structure and addition, and that compatibility has heightened importance because of the corner exposure. In October, staff suggested that one way to allow more flexibility in design considerations would be to physically detach the new and old units. An example where this has been successful on a corner lot (albeit in a commercial area of town) is the duplex at 205 S. Spring Street, seen below. This project is also on a 6,000 square foot lot. The floor area is 3,300 square feet. Setback variances were awarded to properly separate the two units and two parking spaces were waived. The 232 E. Bleeker proposal is approximately 725 square feet of floor area larger than this example. P17 III.A. HPC Review 12.10.2014 232 E. Bleeker Page 5 of 13 A recent example of an attached addition on a corner lot is seen below. This is a somewhat smaller lot (4,500 square feet) and the total floor area is 2,300 square feet; 1,300 less than what is allowed on the subject parcel. The example illustrates the notion that, if proportions and roof forms of the old and new construction share similarities, then other elements, like windows and materials, are areas for design flexibility. Staff believes that the proposed form of the 232 E. Bleeker project is unsuccessful as an addition that is linked directly to the historic resource. The applicant prefers the duplex units to be attached, among other reasons, because it allows the historic resource to have interior access to a garage. If that programmatic consideration is not to changeable, then staff recommends that the design of the addition be restudied to be a more similar form to the Victorian and/or the HPC award a reduced floor area bonus, if any. As stated above, zoning already provides a 360 square foot increase to accommodate two units on the property. P18 III.A. HPC Review 12.10.2014 232 E. Bleeker Page 6 of 13 ON-SITE RELOCATION Aside from the rear addition, some modifications are proposed to the historic structure, particularly constructing a deck on a non-historic lean to addition at the northwest corner of the house. A dormer is also proposed in this area. These changes may be acceptable since they are somewhat screened from the street. The applicant proposes restoration efforts, including removing non-historic trim and shutters, possibly reconstructing an ornate cap that originally topped the chimney stack, and reconfiguring the front porch to a more original design. Staff supports these actions. 26.415.090.C. Standards for the relocation of designated properties. Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards: 1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. Staff Response: Staff finds that the forward relocation of the house could meet Criterion 4 above, in that the move helps to distance the historic resource from the new construction. Before relocation is undertaken, the applicant will be required to provide a a $30,000 letter of credit, cashier’s check, or other form acceptable to the City Attorney to insure the safe relocation of the house. A relocation plan detailing how and where the P19 III.A. HPC Review 12.10.2014 232 E. Bleeker Page 7 of 13 DEMOLITION building will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application, and the applicant shall include documentation of the existing elevation of the home and the relationship of the foundation to grade in the building permit application. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing garage, which faces Monarch Street. It is the intent of the historic preservation ordinance to preserve the historic and architectural resources that have demonstrated significance to the community. Consequently no demolition of properties designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures will be allowed unless approved by the HPC in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section. The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the property owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the standards for demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a. The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. Staff Response: Staff agrees that the garage is not original to the property. Staff finds that no documentation exists to demonstrate that the garage has historic significance, and that demolition will result in a loss of integrity to this building or adjacent buildings. P20 III.A. HPC Review 12.10.2014 232 E. Bleeker Page 8 of 13 FLOOR AREA BONUS In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that: a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building; c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained. Staff Response: The applicant is requesting a 448 square foot floor area bonus. There are restoration plans indicated on the drawings for the historic resource. The HPC typically holds the floor area bonus to a high standard. On numerous occasions applicants have been required to go to great lengths to restore the historic home in order to grant the 500 sf FAR Bonus. For example, 202 N. Monarch completely restored the front porch, siding, and architectural details; 135 W. Hopkins Ave. rebuilt the front porch, restored siding, and restored windows; and 320 W. Hallam Ave. removed a dormer in the front facing gable end and restored the front porch. To earn a bonus, staff recommends that a porch reconstruction should be undertaken since the existing porch is known to be recent construction and it does not match the wraparound porch design shown on the Sanborn map. The applicant does not propose to remove two non-historic dormers on the east, street facing façade. Staff recommends HPC discuss this issue and determine how this affects the appropriateness of a floor area bonus. Restoration efforts aside, the bonus is not appropriate if it serves to overwhelm the historic house with new construction. Staff has previously stated concerns with the proposed design. Staff recommends HPC consider awarding a bonus of 140 square feet, which when combined with the 360 extra allowance for a duplex equals 500. While the applicant may P21 III.A. HPC Review 12.10.2014 232 E. Bleeker Page 9 of 13 SETBACK VARIANCES PARKING VARIANCE prefer a duplex development option, HPC’s priority is to ensure an addition is appropriately scaled. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. Staff Response: In many instances, a historic preservation project in Aspen includes the repositioning of a historic structure on a lot in order to physically distance it from new construction. The applicant proposes to move the historic house into the front yard, providing a 6’ setback rather than 10 feet. The proposed new addition meets the minimum side yards, but not the combined sideyard, providing a combined sideyard of 10’, rather than 15’. The project meets the rear yard setback requirement. Setback variances may be appropriate if the design guidelines are met. Properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures may provide fewer on-site parking spaces than required if the standards below are met. 1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts on the on- street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. 2. An on-site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. 3. Existing or planned on-site or off-site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking. P22 III.A. HPC Review 12.10.2014 232 E. Bleeker Page 10 of 13 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS And HPC must also find that: 1. The parking reduction and waiver of payment-in-lieu fees may be approved upon a finding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance or architectural character of a designated historic property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district. Staff Response: This particular area has very high demand for on street parking. The applicant has adjusted the proposal to include four on-site spaces, so a variance is no longer needed. The project does not comply with the Secondary Mass design standard, which says: Secondary mass. All new single-family and duplex structures shall locate at least ten percent (10%) of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the principal building or linked to it by a subordinate linking element. This standard shall only apply to parcels within the Aspen infill area pursuant to Subsection 26.410.010.B.2. Accessory buildings such as garages, sheds and accessory dwelling units are examples of appropriate uses for the secondary mass. A subordinate linking element for the purposes of linking a primary and secondary mass shall be at least ten (10) feet in length, not more than ten (10) feet in width, and with a plate height of not more than nine (9) feet. Accessible outdoor space over the linking element (e.g. a deck) is permitted but may not be covered or enclosed. Any railing for an accessible outdoor space over a linking element must be the minimum reasonably necessary to provide adequate safety and building code compliance and the railing must be 50% or more transparent. A modification to the dimensions of the one story linking element could eliminate the need for a variance, or HPC could grant the variance, depending on the board’s position on the duplex units being attached above grade. The link is 23’9 wide. The maximum is 10.’ The project does not comply with the Building Element standards, which says: A covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six (6') feet, shall be part of the front facade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than one (1) story in height. P23 III.A. HPC Review 12.10.2014 232 E. Bleeker Page 11 of 13 First story element. All residential buildings shall have a first story street-facing element the width of which comprises at least twenty percent (20%) of the building's overall width and the depth of which is at least six (6) feet from the wall the first story element is projecting from. Assuming that the first story element includes interior living space, the height of the first story element shall not exceed ten (10) feet, as measured to the plate height. A first story element may be a porch or living space. Accessible space (whether it is a deck, porch or enclosed area) shall not be allowed over the first story element; however, accessible space over the remaining first story elements on the front façade shall not be precluded. The feature that does not comply, the front porch, is a historic feature that should not be altered from the original design. Staff would recommend a variance. =============================================================== STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC continue the project for restudy to determine if the units can be separated above grade, and/or to achieve more architectural compatibility between the Victorian and the new construction. Staff recommends a detailed discussion of the floor area bonus request. A draft resolution approving the project is provided if that is HPC’s determination. EXHIBITS : Resolution #__, Series of 2014 Exhibit A: Design Guidelines Exhibit B: Application Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Design Guidelines for 232 E. Bleeker Street, Conceptual review 7.7 A new dormer should remain subordinate to the historic roof in scale and character. A new dormer should fit within the existing wall plane. It should be lower than the ridgeline and set in from the eave. It should also be in proportion with the building. The mass and scale of a dormer addition must be subordinate to the scale of the historic building. 8.3 Avoid attaching a garage or carport to the primary structure. P24 III.A. HPC Review 12.10.2014 232 E. Bleeker Page 12 of 13 Traditionally, a garage was sited as a separate structure at the rear of the lot; this pattern should be maintained. Any proposal to attach an accessory structure is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house. The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. 9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the boundaries of its historic parcel. If a historic building straddles two lots, then it may be shifted to sit entirely on one of the lots. Both lots shall remain landmarked properties. 9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. 10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right. Such an addition is usually similar in character to the original building in terms of materials, finishes and design. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. P25 III.A. HPC Review 12.10.2014 232 E. Bleeker Page 13 of 13 An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic building. A 1-story connector is preferred. The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. The connector also should be proportional to the primary building. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is recommended. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate. Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. P26 III.A. HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2014 Page 1 of 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, ON-SITE RELOCATION, DEMOLITION AND VARIANCE APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 232 E. BLEEKER STREET, LOTS R AND S, BLOCK 72, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2014 PARCEL ID: 2737-073-16-006 WHEREAS, the applicant, 232 Bleeker LLC, represented by Kim Raymond Architects, has requested HPC approval for Conceptual Major Development, On-Site Relocation, Demolition and Variances for the property located at 232 E. Bleeker Street, Lots R and S, Block 72, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that “no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;” and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, for approval of Relocation, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.090.C, Relocation of a Designated Property; and WHEREAS, for approval of Demolition, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.080.A, Demolition of a Designated Property; and WHEREAS, in order to receive approval for a floor area bonus, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.110.F; and WHEREAS, the HPC may approve setback variances according to Section 26.415.110.C.1.a, Variances; and WHEREAS, the HPC may approve variances to the Residential Design Standards according to Section 26.410.020.D; and P27 III.A. HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2014 Page 2 of 2 WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on October 15th and December 10 th , 2014. HPC considered the application, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and granted approval with conditions by a vote of __ to __. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants Conceptual Major Development, On-Site Relocation, Demolition and Variance approval for 232 E. Bleeker Street, Lots R and S, Block 72, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: 1. HPC hereby allows demolition of the non-historic garage on the property. 2. HPC hereby grants a 448 square foot floor area bonus. 3. HPC hereby allows a front setback of 6’ rather than 10 feet and a combined sideyard of 10’, rather than 15’. 4. HPC hereby grants a waiver from the Residential Design Standards related to Secondary Mass and Building Elements. 5. For the temporary relocation of the Victorian house during basement excavation, the owner must provide a $30,000 letter of credit, cashier’s check, or other form acceptable to the City Attorney to insure the safe relocation of the house. A relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application, and the applicant shall include documentation of the existing elevation of the home and the relationship of the foundation to grade in the building permit application. 6. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of December 10, 2014, the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 10th day of December, 2014. Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: ___________________________________ _____________________________ Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Willis Pember, Chair ATTEST: ___________________________ Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk P28 III.A. 802 E. Cooper Avenue, Suite 4 | Aspen, Colorado | 81611 | 970.925.2252       November  10,  2014           Amy  Simon   City  of  Aspen  Community  Development  Department   130  S  Galena  Street,  3rd  Floor   Aspen,  CO    81611       RE:    232  E  Bleeker  Ave    Historic/Modern  Duplex    Summary  Letter   Aspen,  Colorado   Parcel  ID:  2737-­‐0731-­‐6006       Dear  Amy.     Thank  you  for  all  of  your  time  and  knowledge  regarding  this  property  and  the   process  required  for  it’s  development.     The  following  information  will  address  the  Sections  of  the  Land  Use  Application   Manual  and  the  Land  Use  Code  as  outlined  in  your  letter  from  the  pre-­‐application   conference  summary  dated  12.18.13  with  Derek  Skalko.    We  have  made  some   adjustments  to  our  plans  since  the  meeting  with  the  HPC  and  will  address  them   below  in  green  for  ease  of  reference.     This  property  is  located  in  the  R-­‐6,  Medium  density,  residential  zone  district.       RELEVANT  LAND  USE  CODE  SECTIONS      SECTION  26.304  –  Application   1.    Please  see  attached  letter  of  authorization  from  232  Bleeker,  LLC,  a  Colorado   limited  liability  corporation,  granting  Kim  Raymond  Architects,  Inc  authority  to  act   on  their  behalf  throughout  this  process.       2.      Please  see  the  attached  Vicinity  Map  with  a  legal  description  and     directions  to  the  property.   3.      Attached,  please  find  the  Disclosure  of  Ownership  in  the  form  of  the  Title   Insurance  conveying  the  property  to  232  Bleeker,  LLC.   4.      See  number  2  above.   P29 III.A. 802 E. Cooper Avenue, Suite 4 | Aspen, Colorado | 81611 | 970.925.2252 5.      Please  see  attached  Site  Plan  depicting  the  proposed  changes  to  the     existing  landscape  and  building  footprint.   6.    Please  see  the  site  improvement  survey  of  the  property  located  at  232  E.  Bleeker.   7.    Please  see  below,  the  description  and  summary  of  all  requested  information   pertaining  to  the  Land  Use  Code  sections  in  regard  to  the  proposed   development.     Additionally,  please  find  a  copy  of  the  Pre-­‐application  Conference  Summary  sheet,   attached  at  the  end  of  this  packet  of  information.    This  application  package  includes   all  requested  documents  as  outlined  in  the  pre-­‐application  conference  summary   dated  December  18,  2013.       Section  26.410  –  Residential  Design  Standards   Section  26.410.10  –  Applicability       26.410.010  General    A.  The  purpose  of  these  standards  is  to  preserve  established  neighborhood  scale   and  character,  while  not  determining  architectural  style.      The  intention  of  the   development  of  this  historic  property  is  to  renovate  the  existing  home  to  it’s  original   style,  extend  the  one  story  addition  towards  the  back  of  the  lot  and  create  a  second   dwelling  as  a  duplex  at  the  rear  of  the  lot  with  garages  facing  the  alley.       Reviewing  the  history  of  this  building  and  using  the  Sanborn  &  Sons  Mapping   information  the  original  structure,  built  in  1882  was  a  single  story  log  home.    It  was   sometime  between  1883-­‐1890  that  the  second  story  was  added  to  the  home  and   it  was  given  the  Victorian  elements.    These  decorative  details  were  very  basic  at  this   time.    In  1893  the  addition  to  the  west  was  added.    The  Sanborn  maps  show  that  the   front  porch  that  extends  the  full  width  of  the  original  home  was  in  existence  since   at  least  1890;  and  the  new  addition  to  the  west  shows  a  full  width  porch  from  at  least   1893.    We  are  planning  on  keeping  the  full  width  porches  with  their  respective  roofs,   but  eliminating  the  new  ‘gingerbread’  detailing  that  was  added  in  1983-­‐85.       These  elements  will  keep  the  appropriate  domestic  scale  for  this  private  residence  and   offer  vitality  to  the  streetscape  with  the  outdoor  living  space  facing  the  street  with  no   fence  between  the  home  and  the  passersby;  allowing  for  interaction  between  public   and  private.        There  was  a  garage  or  other  similar  structure  built  on  the  northwest  corner  of   the  property  sometime  between  1893-­‐1898.    The  Sanborn  maps  show  this  structure  on     the  1904  map,  but  not  after  that  time.    The  existing  garage  was  built  in  1959  and  has  no   historic  significance.   B.2  The  proposed  development  will  be  a  duplex,  thus  all  of  the  residential   standards  shall  apply.   26.410.020  Procedures  for  Review    A.  A  pre-­‐application  conference  was  held  between  Amy  Simon  and  Derek  Skalko   regarding  this  project.    This  letter  addresses  the  issues  outlined  in  the  letter  sent  by  Amy   dated  December  18,  2013.   P30 III.A. 802 E. Cooper Avenue, Suite 4 | Aspen, Colorado | 81611 | 970.925.2252  D.  Please  see,  outlined  below,  the  details  of  the  specific  variances  that  will  be   requested  of  the  HPC  and  City  Council  for  the  completion  of  this  project.      The  variances   being  sought  are:  side  yard  setback,  combined  side  yard  setback,  a  subordinate  link  that   is  more  than  10’-­‐0  wide,  a  rear  yard  setback  for  living  space,  and  reduction  in  the   number  of  parking  spaces  required.    We  are  seeking  the  variances  because  they  help  the  project  meet  both  the   Residential  Design  Standards  and  the  Historic  Preservation  Guidelines;  thus  allowing  for   appropriate  design  solutions  for  the  life  safety  of  the  occupants  and  the  preservation  of   a  very  high  quality  historic  structure.   26.410.040  Residential  Design  Standards    A.  Site  design  1.  The  existing  house  is  located  on  the  corner  parcel  of  a  typical   city  block  on  two  original  City  blocks.  The  front  façade  of  the  existing  structure  will   remain  parallel  to  the  street.  It  is  currently  20.1’  from  the  property  line.    We  are   proposing  moving  the  house  forward  9’-­‐7”,  so  the  front  porch  is  forward  of  the  front   yard  setback  line  by  4’-­‐0    to  allow  for  a  larger  “connector  link”  between  the  historic   structure  and  the  new  addition  and  to  move  the  house  far  enough  off  of  the  rear  yard  to   create  2  additional  parking  spaces  along  the  alley  .    This  also  allows  us  to  keep  all  of  the   new  development  completely  behind  the  plane  of  the  back  of  the  historic  home.   2.  The  proposed  renovation  will  place  the  front  porch  4’-­‐0”  in  front  of  the  front  yard   setback  line:  this  will  put  the  plane  of  the  front  façade  within  the  required  5’-­‐0  of  the   front  yard  setback,  more  specifically  4  ½”.   3.  There  are  no  proposed  fences  or  berms  for  the  project.    B.1.  Building  Form  1.  Secondary  Mass;  The  requirement  for  10%  of  the  total   square  feet  of  the  project  will  be  met,  as  approximately  50%  of  the  proposed   development  will  be  attached  to  the  existing  Victorian  home  via  a  single  story  “link”   element  that  is  18’-­‐6”  long.  This  link  is  between  the  2)  two  story  elements.     2.  This  link  meets  the  height  requirement  of  having  a  maximum  plate  of  9’-­‐0”.     The  link  will  have  some  portion  of  it  used  as  a  deck  for  the  back  unit  of  the  duplex.    This   deck  will  have  a  glass  railing,  100%  transparent.    Please  see  plans  and  elevations.       The  link  is  23’-­‐9”  wide.    We  are  asking  for  a  variance  from  this  aspect  of  this  design   standard.    We  feel  that  the  longer  link,  moving  the  two  story  mass  further  away  from   the  Historic  resource  lets  the  original  building  be  seen  better  from  the  street  and  will   not  be  over  shadowed  by  the  new,  modern  unit  in  the  back.    Though  the  width  of  the   link  is  wide,  it  is  narrower  than  the  historic  building,  set  back  from  both  the  east  and   west  walls  of  the  building,  exposing  both  back  corners  of  the  original  structure.    C.  Parking,  garages  and  carports  1.  This  property  does  have  an  alley  and  the  two,   single  stall  doors  are  accessed  directly  from  the  alley.    D.  Building  Elements  1.  Street  Oriented  entrance  and  principal  window.    The   proposed  duplex  sits  on  a  corner  lot  with  the  historic  house  facing  Bleeker  Avenue  as  it   was  built  originally.    This  unit  has  a  front  door  and  the  original  primary  windows  that   satisfy  this  criteria.    The  new  unit  at  the  rear  of  the  lot  has  a  front  door,  porch  and   primary  window  that  all  face  Monarch;  this  unit  is  set  too  far  away  from  Bleeker  for  it  to   relate  to  Bleeker  with  the  entrance.    The  proximity  of  this  portion  of  the  building  to   P31 III.A. 802 E. Cooper Avenue, Suite 4 | Aspen, Colorado | 81611 | 970.925.2252 Monarch,  makes  it  appropriate  to  address  Monarch  with  the  entry;  thus,  this  unit  also   meets  this  standard.    D1.a  The  entry  doors  on  both  units  are  in  the  front  façade  of  their  respective   buildings  and  are  no  more  than  8’-­‐0  tall.   D1.b  Front  porches:  Both  units  have  covered,  front  porches  that  are  one  story.     The  historic  unit  originally  had  full  width  porches  (as  seen  on  the  Sanborn  maps,  Exhibit   A).    At  some  point  those  porches  or  roofs  were  removed  and  replaced  with  small  roofs   that  covered  just  the  area  of  the  door.    Please  see  photo  as  part  of  Exhibit  A  to  see   smaller  roofs.         We  propose  keeping  the  full  width  porches  and  roofs  that  are  evidenced  on  the  Sanborn   maps  in  the  late  1800s,  but  removing  the  gingerbread  that  was  added  at  a  later  date.       The  new  larger  porch  roofs  were  built  in  the  1960s.  (not  sure  of  the  exact  year;   possibly  in  1965  when  the  asphalt  siding  was  replaced  with  wood).    It  is  our  feeling  that   the  larger  roofs  on  the  building  are  more  in  line  with  the  original  roofs  and  that  these   roofs  will  satisfy  this  standard;  will  have  a  5’-­‐0  deep  porch  that  will  be  over  50  sq.  ft.,  will   still  be  historic,  will  encourage  the  use  of  the  outdoor  living  space  and  add  vitality  to  the   streetscape.       The  front  porch  on  the  new  unit  facing  Monarch  will  have  a  5’-­‐0”  deep  porch;     which  will  extend  3’-­‐0  past  the  setback  line.    Thus  we  are  asking  for  a  3’-­‐0”  setback   variance  for  the  length  of  this  porch,  12’-­‐0”.    It  is  72  square  feet.    The  porch  will  also   require  a  variance  from  the  combined  side  yard  setback  requirement  of  15’-­‐0  for  the   length  of  the  porch;  we  also  need  a  variance  of  8’-­‐0”  for  the  12’-­‐0  long  porch  and  a   variance  of  3’-­‐0”  for  the  length  of  the  building  that  comprises  the  main  level  of  the  new   unit.    Since  the  property  line  is  nearly  19’-­‐0”  from  the  edge  of  the  road,  this  variance  will   have  no  negative  impact  on  the  neighborhood  on  the  east  side;  on  the  contrary,  it  will   bring  the  front  porch  closer  to  the  street  which  will  have  the  effect  of  encouraging  the   interaction  between  private  and  public.    In  considering  the  combined  side  yard  setback,   please  note  that  the  basement  level  is  right  on  the  5’-­‐0  setback  line  on  the  west  side  of   the  building  (opposite  the  new  entry  porch  on  the  east),  but  the  exterior  wall  is  set  back   3’-­‐7  ¼”  from  the  basement  level;    this  makes  the  request  for  the  combined  side  yard   setback  only  applicable  to  the  basement  level  which  will  have  no  impact  on  the   neighbor  to  the  west.        D2.  The  primary  and  dominant  front  façade  of  this  building  is  that  of  the  historic   building,  facing  Bleeker.    The  historic  building  does  meet  this  standard,  if  it  is  renovated   back  to  it’s  original  condition  as  mentioned  above;  with  the  full  width  porches,  the  one   story  element  will  be  present  to  meet  this  standard.    The  depth  of  the  front  porch  is   only  4’-­‐4”  deep  however.    The  secondary  porch  is  5’-­‐0”  deep,  2’-­‐0”  shy  of  the  property   line.  Both  of  these  two  porches  are  more  than  20%  of  the  front  façade  of  their   respective  units;  but  neither  porch  is  the  full  6’-­‐0  deep.    The  historic  porches  remains   the  historic  proportion  and  porch  for  the  new  unit  is  held  to  5’-­‐0  deep  so  as  not  to     require  any  more  of  a  setback  variance,  and  the  proportion  works  better  at  5’-­‐0”.   D3.a  Street  facing  windows  shall  not  span  between  9-­‐12’  above  the  main  floor   or  where  a  floor  may  typically  be  located.    There  are  no  windows  in  this  “no  window   zone”  in  either  of  the  units  of  the  duplex,  the  windows  in  the  stairwell  in  the  new  unit   P32 III.A. 802 E. Cooper Avenue, Suite 4 | Aspen, Colorado | 81611 | 970.925.2252 meet  the  exemption  for  windows  in  this  zone.    This  wall  is  set  back  slightly  with  a   different  material  to  demonstrate  from  the  exterior  that  it  is  indeed  a  different  space.    D3.b  There  is  only  one  non-­‐orthogonal  appearing  window  in  the  building,  in  the   front  façade  of  the  historic  building.    It  is  a  rectangular  window  that  has  had  trim  over   the  top  of  it  to  match  the  rake  of  the  gable  from  it’s  original  construction.    D4.  All  the  light  wells,  for  both  units,  are  located  behind  the  front  façade  of  the   primary  section  of  the  proposed  duplex;  the  historic  building  which  faces  Bleeker.    There   are  no  window  wells  in  line  with  the  front  façade,  facing  Monarch.    E.  Context  1.  Materials.  E1.a  All  of  the  existing  materials  on  the  historic  house   will  be  cleaned  up  and  repaired  as  necessary  to  maintain  the  historic  character  of  the   building.    The  proposed  new  materials  on  the  modern  addition  will  flow  around  the   building  in  a  consistent  manner,  with  very  few  material  or  color  changes.       E1.b  The  palette  of  materials  will  be  different  than  the  historic  building;  but  will   be  true  to  their  natural  characteristics  with  heavy  materials  at  the  bottom  of  walls.       E1.c  Highly  reflective  materials  will  not  be  used  anywhere  on  this  exterior.   E2.  Inflection.    The  proposed  project  is  located  on  a  corner  lot,  thus  just  one   adjacent  lot;  which  lot  is  empty,  serving  as  the  large  yard  for  the  home  another  lot  to   the  West;  which  home  is  two  stories.    Thus,  this  standard  does  not  apply  to  this   structure.         Section  26.415  –  Historic  Preservation   Section  26.415.070  –  Development  involving  designated  historic  property  or   property  within  a  historic  district.   Section  26.415.070D  Certificate  of  appropriateness  for  major  development    D1.    This  development  meets  all  the  criteria  for  being  a  major  development:   a. it  is  building  a  new  structure  in  the  historic  district   b. it  is  altering  more  than  3  elements  of  the  existing  building  in  the   restoration  work  of  the  Victorian  and  adding  an  addition  to  the  back.   c. it  is  expanding  the  floor  area  by  more  than  250  sq.  ft.   D2.  This  project  does  not  need  any  additional  Land  Use  approvals.   D3.  Please  see  section  26.304  above  for  the  general  application  information.   The  attached  drawings  shall  include  all  listed  drawings  and  requirements,   including  conceptual  materials,  and  3D  renderings  of  the  project.    See  Section   26.410  above  to  see  how  the  project  complies  with  the  residential  design   standards;  see  Section  26.415.110  for  a  detailed  summary  of  the  variances   being  requested.   Section  26.415.080  –  Demolition  of  Designated  Properties    A1.    This  application  to  the  HPC  seeking  approval  to  renovate  and  remodel  a   historic  resource,  create  an  additional  unit  in  the  form  of  a  modern  duplex  to  the   Victorian  house,  includes  the  request  to  demolish  the  existing  garage  structure.    A2.    Please  see  above  for  general  information  in  Section  26.304.    A2b.      The  existing  garage  appears  to  have  been  built  in  1904;  which  makes  it   old  but  not  constructed  with  the  original  home.    In  fact,  the  maps  show  that  a   different  garage  was  in  existence  in  1898,  then  removed.    The  current  garage  has  no   architectural  value  or  importance  to  the  history  of  Aspen’s  culture.    Please  see  the   P33 III.A. 802 E. Cooper Avenue, Suite 4 | Aspen, Colorado | 81611 | 970.925.2252 attached  photos,  plans  and  diagrams  showing  the  history  of  additions  and  removals   to  the  home  and  the  garage  over  the  years.    Exhibit  A.    A3.    We  ask  that  this  demolition  request  be  reviewed  with  the  rest  of  this   project,  as  it  is  all  relevant  only  when  taken  together.    A4.    The  garage  meets  the  following  criteria,  meeting  the  standards  for   demolition:  c)  the  structure  cannot  practically  be  moved  to  another  appropriate   location  in  Aspen;  it  is  not  worth  the  expense  to  move  it  and  d)  it  has  no  historic   significance  making  it  worthy  of  being  moved.     Additional  Criteria:   a) The  small  garage,  behind  the  historic  home,  has  no  significance  to  the  parcel   or  the  Historic  district  as  it  was  constructed  decades  after  the  home;  it’s   removal  will  not  be  a  loss  to  the  community  at  large  or  the  historic  parcel.   b) The  integrity  of  the  Historic  parcel  and  Historic  District  will  not  be  adversely   affected  by  the  removal  of  the  garage.    The  important  and  significant   resource  is  the  home  facing  Bleeker  Avenue.   c) Demolishing  this  small  garage  will  have  no  bearing  on  the  historic   preservation  of  the  area;  it  is  the  house  that  has  significance  and  it  will  be   renovated  and  restored.   B.    We  are  not  seeking  a  certificate  of  economic  hardship.     Section  26.415.090  –  Relocation  of  Designated  Historic  Properties    A1.      Please  see  above  for  general  information  in  Section  26.304.    A2.      The  existing  structure  has  been  very  well  cared  for  over  the  years  and  is   in  excellent  structural  shape  to  withstand  the  relocation.      The  original  home  will  be     moved  using  the  technology  and  practices  that  are  typical  of  this  type  of  work;  being   done  by  a  reputable  contractor  with  a  history  of  successful  house  movings.    The   move  will  also  be  overseen  by  the  structural  engineer  that  will  outline  all  required   bracing  and  shoring  for  the  move.   A3.      The  entire  original  structure  will  be  lifted  and  shifted  forward  and  to  the   west.    For  the  construction  of  the  proposed  basement,  the  building  will  be  left  on  the   temporary  structure  that  suspends  it  above  the  ground  high  enough  to  allow  needed   excavation  and  construction  of  a  new  foundation  and  basement  level  to  the   structure.         The  proposed  plan  for  this  building  is  to  move  it  forward  on  the  existing  lot   far  enough  that  there  can  be  a  substantial  single  story  element  between  the  historic   resource  and  the  addition  of  a  modern  dwelling  at  the  rear  of  the  lot  and  more  than   meet  the  5’-­‐0”  rear  yard  setback  and  allow  for  two  additional  parking  spaces.      The   proposed  new  location  has  the  front  porch  4’-­‐0”  past  the  front  yard  setback.      The   home  is  also  moving  1’-­‐4  to  the  West  to  save  a  large  tree  on  the  east  side  of  the   property.   A4.      Once  put  back  on  the  new  foundation,  the  home  will  be  completely   renovated  with  new  plumbing  and  electrical  systems,  any  damage  done  to  the   building  will  be  repaired  and  the  new  addition  will  be  incorporated  into  it.   A5-­‐9.    N/A  This  house  will  remain  on  it’s  original  lot.     P34 III.A. 802 E. Cooper Avenue, Suite 4 | Aspen, Colorado | 81611 | 970.925.2252 B.    Procedures  for  the  Review  of  Relocation  Request.       The  applicant  asks  that  this  request  be  reviewed  with  the  rest  of  this  package   as  it  is  a  major  development,  pursuant  to  Section  26.304.060.B.    The  consolidation  of   all  requests  will  be  the  most  efficient  use  of  time  for  the  members  of  the  HPC,  Staff   and  City  Council.    Thank  you.   C.    Standards  for  the  Relocation  of  Designated  Properties     The  relocation  of  this  building  meets  criteria  4)  The  relocation  is  an   acceptable  preservation  method  given  the  character  and  integrity  of  the  structure.     Additionally,  the  move  will  not  adversely  affect  the  integrity  of  the  Historic  District     or  diminish  the  historic,  architectural  or  aesthetic  relationships  to  adjacent   properties.    The  relocation  is  very  minor,  allowing  for  more  separation  between  the   historic  resource  and  the  proposed  addition  and  allows  us  to  save  a  mature  tree.     Additional  Criteria:   1. The  building  is  capable  of  being  lifted  and  shifted  onto  the  new  foundation;   the  structural  integrity  of  the  existing  building  is  completely  intact.   2. The  building  is  not  being  relocated  to  another  site.   3. There  will  be  a  structural  engineer  involved  in  the  planning  and  the  physical   lifting  and  shifting  of  this  building.    The  details  of  the  shoring  and  bracing  will   be  specified  by  this  engineer  and  coordinated  with  the  house  mover  to  take   all  precautions  available  to  protect  and  stabilize  the  building  during  the   move.     D.    Procedures  for  Considering  Request  for  Relocation  of  Properties   under  Consideration  for  Designation.      N/A;  this  property  is  already  on  the  Aspen   Inventory  of  Historic  Landmark  Sites  and  Structures.     Section  26.415.110  Benefits   Pursuant  to  this  section  of  the  Land  Use  Code,  the  applicant  is  seeking  certain   benefits  being  offered  by  the  City  of  Aspen  to  encourage  good  preservation   practices;  taking  advantage  of  the  preservation  tools  that  were  developed  to  help   owners,  in  response  to  the  tight  historic  preservation  controls  legislated  by  the  City.   A.      Historic  Landmark  Lot  Split      The  code  allows  for  properties  on  the   Aspen  Inventory  of  Historic  Landmark  Sites  and  Structures  to  be  exempt  from  the   GMQS  requirements  allowing  owners  to  create  a  second  dwelling  unit  on  the   designated  property.    We  are  requesting  this  benefit.   Section  26.470.060.1.  Allows  for  the  development  of  a  duplex  on  a  parcel  that   contains  a  historic  resource;  including  the  renovation  of  the  historic  building  and   adding  a  second  dwelling.    This  section  also  states  that  no  affordable  housing   mitigation  shall  be  required  as  a  result  of  the  additional  dwelling  unit.  To  make  it   fiscally  possible  to  renovate  this  historic  structure  to  the  level  of  detail  that  the  HPC   expects  and  that  we  are  proposing  to  accomplish,  an  additional  unit  is  needed.    Thus   the  request  for  the  duplex  on  this  historic  lot.   B.      Increased  Density      The  R-­‐6  zone  district  allows  for  a  duplex  on  the   historic  parcel  with  the  appropriate  approvals;  which  we  are  seeking  here.   P35 III.A. 802 E. Cooper Avenue, Suite 4 | Aspen, Colorado | 81611 | 970.925.2252 C1.      Variances      The  applicant  seeks  to  take  advantage  of  the  offered   variances  to  the  to  meet  certain  design  criteria  and  to  save  a  mature  tree,  as   outlined  here:     Please  see  Attachment  3  of  the  Historic  Preservation  Land  Use  Application.   Side  Yard  Setback:  Requesting  a  1’-­‐3”  variance  on  the  east  side  for  the  front   porch  of  the  second  unit,  facing  Monarch.    We  met  with  Ben  Carlsen,  the  City   Forester,  to  discuss  the  many  mature  trees  on  the  lot.    We  told  him  that  we   would  do  all  we  could  to  save  the  historic  cottonwood  along  Monarch  Street.     To  accomplish  this,  we  made  the  building  1’-­‐4”  narrower  at  the  modern  unit   of  the  duplex  in  addition  to  moving  this  unit  1’-­‐2”  to  the  West  to  get  the   construction  almost  entirely  out  of  the  drip  line  of  this  tree.       In  order  to  keep  all  of  the  new  development  to  the  back  of  the  property   allowing  the  historic  home  be  the  focal  point  of  this  corner  lot,  we  designed   the  new  unit  to  be  completely  behind  the  historic  building.    In  doing  this  we   are  requesting  the  side  yard  and  combined  side  yard  setback  variances  for   this  small  element;  which  is  virtually  see  through  as  the  porch  is  on  grade   and  the  roof  element  will  be  a  cantilevered  element,  with  no  columns.    The   City  allows  roof  overhangs  to  project  into  setbacks  up  to  18”;  we  are   projecting  15”.   Combined  Sideyard  Setback:  Requesting  8’-­‐0”  setback  for  the  12’-­‐0”  length   of  the  entry  porch,  which  faces  Monarch.    Beyond  the  porch  we  are  seeking  a   variance  of  3’-­‐8”  for  the  remainder  of  the  width  of  the  front  façade  of  the  new   unit.    The  opposite  side  of  the  building,  which  creates  the  other  side  of  the   combined  setback,  is  the  low,  sloping  roof  at  grade  that  provides  the   skylights  for  the  lower  level  that  is  right  at  the  setback  line.    The  perception   from  street  level  is  that  the  house  is  narrower  and  meets  the  15’-­‐0  sideyard   setback  except  for  the  roof  of  the  entry  porch;  which  is  just  a  roof  and  two   columns.    Please  see  Site  Plan.   Rear  yard  setback:  We  have  reduced  the  size  of  the  building  in  the  North  /   South  direction  and  have  moved  the  building  forward  on  the  lot  to  eliminate   the  need  for  the  rear  yard  setback  for  living  spaces.    We  heard  the  issues  of   the  neighbors  and  responded  by  moving  the  garages  forward  of  the  required     5’-­‐0”  setback.    This  move  also  enables  us  to  provide  two  additional  parking   spaces.  Thus  there  is  NO  REQUEST  FOR  A  REAR  YARD  SETBACK  VARIANCE.   Parking:  By  making  the  adjustments  to  move  the  house  forward,  we  have     created  the  required  4  parking  spaces  for  the  duplex;  two  in  garages  and  two     behind  the  building.  THUS  NO  PARKING  VARIANCE  IS  REQUESTED.   Front  Yard  Setback:    In  response  to  concerns  from  the  neighbors,  we  have   adjusted  the  floor  plan  and  moved  the  building  forward  to  allow  more  space   for  traffic,  snow  removal  and  parking  on  the  alley.    The  feedback  from  the   HPC  meeting  was  that  the  impact  on  the  front  yard  was  far  less  than  the  rear,   so  we  are  requesting  a  4’-­‐0”  variance  for  the  front  porch  on  the  Victorian.     This  leaves  the  home  nearly  12”-­‐0”  from  Bleeker  Street.   C2b.        Shifting  the  bulk  of  the  living  space  of  the  new  unit  to  the  upper  level   and  the  rear  of  the  lot,  allows  for  a  substantial  single  story  “link”  element.    To  better   enhance  the  historic  resource,  the  addition  of  the  modern  second  dwelling  is   P36 III.A. 802 E. Cooper Avenue, Suite 4 | Aspen, Colorado | 81611 | 970.925.2252 separated  from  the  rear  of  the  historic  building  by  nearly  19  feet;  allowing  the   historic  resource  to  be  the  focal  point  of  the  lot,  especially  as  viewed  from  the  front   and  East  sides.    We  moved  the  living  space  on  the  three  levels  forward  further  than   the  rest  of  the  house  to  create  more  interest  on  the  back  façade,  to  break  up  the  tall   mass  of  the  building;  also  in  response  to  the  concerns  of  the  neighbors.    So  the  living   space  was  moved  forward  on  the  lot  5’-­‐0”.      D.      We  have  created  the  four  parking  spaces  required  for  the  project,  thus  no   variance  is  requested  for  parking.      F.        Floor  Area  Bonus:  We  are  asking  that  the  HPC  grant  us  448  sq  ft  of  the   possible  500  sq.  ft.  bonus,  as  we  are  taking  great  care  in  restoring  the  historic   resource  to  as  close  to  it’s  original  look  as  is  feasible  in  studying  the  history  of  the   building  and  complying  with  as  many  of  today’s  Land  Use  Code  standards  and   requirements  as  possible.    Amy  Simon  has  provided  us  with  some  photos  of  the   original  house  and  of  the  details  of  the  home  that  we  will  use  as  a  guide  to  bring  this   home  back  to  it’s  historic  appearance,  including  finding  a  metal  ‘chimney  pot’  to   replace  the  original,  removing  the  gingerbread  trim  that  was  added  in  the  80s.    Not   only  are  we  taking  great  care  in  renovating  the  historic  home  and  keeping  it  as  the   center  of  attention  on  the  lot;  we  are  saving  the  historic  cottonwood  trees.     Section  26.575.020  –  Calculations  and  Measurements.    Please  see  attached  Floor  Area  Ratio  Calculations  as  Exhibit  D.    These   calculations  were  made  in  accordance  with  the  regulations  and  rules  of  this  section   and  Section  26.710.    The  Floor  Area  for  this  parcel  is  3600  sq.  ft.  for  a  duplex  on  a   6000  sq.  ft.  lot,  plus  the  requested  floor  area  bonus  of  448  sq.  ft.  =  4048  sq.  ft.  of  FAR.   The  current  measurements  and  calculations  per  this  section  have  been   addressed  in  the  calculation  of  floor  area  for  the  building;  including  the  subgrade   space;  please  see  attached.    The  changes  to  the  building  comply  with  the  definitions,  requirements  and   limitations  as  outlined  in  this  section.   Section  26.710  –R-­‐6  Zone  District;  Medium  Density    Please  see  the  attached  Survey  as  Exhibit  E,  for  compliance  with  setbacks.   Any  changes  or  additions  to  the  building  will  be  in  compliance  with  the  setbacks   except  as  noted  with  requests  for  setback  variances.    Please  see  Attached  Floor  Area  Calculations  as  Exhibit  D.   In  Summary,  the  proposed  changes  to  this  building  comply  with  all  requirements,   limitations  and  restrictions  as  outlined  in  Title  26  of  the  Land  Use  Code,  as   described  above;  including  the  request  for  certain  setback  variances  and  benefits  as   offered  by  the  City  to  projects  that  are  saving  our  historic  resources.   A  comment  on  the  design  concept  is  warranted  here.    The  roofline  of  the   modern  Unit  at  the  back  of  the  lot  is  flat  or  slightly  sloping  for  a  couple  reasons;     1. We  felt  the  simple  forms  behind  the  angled  roofs  of  the  Victorian  would  be   less  distracting,  acting  more  like  a  backdrop  for  the  historic  structure.   2. The  flat  or  almost  flat  roofs  are  much  lower  than  the  ridges  of  a  gable  roof,   which  would  be  far  more  imposing  behind  the  smaller  scale  of  the  historic   building.   P37 III.A. 802 E. Cooper Avenue, Suite 4 | Aspen, Colorado | 81611 | 970.925.2252 Thank  you  for  your  time  and  feedback  at  the  first  HPC  public  hearing.    We  have   made  numerous  adjustments  to  the  project  in  response  to  both  the  comments  of  the     HPC  and  the  neighbors  that  attended  the  meeting,  by  reducing  the  size  of  the   building  by  78  sq  ft.,  moving  the  house  forward  on  the  lot  to  eliminate  the  rear  yard   setback  variance  for  living  space;  created  all  four  requested  parking  spaces  and     will  continue  to  work  with  the  neighbors  and  HPC  to  make  this  a  great  renovation     project.    Thank  you.     We  look  forward  to  working  with  the  HPC  on  this  renovation  and  addition.     Sincerely,         Kim  Raymond,  Principal   Kim  Raymond  Architects,  Inc   P38 III.A. P 3 9 I I I . A . P 4 0 I I I . A . P 4 1 I I I . A . P 4 2 I I I . A . P 4 3 I I I . A . P 4 4 I I I . A . P 4 5 I I I . A . P 4 6 I I I . A . P 4 7 I I I . A . P 4 8 I I I . A . P 4 9 I I I . A . P 5 0 I I I . A . MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Justin Barker, Planner THRU: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Former Aspen Times Building & Hotel Jerome, 310 & 330 E. Main St. – Planned Development Project Review, Subdivision, Growth Management, Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design, Demolition. Resolution No. __, Series of 2014 – Public Hearing DATE: December 10, 2014 APPLICANT /OWNER: Jerome Properties, LLC 310 E. Main St. Ventures, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Vann Associates LOCATION: 310 & 330 E. Main Street CURRENT ZONING Commercial Core (CC) SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC recommend approval to City Council to merge the former Aspen Times building property with the Hotel Jerome property, vacate an additional 56’ length of the alley, demolish and redevelop the rear portion of the former Aspen Times building into lodge uses, redevelop the courtyard, add a fourth floor to the hotel along Bleeker Street, and reconfigure some lodge rooms in the hotel. The proposed project will add 16 lodge rooms to the Hotel Jerome bed base. Planned Development variations are requested for maximum height, minimum floor-to-floor height, maximum unit size, and unit density. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC recommend approval to City Council with conditions. Locator Map Current image of Jerome Hotel Jerome – Staff Memo 12/10/14 Page 1 of 7 P51 IV.A. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant requests a consolidated review process such that City Council shall have final review authority for all conceptual level reviews. HPC shall serve as a recommending body for the following land use reviews: • Conceptual Major Development Review – (Chapter 26.415) for new construction involving designated historic properties (both properties are on the Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures). • Conceptual Commercial Design Review – (Chapter 26.412, and the Commercial Design Guidelines) for new lodge and commercial development including the former Aspen Times building and an addition the existing Hotel Jerome. • Demolition – (Chapter 26.415) for demolition of the rear portion of the former Aspen Times Building. • Planned Development Project Review – (Chapter 26.445) to establish dimensional requirements for the project. The Applicant requests a PD Review to allow variations from maximum height, minimum floor-to-floor height, maximum unit size, and unit density. • Subdivision Review – (Chapter 26.480) to merge the former Aspen Times Building lot with the Hotel Jerome lot and vacate a portion of the alley. • GMQS Reviews – (Chapter 26.470) for lodge allotments. BACKGROUND: The Hotel Jerome currently occupies a 47,735 square foot lot, and the former Aspen Times building occupies a 5,500 square foot lot. Both parcels are zoned Commercial Core and designated historic. The Hotel Jerome also includes a Planned Development Overlay. The hotel currently contains 93 lodge units with 93 bedrooms. The former Aspen Times building is currently vacant commercial space. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant proposes demolition of the non-historic additions to the former Aspen Times building, construction of a new detached lodge structure behind it, combining the two parcels into one, vacation of 56’ of the alley, redevelopment of the courtyard, addition of a partial 4th story along Bleeker Street, and reconfiguration of some lodge rooms. The proposed project will increase the number of lodge units by 10 and bedrooms by 16. A comparison of the existing development to the proposed development is provided on the next page. Hotel Jerome – Staff Memo 12/10/14 Page 2 of 7 P52 IV.A. Table 1: Development Data (highlighted require variations) Dimensions Existing Allowed/Required Proposed Minimum lot size AT – 5,500 Jerome – 47,735 n/a Total – 54,355 (includes additional vacated alley) Maximum height AT – 16’ (21.5’ false front) Jerome – 54.5’ 38’, up to 40’ through Commercial Design Review AT – 16’ (21.5’ false front) New lodge structure – 31.5’ Jerome – 54.5’ Minimum floor-to- floor height 13’ first floor 9’ upper floors AT – 11.5’ first floor New lodge structure - 8.5’ first floor Jerome – 8.5’ on 4th floor addition Maximum unit size 1,500 sf 1,970 sf (2 new units over 1,500 sf) Cumulative FAR 120,537 sf 2.75:1 or 135,586 sf 2.73:1 or 134,580 sf Commercial FAR 23,954 sf 2:1 or 98,608 sf 0.38:1 or 18,829 sf Lodge FAR 96,583 sf 0.5:1 or 24,652 sf; 2.5:1 if <500 sf net livable/key or 123,260 sf 2.35:1 or 115,751 sf Average lodge unit size 569 sf <500 sf/key for 2.5:1 lodge FAR 619 sf Commercial net leasable 20,272 sf n/a 15,508 sf Lodge net livable 52,925 sf n/a 66,282 sf Lodge units/keys†/bedrooms 93/93/93 n/a 103/107/109 Public Amenity 8,351 sf (16.8%) 16.8% retained 9,980 sf (20.2%) Minimum off-street parking spaces 47 15 47 †A key is a “lock-off unit” that can be rented separately from a larger unit. STAFF EVALUATION: Planned Development (Exhibit A): The Project Review shall focus on the general concept for the development and shall outline any dimensional requirements that vary from those allowed in the underlying zone district. The underlying zone district designation shall be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the dimensions which may be considered during the development review process. A primary goal of a PD is to relate a development to the surrounding context by varying dimensional requirements. Overall, Staff is in support of the proposed development. Specifics regarding the requested variations are highlighted below and detailed in Exhibit A: Hotel Jerome – Staff Memo 12/10/14 Page 3 of 7 P53 IV.A. Maximum height – The proposed maximum height of 54.5’ exceeds the 40’ allowable through Commercial Design Review. The Planned Development allows for the request of this height variation. There is already a 4th floor in the northeast corner of the hotel that measure at 54.5’ at its tallest point. The applicant is looking to maintain that height for the length of the building along Bleeker Street. This would average between 50’-54’ in height due to the change in grade between Mill Street and Monarch Street. The proposed fourth floor is set back from the existing building edges on all sides to help reduce the visual impacts of the increased height. The Hotel Jerome is much taller than the surrounding development, particularly the residential development to the north and west. However, the Hotel Jerome is an important and iconic building that has traditionally been one of the largest and tallest buildings in town, and has typically appeared next to small, often 1-2 story buildings (as shown in Figure 1 below). The average tallest heights of other notable buildings include: Aspen Community Church ~45’ Elk’s Building ~47’ (not including dome) Courthouse ~45’ (not including tower) Wheeler Opera House ~50’ St. Regis ~55’ Residence at the Little Nell ~55’ Figure 1 Typically, the tallest buildings in Aspen have been the iconic historic buildings, and more recently lodges. The Hotel Jerome is both of these. The proposed 4th floor addition enables the Hotel to provide lock-off units, something that is in high demand 1. It is an addition that would help ensure the longevity of the Hotel Jerome as a culturally significant building and continued success as a hotel operation in a competitive market. Staff finds that the additional height requested is appropriate and is supportive of the height variation request. 1This was identified by local booking agents as the unit type most in demand, as highlighted in the “Aspen’s Lodging Sector: Lodging Demand & Lodging Economics” report completed by the City in June 2013. Hotel Jerome Wheeler Opera House Courthouse Elk’s Building Hotel Jerome – Staff Memo 12/10/14 Page 4 of 7 P54 IV.A. Minimum floor-to-floor height – The purpose of the minimum floor heights is to maintain a traditionally taller first floor public space and appropriately scaled upper floors. The first floor of the former Aspen Times building and new construction are both proposed shorter than the minimum requirement for the zone district. Staff supports the reduced height in the historic structure to retain the integrity and historical accuracy of the building. The new construction is set back from the street and hidden behind the commercial space of the historic structure. Staff finds that these minimum heights should not apply to this unique situation. Additionally, the proposed 4th floor addition is shorter than the minimum for upper floors. Staff is supportive of this request to reduce the overall height of the building and visual impacts from new construction. Maximum unit size – The maximum lodge unit size is 1,500 sf. Two of the proposed units (to be located in the 4th floor addition) would exceed this cap (1,945 sf and 1,970 sf). These proposed units are so large because they are 3 bedroom lock-offs that can be rented out as smaller units. The three bedroom configuration is the largest possible combination, which is how lodge unit size is calculated. These types of flexible configurations are a product that is in high demand, particularly for larger families and guests travelling as a group. Staff is supportive of the request. Average lodge unit size – The maximum allowable FAR for lodge uses in the CC zone district is 0.5:1, unless the average lodge unit size is less than 500 sf per unit, then the FAR is bumped up to 2.5:1. The Hotel Jerome currently has an average unit size of 569 sf per unit. The proposed new units would bump the average unit size up to 619 sf per unit. Similar to maximum unit size, the greatest combination of lock-off units must be used, even though the lock-off rooms may be rented out as separate lodge units that are closer to the 500 sf per unit. Staff is supportive of the variation request as the increase is mainly attributed to the 3-bedroom lock-offs and not necessarily reflective of the available inventory of units. Subdivision (Exhibit B): The applicant proposes to merge the former Aspen Times building lot (5,500 sf) with the Hotel Jerome lot (47,735 sf) and vacate an additional 56’ of alley to become part of the lot as well, creating one lot that is 54,355 sf in size. Staff is supportive of the proposed lot merger and alley vacation. The former Aspen Times building is proposed for lodge uses, and it would be beneficial to retain all aspects of the Hotel Jerome operation on one lot. The vacation of additional alley will help separate the new construction from the historic resource and improve the existing courtyard by providing more flexibility to the site. Growth Management (Exhibit C): Allotments – The proposed development adds 16 new lodge bedrooms to the Hotel. This requires 32 lodge pillow growth management allotments (2 pillows per bedroom). The 2007 Hotel Jerome PUD Agreement approved 94 lodge bedrooms, while only 93 were built. This Agreement is vested until March 22, 2015, leaving one bedroom allotment (2 pillows) unused. The applicant would like to apply this unused allotment to the project. Therefore, the applicant is requesting 30 lodge pillow growth management allotments for this project. Staff finds that the review criteria are met and recommends approval of the allotments. Hotel Jerome – Staff Memo 12/10/14 Page 5 of 7 P55 IV.A. Figure 2 Figure 3 Approximate end of restoration AH Mitigation – The existing development generates a credit of 147.13 FTEs. The proposed development generates a total of 135.51 FTEs, creating a net decrease of 11.61 FTEs. This project is therefore not required to provide any employee housing mitigation. Commercial Design Standards (Exhibit D): A complete description of the design standards and guidelines is addressed in Exhibit D. Overall, Staff is supportive of the conceptual design. Staff finds that the proposed design meets the applicable standards and guidelines, providing a good balance of mass and void while respecting the historic structures and surrounding buildings, while acknowledging that the Hotel Jerome is one of the largest downtown structures and one of the largest downtown properties. The redevelopment of the courtyard will improve existing public amenity space by simplifying the grades and improving the access and circulation. The proposal includes a stand-alone commercial building facing Main Street in the restored historic structure. This building does not have a designated delivery/access area. Staff recommends that a delivery area for this structure be designated prior to final review. The applicant has been working with Staff and the Engineering Department to improve the vehicular pull through in front of the hotel entrance. This will reduce the amount of sidewalk located in front, but will dramatically improve safety and flow of traffic at this busy corner. Figure 2 provides historic evidence for this, showing that the curb used to be in line with the portico columns. The applicant has also agreed to improve pedestrian facilities near the alley entrance and hotel garage entrance, per Engineering Department request. These details should be reflected in a sidewalk improvement plan to be provided prior to City Council review. Demolition (Exhibit E): The applicant requests demolition approval of the non- historic portions of the former Aspen Times building, which is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures. Staff finds the additions to be non-historic and recommends demolition approval. See detailed staff findings in Exhibit E. Figure 3 shows the portion of original building that will be restored. REFERRAL DEPARTMENTS: The application was reviewed by Transportation, Utilities, Sanitation District, Zoning, Environmental Health, Fire District, Building, APCHA, and Parks. There are several minor issues that need to be worked through with the Building Department and Engineering Department. Any applicable comments are included in the draft resolution. Hotel Jerome – Staff Memo 12/10/14 Page 6 of 7 P56 IV.A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC recommend approval of all requests to City Council with conditions. PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to recommend approval to City Council of Planned Development Project Review, Subdivision, Growth Management, Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design, and Demolition for 310 & 330 E. Main Street, with conditions.” EXHIBITS: A. Review Criteria – Planned Development B. Review Criteria – Subdivision C. Review Criteria – Growth Management D. Review Criteria – Commercial Design Standards E. Review Criteria – Demolition F. DRC Comments G. Application H. Supplement to Application I. Public Comment – received through 12/4/14 Hotel Jerome – Staff Memo 12/10/14 Page 7 of 7 P57 IV.A. RESOLUTION NO. __ (SERIES OF 2014) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL GRANT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT – PROJECT REVIEW APPROVAL, SUBDIVISION APPROVAL, MAJOR DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL, DEMOLITION, GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPROVAL, AND CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN APPROVAL FOR A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HOTEL JEROME PLANNED DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON PROPERTIES COMMONLY KNOWN AS 310 & 330 E MAIN STREET (LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT I TO THIS RESOLUTION), CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel IDs: 2737-073-21-001 & 2737-073-21-003 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application for the Hotel Jerome PD (the Application) from Jerome Properties, LLC and 310 East Main St. Ventures, LLC (Applicants), represented by Vann Associates for the following land use review approvals: • Planned Development – Project Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.445. • Subdivision Review – pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.480. • Growth Management Review – Lodge Development, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470. • Commercial Design Review - Conceptual, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412. • Major Development - Conceptual for properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415. • Demolition of properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, pursuant to Section 26.415; and, WHEREAS, all code citation references are to the City of Aspen Land Use Code in effect on the day of initial application – September 8, 2014, as applicable to this Project; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire Protection District, Environmental Health Department, Parks Department, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, Public Works Department, and the Transportation Department as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Application and recommended conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.304.060 of the Land Use Code, the Community Development Director may combine reviews where more than one (1) development approval is being sought simultaneously; and, Hotel Jerome 330 E. Main Street Resolution No.__, Series 2014 Page 1 of 9 P58 IV.A. WHEREAS, all required public noticing was provided as evidenced by an affidavit of public noticing submitted to the record, a summary of public outreach was provided by the applicant to meet the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.304.035, and the public was provided a thorough and full review of the proposed development; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the Application at a duly noticed public hearing on December 10, 2014, during which the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard by the Historic Preservation Commission; and, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1:Approvals Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Historic Preservation Commission hereby recommends City Council grant the Hotel Jerome Planned Development – Project Review, Subdivision, Growth Management, Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design, and Demolition approvals, subject to the recommended conditions of approval as listed herein. The approved dimensions are attached as Exhibit II. Existing and proposed floor area and net livable calculations shall be verified with the Zoning Officer prior to Planned Development – Project Review by City Council. Section 2: Subsequent Reviews Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Applicant is required to obtain Final Commercial Design Review, Major Development Review – Final for properties located within the Historic District, and Planned Development – Detail Review following approval of the reviews outlined herein. The applicant shall combine these applications, and they shall be made no later than one (1) year following City Council approval of the reviews outlined herein. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render Planned Development – Project Review, Conceptual Commercial Design, and Conceptual Major Development approvals null and void. This deadline may be extended by the Community Development Director, pursuant to Section 26.445.090.C of the Land Use Code. Section 3: Growth Management Allotments The Historic Preservation Commission hereby recommends the Hotel Jerome be granted growth management allotments for 15 lodging bedrooms = 30 lodging pillows. Section 4: Affordable Housing The existing development for the Hotel Jerome generates a credit of 147.13 FTEs. The proposed final development generates a total of 135.51 FTEs, creating a net decrease of 11.61 FTEs. The proposed development for the Hotel Jerome is not required to provide any affordable housing mitigation. Any reconstruction credit shall be valid for one (1) year following date of final approval, pursuant to Chapter 26.470.130. Hotel Jerome 330 E. Main Street Resolution No.__, Series 2014 Page 2 of 9 P59 IV.A. Section 5: Planned Development – Detail Review In addition to the general documents required as part of a Planned Development – Detail Review, the following items shall be required as part of the Application’s Planned Development – Detail Review: a. An Outdoor Lighting Plan, pursuant to section 26.575.150. b. An existing and proposed Landscaping Plan, identifying trees with diameters and values. c. A draft Construction Management Plan. d. A completed Transportation Impact Analysis. e. A plan for a delivery area for the restored historic resource that meets the Commercial Design Standards. Section 6: Subdivision/PD Plat and Agreement The Applicants shall submit a Subdivision/PD agreement (hereinafter “Agreement”) that meets the requirements of the Land Use Code within 180 days of final approval. The 180 days shall commence upon the granting of Final Commercial Design, Final Major Development and Planned Development – Detail Review approvals by the Historic Preservation Commission. The recordation documents shall be submitted in accordance with the requirements of Section 26.490 Approval Documents of the Land Use Code. a. In accordance in Section 26.490.040, Approval Documents Content and Form, the following plans are required in the Approved Plan Set: 1. Final Commercial and Historic Design Review/ Architectural Character Plan. 2. Planned Development Project and Detail Review Plans. 3. Public Infrastructure Plan. 4. Final Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). b. In accordance with Section 26.490.050, Development Agreements, a Development Agreement shall be entered into with the City. c. In accordance with Section 26.490.060, Financial and Site Protection Requirements, the applicant shall provide a site protection guarantee and a site enhancement guarantee. d. In accordance with Section 26.490.070, Performance Guarantees, the following guarantees are required in an amount equal to 150% of the current estimated cost of the improvement: 1. Landscape Guarantee. 2. Public Facilities and Public Infrastructure Guarantee. 3. Storm Water and Drainage Improvements Guarantee. Section 7: Engineering Department The Applicant’s design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. Hotel Jerome 330 E. Main Street Resolution No.__, Series 2014 Page 3 of 9 P60 IV.A. Drainage: • The project shall meet the Engineering Design Standards (the “EDS”) and the Urban Runoff Management Plan (the “URMP”). A full major drainage report and plan that meets URMP and EDS must be submitted at building permit that provides for the WQCV and for conveyance of the 100-yr event from the site to the City of Aspen Stormsewer system. Snow Storage: • A minimum functional area equaling 30% of the paved area shall be provided contiguous to the paved and designed to accommodate snow storage. For heated areas, the functional area can be reduced to 10%. Sidewalk and Curb and Gutter: • All sidewalk, curb and gutter must meet the Engineering Standards as outlined in Title 21 and the Engineering Design Standards adopted by Title 29. The applicant shall work with Engineering to provide a sidewalk improvement plan, prior to City Council review. Construction Management • The plan must include a planned sequence of construction that minimizes construction impacts. The plan shall describe mitigation for parking, staging/encroachments, and truck traffic. Section 8: Fire Mitigation All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met, subject to review and approval by the Fire Marshall. Section 9: Parks Department Tree removal permits are required prior to issuance of a building permit for any demolition or significant site work. Mitigation for removals must be met by paying cash in lieu, planting on site, or a combination of both, pursuant to Chapter 13.20 of the City Municipal Code. Section 10: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Requirements Service is contingent upon compliance with the District’s rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. Oil and Grease interceptors (NOT traps) are required for all food processing establishments. Locations of food processing shall be identified prior to building permit. Hotel Jerome 330 E. Main Street Resolution No.__, Series 2014 Page 4 of 9 P61 IV.A. Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance establishments. • Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells. • Elevator shafts drains must flow thru o/s interceptor Old service line connections must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements will be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Subject to the provisions of the final plat, permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned capacity of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. The District would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the material cost difference for larger line). The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. The applicant’s engineer must furnish average and peak flows as well as service size for both buildings prior to final design. The applicant will need to provide plans showing that the pool drain sizes conform to district regulations. Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines and within 3 feet vertically below an ACSD main sewer line. The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and requirements once detailed building and utility plans are available. Hotel Jerome 330 E. Main Street Resolution No.__, Series 2014 Page 5 of 9 P62 IV.A. Section 11: Environmental Health Department The Applicants shall obtain Special Review approval from the Environmental Health Department in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 12.10 in order to eliminate the trash/recycle area required for the new construction, prior to issuance of building permit. Section 12: Transportation Department The Applicants shall update the Transportation Impact Analysis report for approval by the Transportation Department and Engineering Department prior to City Council review. Staff requests that the applicant consider new/enhanced TDM measures for this project. Section 13: Water/Utilities Department The Applicants shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. All Water System Distribution standards in place at the time of building permit shall apply, and all tap fees will be assess per applicable codes and standards. Utility placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards. Section 14: Outdoor Lighting and Signage All outdoor lighting and all signage shall meet the requirements of the Aspen Municipal Code. Section 15: Building Department All applicable building and accessibility codes in place at the time of building permit shall be met. Section 16: 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 17: 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. Section 18: 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. Hotel Jerome 330 E. Main Street Resolution No.__, Series 2014 Page 6 of 9 P63 IV.A. FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 10th day of December, 2014. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: __________________________ ______________________________ Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Willis Pember, Acting Chair Attest: _______________________________ Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk Attachments: Exhibit I: Legal Descriptions Exhibit II: Approved Dimensional Requirements Hotel Jerome 330 E. Main Street Resolution No.__, Series 2014 Page 7 of 9 P64 IV.A. Exhibit I 310 E. Main Street – All of Lot M, the west ten (10) feet of Lot N, and the east one-half of Lot L, the said east one-half of Lot L being more particularly described as follows: that portion of Lot L lying easterly of a line drawn parallel with the side lines of Lot L and equidistant therefrom and extending to the end lines of said lot; all of said property being in Block 79, City and Townsite of Aspen. 330 E. Main Street – A parcel of land situated in the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, being all of Lots A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, O, P, Q, R, S, and the East 20.00 feet of Lot N, all in Block 79, together with the East 170.00 feet of the Alley in said Block 79, Vacated by Ordinance No. 1 (Series of 1951) of the City of Aspen, Colorado, according to the Hotel Jerome Lot Line Adjustment and Subdivision Exemption plat filed June 12, 1991 at Reception No. 331521, in Plat Book 26 at Page 52. Hotel Jerome 330 E. Main Street Resolution No.__, Series 2014 Page 8 of 9 P65 IV.A. Exhibit II – Approved Dimensional Requirements Dimensions Proposed Minimum lot size 54,355 sf Maximum height Aspen Times – 16’ (21.5’ false front) New lodge structure – 31.5’ Jerome – 54.5’ Minimum floor-to-floor height Aspen Times – 11.5’ first floor New lodge structure – 8.5’ first floor Jerome – 8.5’ on 4th floor addition Maximum unit size 1,945 & 1,970 sf for 2 3-bedroom lock-off units All other units – underlying zoning Cumulative FAR 2.73:1 or 134,580 sf Commercial FAR 0.38:1 or 18,829 sf Lodge FAR 2.35:1 or 115,751 sf Average lodge unit size 619 sf Commercial net leasable 15,508 sf Lodge net livable 66,282 sf Lodge units/keys/bedrooms 103/107/109 Public Amenity 9,980 sf (20.2%) Minimum off-street parking spaces 47 Hotel Jerome 330 E. Main Street Resolution No.__, Series 2014 Page 9 of 9 P66 IV.A. EXHIBIT A PD PROJECT REVIEW 26.445.050. Project Review Standards. The Project Review shall focus on the general concept for the development and shall outline any dimensional requirements that vary from those allowed in the underlying zone district. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. The underlying zone district designation shall be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the dimensions which may be considered during the development review process. Any dimensional variations allowed shall be specified in the ordinance granting Project Approval. In the review of a development application for a Project Review, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, and City Council shall consider the following: A. Compliance with Adopted Regulatory Plans. The proposed development complies with applicable adopted regulatory plans. Staff Findings: The property is not subject to any regulatory plans. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. B. Development Suitability. The proposed Planned Development prohibits development on land unsuitable for development because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the property, including flooding, mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep, rock falls, rock slides, mining activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snowslide areas, slopes in excess of 30%, and any other natural or man-made hazard or condition that could harm the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Affected areas may be accepted as suitable for development if adequate mitigation techniques acceptable to the City Engineer are proposed in compliance with Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards. Conceptual plans for mitigation techniques may be accepted for this standard. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Findings: According to the engineering report provided as part of the application, there are no known hazards that would cause the land to be unsuitable for development. There are no slopes in excess of 30%. Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Site Planning. The site plan is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: 1. The site plan responds to the site’s natural characteristics and physical constraints such as steep slopes, vegetation, waterways, and any natural or man-made hazards and allows development to blend in with or enhance said features. Staff Findings: The proposed development does not alter significantly the site natural characteristics. The only vegetation that will be affected is located in the courtyard. Trees will either be relocated or mitigated if removed. The proposed site plan will enhance the natural characteristics by simplifying the grades of the courtyard. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Exhibit A – PD Project Review Page 1 of 7 P67 IV.A. 2. The project preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation, and structures or features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological importance or contribute to the identity of the town. Staff Findings: The proposal includes restoring the former Aspen Times building to its original form and retaining the character of the front courtyard, while improving the rear portion with better visibility and access. The majority of the hotel exterior will remain untouched with the exception of the 4th floor addition and courtyard entrances. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. Buildings are oriented to public streets and are sited to reflect the neighborhood context. Buildings and access ways are arranged to allow effective emergency, maintenance, and service vehicle access. Staff Findings: Both buildings are oriented with main entrances on Main Street. The proposed development reduces the amount of alley access for emergency, maintenance and service vehicles. However, referral agencies have not indicated this as a concern as there is still adequate access. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. Dimensions. All dimensions, including density, mass, and height shall be established during the Project Review. The proposed dimensions are listed below: Dimensions Existing Allowed/Required Proposed Minimum lot size AT – 5,500 Jerome – 47,735 n/a Total – 54,355 (includes additional vacated alley) Maximum height AT – 16’ (21.5’ false front) Jerome – 54.5’ 38’, up to 40’ through Commercial Design Review AT – 16’ (21.5’ false front) New lodge structure – 31.5’ Jerome – 54.5’ Minimum floor-to- floor height 13’ first floor 9’ upper floors AT – 11.5’ first floor New lodge structure - 8.5’ first floor Jerome – 8.5’ on 4th floor addition Maximum unit size 1,500 sf 1,970 sf (2 new units over 1,500 sf) Cumulative FAR 120,537 sf 2.75:1 or 135,586 sf 2.73:1 or 134,580 sf Commercial FAR 23,954 sf 2:1 or 98,608 sf 0.38:1 or 18,829 sf Exhibit A – PD Project Review Page 2 of 7 P68 IV.A. Lodge FAR 96,583 sf 0.5:1 or 24,652 sf; 2.5:1 if <500 sf net livable/key or 123,260 sf 2.35:1 or 115,751 sf Average lodge unit size 569 sf <500 sf/key for 2.5:1 lodge FAR 619 sf Commercial net leasable 20,272 sf n/a 15,508 sf Lodge net livable 52,925 sf n/a 66,282 sf Lodge units/keys/bedrooms 93/93/93 n/a 103/107/109 Public Amenity 8,351 sf (16.8%) 16.8% retained 9,980 sf (20.2%) Minimum off-street parking spaces 47 15 47 A development application may request variations to any dimensional requirement of this Title. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to the following criteria: 1. There exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such variations. Staff Findings: The community will gain additional bed base and flexible unit configurations that are a highly desired rental type, according to local booking agents as outlined in the recent “Aspen’s Lodging Sector: Lodging Demand & Lodging Economics” report. The development will help ensure the longevity of the Hotel Jerome as a culturally significant and competitive operation in the future. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed dimensions represent a character suitable for and indicative of the primary uses of the project. Staff Findings: See response to criterion 3 below. 3. The project is compatible with or enhances the cohesiveness or distinctive identity of the neighborhood and surrounding development patterns, including the scale and massing of nearby historical or cultural resources Staff Findings: The only dimensional variations requested are for maximum lodge unit size, average net livable per lodge unit, maximum height, and minimum floor-to-floor height. Maximum Lodge Unit Size: The maximum lodge unit size of 1,500 sf would be exceeded by 2 of the proposed new units (1,945 sf and 1,970 sf). These units are flexible lock-off 3-bedroom Exhibit A – PD Project Review Page 3 of 7 P69 IV.A. suites, which allow for each lock-off to be rented as a separate unit. Lock-off unit types are in high demand, as they enhance the hotel’s ability to provide appropriately sized accommodations for larger families and guests travelling as a group. Staff is supportive the requested maximum unit size variation. Average Unit Size: The average unit size proposed is 619 sf, while the existing is 569 sf. In order to obtain a FAR of 2.5:1 for lodge uses in the CC zone district, a maximum of 500 sf per unit is allowed. The increase in unit size is mainly accounted to the new 3-bedroom lock-off suites. For the purposes of the average unit size calculation, the greatest combination of lock-off units must be used, even though the lock-off rooms may be rented as separate lodge units. Staff is supportive of the maximum average unit size variation to obtain the 2.5:1 FAR as it is mainly attributed to lock-off units and allows for a desirable unit type to be incorporated into a historically significant hotel. Maximum Height: The maximum height allowed is 40’ through Commercial Design Review. The existing 4th floor on the hotel measures 54.5’ at its highest point. The proposed 4th floor addition will maintain that roofline, averaging between 50’-54’ along Bleeker Street. The proposed addition is set back from the north side by 4’, the west side by 12’, and the south side by 7.5’ in order to reduce the impacts of the increased height. The Hotel Jerome is much taller than the surrounding development, particularly the residential development to the north and west. However, the Hotel Jerome is an important and iconic building that has traditionally been one of the largest and tallest buildings in town. Typically, the tallest buildings in Aspen have been the iconic historic buildings, and more recently lodges. The Hotel Jerome is both of these. The proposed 4th floor addition enables the Hotel to provide lock-off units, something that is in high demand 1. It is an addition that would ensure continued success of the hotel operations in a competitive market, and help ensure the longevity of the Hotel Jerome as a culturally significant and competitive operation in the future. Staff believes that the proposed increase in height does not pose a significant impact on the community as a whole and is generally compatible with the surrounding development patterns, including the existing portions of the hotel. Staff is supportive of the requested height variation as it does not increase overall height of the hotel and respects the surrounding development by stepping back the mass from the existing building height. Floor-to-floor Height: The minimum floor-to-floor height for the first floor is 13’ from first floor to second floor, and for upper stories is 9’ from floor to ceiling. The redeveloped former Aspen Times building is proposed at 11.5’ for the first floor along the street and 8.5’ for the lodge use in the rear. The purpose of these minimum heights is to maintain a traditionally tall public commercial first floor and appropriately scaled upper floors. Requiring the 13’ height for the former Aspen Times building would compromise the historic integrity of the building and should not be required. The new construction is set back from the street and does not require the same tall first floor effect that the minimum height was intended for. Additionally, a shorter first floor on the new construction reduces the overall height within the courtyard, and should be encouraged. The proposed 4th floor addition should be as low as possible while still remaining functional and compliant with building code. Staff is supportive of the floor-to-floor height 1This was identified by local booking agents as the unit type most in demand, as highlighted in the “Aspen’s Lodging Sector: Lodging Demand & Lodging Economics” report completed by the City in June 2013. Exhibit A – PD Project Review Page 4 of 7 P70 IV.A. variation request to reduce overall development height and preserve the integrity of historic development. 4. The number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the probable number of cars to be operated by those using the proposed development and the nature of the proposed uses. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development, and the potential for joint use of common parking may be considered when establishing a parking requirement Staff Findings: The hotel currently provides 47 spaces in the garage, as required by the PUD Agreement. A lodge use located in the CC zone district is not required to provide any parking spaces. The former Aspen Times building does not provide any off-street parking spaces. The project is allowed to maintain an existing deficit of parking, provided there is no increase in net leasable (the proposal decreases net leasable). The close proximity to public transportation and shuttle services further reduce the need for additional parking. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. The Project Review approval, at City Council’s discretion, may include specific allowances for dimensional flexibility between Project Review and Detailed Review. Changes shall be subject to the amendment procedures of Section 26.445.110 – Amendments. Staff Findings: The applicant has not requested any flexibility for dimensional requirements between Project Review and Detailed Review at this time. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. E. Design Standards. The design of the proposed development is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: 1. The design complies with applicable design standards, including those outlined in Chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards, Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Standards, and Chapter 26.415, Historic Preservation. Staff Findings: The proposed project is subject to the Commercial Design Standards and Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. These are addressed in Exhibit D. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed materials are compatible with those called for in any applicable design standards, as well as those typically seen in the immediate vicinity. Exterior materials are finalized during Detailed Review, but review boards may set forth certain expectations or conditions related to architectural character and exterior materials during Project Review. Staff Findings: The proposed 4th floor will be brick and sandstone to match the existing hotel, and the redeveloped building will be wood siding to match the former Aspen Times building and create a contrast between the existing hotel and new development. Exhibit A – PD Project Review Page 5 of 7 P71 IV.A. F. Pedestrian, bicycle & transit facilities. The development improves pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. These facilities and improvements shall be prioritized over vehicular facilities and improvements. Any vehicular access points, or curb cuts, minimize impacts on existing or proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The City may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Findings: The applicant has been working with Staff and the Engineering Department to improve the vehicular pull through in front of the hotel entrance. This will reduce the amount of sidewalk located in front, but will dramatically improve safety and flow of traffic at this busy corner. The applicant has also agreed to improve pedestrian facilities near the alley entrance and hotel garage entrance, per Engineering Department request. No other pedestrian, bicycle or transit facilities are affected by the proposal. Staff finds that the provided improvements are important and necessary, and that this criterion is met. G. Engineering Design Standards. There has been accurate identification of engineering design and mitigation techniques necessary for development of the project to comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Findings: The applicant has represented that the requirements of Title 29 and the URMP will be met. Engineering has not identified any specific designs, mitigation techniques or implementation timelines at this time. Staff finds this criterion to be met. H. Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed Planned Development shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at the sole costs of the developer. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Findings: The proposal includes several upgrades to infrastructure and facilities that will be necessary to serve the redeveloped former Aspen Times building. These include a new water service line, new sanitary sewer service line and natural gas service from the alley. The existing gas lines within the courtyard will be relocated to accommodate the courtyard improvements. The two existing electric transformers in the alley will be replaced and relocated west within the proposed alley vacation. The applicant understands they are responsible for all costs. Staff finds this criterion to be met. I. Access and Circulation. The proposed development shall have perpetual unobstructed legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed Planned Development shall not eliminate or obstruct legal access from a public way to an adjacent property. All streets in a Planned Development retained under private ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure adequate public and emergency access. Security/privacy gates across access points and driveways are prohibited. Exhibit A – PD Project Review Page 6 of 7 P72 IV.A. Staff Findings: The proposed development does not have any negative effects on existing access to a public way for any of the properties. The vacation of an additional 56’ of alley does not affect access to Carl’s or the redeveloped former Aspen Times building. Pedestrian access remains off Main Street for both structures, while vehicular access is from Bleeker Street for the garage and the remaining portion of alley for the redevelopment. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Exhibit A – PD Project Review Page 7 of 7 P73 IV.A. EXHIBIT B SUBDIVISION 26.480.040. General subdivision review standards. All subdivisions shall be required to conform to the following general standards and limitations in addition to the specific standards applicable to each type of subdivision: A. Guaranteed Access to a Public Way. All subdivided lots must have perpetual unobstructed legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed subdivision shall not eliminate or obstruct legal vehicular access from a public way to an adjacent property. All streets in a Subdivision retained under private ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure adequate public and emergency access. Security/privacy gates across access points and driveways are prohibited. Staff Findings: The combined lots will still retain access to public ways and will not restrict access to adjacent lots. A portion of the alley providing access to Carl’s Pharmacy will still remain. No private streets or gates are proposed. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Alignment with Original Townsite Plat. The proposed lot lines shall approximate, to the extent practical, the platting of the Original Aspen Townsite, and additions thereto, as applicable to the subject land. Minor deviations from the original platting lines to accommodate significant features of the site may be approved. Staff Findings: The proposal is for combination of two lots and vacation of a portion of alley that are already aligned with the Townsite. Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Zoning Conformance. All new lots shall conform to the requirements of the zone district in which the property is situated, including variations and variances approved pursuant to this Title. A single lot shall not be located in more than one zone district unless unique circumstances dictate. A rezoning application may be considered concurrently with subdivision review. Staff Findings: The newly created lot will be located within the Commercial Core zone district which has no lot size requirements. Additionally, it will be part of a Planned Development, in which a site specific approval defines dimensional requirements. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. Existing Structures, Uses, and Non-Conformities. A subdivision shall not create or increase the non-conformity of a use, structure or parcel. A rezoning application or other mechanism to correct the non-conforming nature of a use, structure, or parcel may be considered concurrently. In the case where an existing structure or use occupies a site eligible for subdivision, the structure need not be demolished and the use need not be discontinued prior to application for subdivision. If approval of a subdivision creates a non-conforming structure or use, including a structure spanning a parcel boundary, such structure or use may continue until recordation of the Exhibit B –Subdivision Page 1 of 5 P74 IV.A. subdivision plat. Alternatively, the City may accept certain assurance that the non-conformities will be remedied after recordation of the subdivision plat. Such assurances shall be reflected in a development agreement or other legal mechanism acceptable to the City Attorney and may be time-bound or secured with a financial surety. Staff Findings: No nonconforming uses, structures, or parcels will be created as part of this subdivision. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 26.480.070.A. Land Subdivision. The division or aggregation of land for the purpose of creating individual lots or parcels shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied according to the following standards: 1. The proposed subdivision complies with the requirements of Section 26.480.040 – General Subdivision Review Standards. Staff Findings: See responses to A-D above. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed subdivision enables an efficient pattern of development that optimizes the use of the limited amount of land available for development. Staff Findings: The former Aspen Times property will be developed with the restored historic structure as a commercial space and a separate detached structure containing additional lodge rooms for the Hotel Jerome as part of the same operation. The combination of these lots will be beneficial to the continued development of the hotel in the future by simplifying the legal boundaries and ownership. Vacation of additional alleyway allows for a better configuration of the courtyard space and expansion of the hotel. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed subdivision preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation, and structures or features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological importance or contribute to the identity of the town. Staff Findings: The applicant proposes relocation of several trees, and removal of others to accommodate the new development and courtyard redevelopment. Approximately 4 street trees will be removed to accommodate the reconfigured drop-off area. The non-historic additions on the former Aspen Times building will be removed to restore the structure to its original design. The additional alley vacation allows the new development to be separated from the historic structure. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The proposed subdivision prohibits development on land unsuitable for development because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the property, including flooding, mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep, rock falls, rock slides, mining activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snowslide areas, slopes in excess of 30%, and any other natural or man-made hazard or condition that could harm the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Affected areas may be accepted as suitable for development if adequate mitigation techniques acceptable to the City Engineer are proposed in compliance with Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards. Conceptual plans for mitigation techniques may be accepted with specific design details Exhibit B –Subdivision Page 2 of 5 P75 IV.A. and timing of implementation addressed through a Development Agreement pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval Documents. Staff Findings: The engineering report provided in the application indicates that there are no natural hazards affecting this property. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. There has been accurate identification of engineering design and mitigation techniques necessary for development of the proposed subdivision to comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Findings: The applicant has represented that the requirements of Title 29 and the URMP will be met. Engineering has not identified any specific designs, mitigation techniques or implementation timelines at this time. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. The proposed subdivision shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the subdivision. Improvements shall be at the sole cost of the developer. Staff Findings: The proposal includes several upgrades to infrastructure and facilities that will be necessary to serve the redeveloped former Aspen Times building. These include a new water service line, new sanitary sewer service line and natural gas service from the alley. The existing gas lines within the courtyard will be relocated to accommodate the courtyard improvements. The two existing electric transformers in the alley will be replaced and relocated west within the proposed alley vacation. The applicant understands they are responsible for all costs. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7. The proposed subdivision is exempt from or has been granted all growth management approvals pursuant to Chapter 26.470 – Growth Management Quota System, including compliance with all affordable housing requirements for new and replacement development as applicable. Staff Findings: Growth management is being reviewed concurrent with Subdivision Review. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 8. The proposed subdivision meets the School Land Dedication requirements of Chapter 26.620 and any land proposed for dedication meets the criteria for land acceptance pursuant to said Chapter. Staff Findings: The proposed development does not include any residential development and is therefore has no School Lands Dedication requirement. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 9. A Subdivision Plat shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval Documents. Staff Findings: The applicant represents that they will meet this requirement. It is included as a condition of approval in the draft Resolution. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Exhibit B –Subdivision Page 3 of 5 P76 IV.A. 10. A Development Agreement shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval Documents. Staff Findings: The applicant represents that they will meet this requirement. It is included as a condition of approval in the draft Resolution. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 26.480.070.B. Vehicular Rights-of-Way. The dedication, boundary alteration, realignment, or any partial or whole vacation of a Street, Alley, or other vehicular right-of-way serving more than one parcel, shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied according to the following standards: 1. The proposed change maintains or improves the public health, safety, and welfare of the community and is in the best interests of the City of Aspen. Staff Findings: The proposed vacation will not have an adverse impact on the community. It will enhance the existing courtyard by allowing better configuration and separation of the new development from the historic former Aspen Times building. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed change to the public rights-of-way maintains or improves safe physical and legal access from a public way to all adjacent properties and shall not restrict the ability for a property to develop by eliminating or hindering access. Redundant access, such as a primary street access plus alley access, is preferred. Staff Findings: The proposed vacation will maintain access to all adjacent properties and does not have an adverse effect. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The design of the proposed change complies with Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards and is consistent with applicable adopted policies, plans, and approved projects for the area (such as a highway access policy, an approved development project, an infrastructure plan, a trails plan, an improvement district plan, and the like). Staff Findings: The applicant is working with the Engineering Department to provide several improvements to the sidewalks and pedestrian areas, and to be consistent with the approved Mill Street Complete Street Project. A sidewalk improvement plan should be required prior to City Council review. Staff finds this criterion to be met with conditions. 4. The proposed change maintains or improves normal traffic circulation, traffic control capabilities, access by emergency and service vehicles, pedestrian and bike connections, drainage infrastructure, street and infrastructure maintenance needs, and normal operating needs of the City including snow removal. Staff Findings: The proposed vacation will not affect traffic circulation or pedestrian and bike connections as it was already partially vacated and not a through access. Emergency, maintenance and service vehicles will have reduced access, but referral agencies have not indicated this to be a concern. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. For all new rights-of-way and physical changes to existing rights-of-way, the applicant shall design and construct the proposed right-of-way improvements according to the design and construction standards of the City Engineer. Upon completion, the right-of- Exhibit B –Subdivision Page 4 of 5 P77 IV.A. way improvements shall be subject to inspection and acceptance by the City Engineer. The City may require a performance warranty. The requirements of this criterion shall be reflected in a Development Agreement. Staff Findings: This application does not propose any new rights-of-way. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 6. For partial or full vacation of existing rights-of-way, the applicant shall demonstrate the right-of-way, or portion thereof, has no current or future use to the community as a vehicular way, pedestrian or bike way, utility corridor, drainage corridor, or recreational connection due to dimensions, location, topography, existing or proposed development, or other similar circumstances. The City shall consider whether the interests of the applicant and the City can be achieved through a “closure” of the right-of-way. Staff Findings: The applicant has represented that the right-of-way does not have current or future use to the community, as it currently dead ends in the existing hotel structure and courtyard. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7. A Right-of-Way Dedication/Vacation Plat shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval Documents. The plat shall demonstrate how the lands underlying vacated rights-of-way shall accrue to adjacent parcels in compliance with State Statute. Staff Findings: The applicant represents that they will meet this requirement. It is included as a condition of approval in the draft Resolution. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 8. A Development Agreement shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval Documents. This requirement may be waived if no right-of-way construction is proposed. Staff Findings: The applicant represents that they will meet this requirement. It is included as a condition of approval in the draft Resolution. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Exhibit B –Subdivision Page 5 of 5 P78 IV.A. EXHIBIT C GROWTH MANAGEMENT 26.470.050. General requirements. A. Purpose: The intent of growth management is to provide for orderly development and redevelopment of the City while providing mitigation from the impacts said development and redevelopment creates. Different types of development are categorized below, as well as the necessary review process and review standards for the proposed development. A proposal may fall into multiple categories and therefore have multiple processes and standards to adhere to and meet. B. General requirements: All development applications for growth management review shall comply with the following standards. The reviewing body shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for growth management review based on the following generally applicable criteria and the review criteria applicable to the specific type of development: 1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Applications for multi-year development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to meet this standard. Staff Finding: The applicant request 30 new lodge pillow allotments. Staff finds that there are available allotments in the 2014 growth year. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed development is compatible with land uses in the surrounding area, as well as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan. Staff Finding: The proposed development is compatible with the surround uses which include lodge and commercial. There are no applicable regulatory master plans. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district. Staff Finding: The development is requesting a Planned Development site specific approval, which defines dimensional requirements. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the Planned Development – Project Review approval, as applicable. Staff Finding: Pursuant to the Land Use Code, Staff is processing the Conceptual Design approval and Project Review approval concurrent with the Growth Management review. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60%) of the employees generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection 26.470.100.A, Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant Exhibit C – Growth Management Page 1 of 2 P79 IV.A. to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate. Staff Finding: The existing development has an existing credit of 147.13 FTEs, and the proposed development generates 135.51 FTEs, creating a net decrease of 11.61 FTEs. The proposed development is therefore not required to provide any affordable housing mitigation. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty percent (30%) of the additional free-market residential net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may be deed-restricted at any level of affordability, including residential occupied. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.100 Employee/Square Footage Conversion. Staff Finding: No free-market residential is proposed. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking and road and transit services. Staff Finding: The applicant represents the capability to accommodate all impacts to public infrastructure. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Exhibit C – Growth Management Page 2 of 2 P80 IV.A. EXHIBIT D COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 26.412.050. Review Criteria. An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the standards. Staff Findings: See discussion for Section 26.412.060 below. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the façade of the building may be required to comply with this Section. Staff Finding: n/a. C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means. Staff Finding: Overall Staff is supportive of the proposed conceptual design and finds that it meets the applicable Guidelines. The former Aspen Times building will be preserved in its location and separated from the new construction, satisfying Guidelines 6.1, 6.18, 6.20, 6.21 and 6.22. Guideline 6.21 recommends not facing a primary entrance on an interior court. The new lodge structure entrance faces the courtyard. Staff finds this acceptable, given the secondary nature of the structure to the Hotel Jerome, and the lack of space and street frontage of the building to place the entrance facing Main Street. Guideline 6.23 recommends flat roof forms, which is proposed everywhere except the former Aspen Times building. It would be inappropriate to change the roof form of this historic building just to meet the guideline, and should remain as proposed. The new building provides adequate height variation from surrounding buildings and respects the historic structures by being set back, satisfying Guidelines 6.26 – 6.34. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 26.412.060. Commercial Design Standards. Exhibit D – Commercial Design Standards Page 1 of 8 P81 IV.A. The following design standards, in addition to the commercial, lodging and historic district design objectives and guidelines, shall apply to commercial, lodging and mixed-use development: A. Public Amenity Space. Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive, exciting and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights-of-way or private property within commercial areas. On parcels required to provide public amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Public amenity, the following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity. Acceptance of the method or combination of methods of providing the public amenity shall be at the option of the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, according to the procedures herein and according to the following standards: 1. The dimensions of any proposed on-site public amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of uses and activities to occur, considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants and uses. Staff Findings: The courtyard will remain its current use as public amenity space. This area has been used for dining, pool, lounging, and many other activities. The proposed renovation of the courtyard will retain all of the existing uses while improving the access and visibility while expanding the size slightly due to the partial vacation of alley. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The public amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade trees, solar access, view orientation and simple at-grade relationships with adjacent rights-of-way are encouraged. Staff Findings: The expanded courtyard will increase public and restaurant seating. Solar access will be slightly diminished due to the new lodge building. This loss is more than compensated for with the improved at-grade relationships and better access and circulation. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures, rights-of-way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment. Staff Findings: The improvements proposed for the courtyard will create a more inviting pedestrian environment by increasing visual and physical access for the general public and create better circulation between buildings and throughout the space. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls, sidewalks or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian environment. Exhibit D – Commercial Design Standards Page 2 of 8 P82 IV.A. Staff Findings: The courtyard is an existing public amenity space that is unique in nature and function. It provides a pedestrian area along Main Street in an otherwise developed urban area. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Any variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity, Subsection 26.575.030.F., promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements. Staff Findings: No variations are requested. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. B. Utility, delivery and trash service provision. When the necessary logistical elements of a commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success of the district. Poor logistics of one (1) building can detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The following standards shall apply: 1. A trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum size and location standards established by Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, unless otherwise established according to said Chapter. Staff Findings: The applicant is requesting Special Review approval from Environmental Health in order to combine the Aspen Times building trash/recycle area as part of the Hotel Jerome operations. Environmental Health has provided initial comment that approval will be granted administratively based on the provided design. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. A utility area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum standards established by Title 25, Utilities, of the Municipal Code, the City’s Electric Distribution Standards, and the National Electric Code, unless otherwise established according to said Codes. Staff Findings: The existing electric transformers in the alley will be replaced and relocated to comply with applicable standards. The applicant has represented that an appropriately sized electric panel will be located on the rear wall of the new building. Utilities Department has not expressed any concerns with the proposal at this time. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located and combined to the greatest extent practical. Staff Findings: The applicant has proposed to combine the Aspen Times trash/recycle with the existing Hotel Jerome operations. New utility services will be located in the alley area when necessary. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. If the property adjoins an alleyway, the utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be along and accessed from the alleyway, unless otherwise approved through Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. Staff Findings: The utility area for new construction will be located along the alley. Trash/recycle will be located within the existing garage, where the Hotel operations currently exist, if Special Review approval is granted by Environmental Health. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Exhibit D – Commercial Design Standards Page 3 of 8 P83 IV.A. 5. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be fenced so as not to be visible from the street, unless they are entirely located on an alleyway or otherwise approved though Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. All fences shall be six (6) feet high from grade, shall be of sound construction, and shall be no less than ninety percent (90%) opaque, unless otherwise varied through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. Staff Findings: The proposed utility improvements will be located off the alley. If Special Review approval is granted, the trash/recycle area will be completely hidden from view within the existing Hotel garage. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. Whenever utility, trash, and recycle service areas are required to be provided abutting an alley, other portions of a building may extend to the rear property line if otherwise allowed by this Title, provided that the utility, trash and recycle area is located at grade and accessible to the alley. Staff Findings: The utility area will be located at grade and accessible to the alley. If Special Review approval is granted, there will be no additional trash/recycle area. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property. Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall be minimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site conditions, such as an historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed. Staff Findings: The proposed utility service pedestals will be located in the alley proposed for vacation. The applicant has represented that easements will be provided on the final plat if required. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 8. All commercial and lodging buildings shall provide a delivery area. The delivery area shall be located along the alley if an alley adjoins the property. The delivery area shall be accessible to all tenant spaces of the building in a manner that meets the requirements of the International Building Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. All non-ground floor commercial spaces shall have access to an elevator or dumbwaiter for delivery access. Alleyways (vehicular rights-of-way) may not be utilized as pathways (pedestrian rights-of-way) to meet the requirements of the International Building Code. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged. Staff Findings: The applicant has represented that all deliveries will occur via the existing Hotel delivery location along Bleeker Street in front of the garage. The new construction does not contain any unique delivery features, and will be under the same operational needs as the Hotel. The redeveloped former Aspen Times building does not have a defined delivery area at this time. This should be identified prior to final approval. Staff finds this criterion to be met with conditions. 9. All commercial tenant spaces located on the ground floor in excess of 1,500 square feet shall contain a vestibule (double set of doors) developed internal to the structure to meet Exhibit D – Commercial Design Standards Page 4 of 8 P84 IV.A. the requirements of the International Energy Conservation Code as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen, or an air curtain. Staff Findings: The former Aspen Times building is the only proposed ground floor commercial space, and the area is less than 1,500 square feet. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 10. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical. Staff Findings: The applicant has represented that all required mechanical exhausts will be vented through the roofs and located toward the centers. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 11. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a public right-of-way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for future ventilation and ducting needs. Staff Findings: The applicant has represented that all mechanical equipment located on the roof shall be screened to the extent required to reduce visibility from the public rights-of-way. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 12. The trash and recycling service area requirements may be varied pursuant to Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code. All other requirements of this subsection may be varied by special review (see Chapter 26.430.040.E, Utility and delivery service area provisions). Staff Findings: The applicant has requested Special Review approval from the Environmental Health Department to vary the trash/recycle requirements of Title 12. Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Guidelines List Street Grid 6.1 Maintain the established town grid in all projects.  The network of streets and alleys should be retained as public circulation space and for maximum public access.  Streets and alleys should not be enclosed or closed to public access, and should remain open to the sky. Internal Walkways 6.2 Public walkways and through courts, when appropriate, should be designed to create access to additional commercial space and frontage, within the walkway and/or to the rear of the site. • See also: Public Amenity Space design guidelines. Alleys 6.3 Develop an alley façade to create visual interest.  Use varied building setbacks and changes in materials to create interest and reduce perceived scale.  Balconies, court yards and decks are also appropriate.  Providing secondary public entrances is strongly encouraged along alleys. These should be clearly intended for public use, but subordinate in detail to the primary street-side entrance. Exhibit D – Commercial Design Standards Page 5 of 8 P85 IV.A. Street Facing Amenity Space 6.6 A street facing amenity space shall meet all of the following requirements:  Abut the public sidewalk  Be level with the sidewalk  Be open to the sky  Be directly accessible to the public  Be paved or otherwise landscaped 6.7 A street-facing public amenity space shall remain subordinate to the line of building fronts in the Commercial Core.  Any public amenity space positioned at the street edge shall respect the character of the streetscape and ensure that street corners are well defined, with buildings placed at the sidewalk edge.  Sunken spaces, which are associated with some past developments, adversely affect the street character. Where feasible, these should be replaced with sidewalk level improvements. 6.8 Street facing amenity space shall contain features to promote and enhance its use. These may include one or more of the following:  Street furniture  Public art  Historical/interpretive marker Front Yard Amenity Space 6.17 Front and side yard amenity space should be considered in the context of a historic one story residential type building. Building Setbacks 6.18 Maintain the alignment of façades at the sidewalk’s edge.  Place as much of the façade of the building at the property line as possible.  Locating an entire building front behind the established storefront line is inappropriate.  A minimum of 70% of the front façade shall be at the property line. 6.19 A building may be set back from its side lot lines in accordance with design guidelines identified in Street & Circulation Pattern and Public Amenity Space guidelines. Building Orientation 6.20 Orient a new building to be parallel to its lot lines, similar to that of traditional building orientations.  The front of a primary structure shall be oriented to the street. 6.21 Orient a primary entrance toward the street.  Buildings should have a clearly defined primary entrance. For most commercial buildings, this should be a recessed entry way.  Do not orient a primary entrance to an interior court.  Providing secondary public entrances to commercial spaces is also encouraged on larger buildings. Building Form 6.22 Rectangular forms should be dominant on Commercial Core façades.  Rectangular forms should be vertically oriented.  The façade should appear as predominantly flat, with any decorative elements and projecting or setback “articulations” appearing to be subordinate to the dominant form. 6.23 Use flat roof lines as the dominant roof form.  A flat roof, or one that gently slopes to the rear of a site, should be the dominant roof form.  Parapets on side façades should step down towards the rear of the building.  False fronts and parapets with horizontal emphasis also may be considered. Exhibit D – Commercial Design Standards Page 6 of 8 P86 IV.A. 6.24 Along a rear façade, using building forms that step down in scale toward the alley is encouraged.  Consider using additive forms, such as sheds, stairs and decks to reduce the perceived scale. These forms should however, remain subordinate to the primary structure.  Use projecting roofs at the ground floor over entrances, decks and for separate utility structures in order to establish a human scale that invites pedestrian activity  Building Height, Mass & Scale Two Story Scale 6.25 Maintain the average perceived scale of two-story buildings at the sidewalk.  Establish a two-story height at the sidewalk edge, or provide a horizontal design element at this level. A change in materials, or a molding at this level are examples. Height Variation 6.26 Building façade height shall be varied from the façade height of adjacent buildings of the same number of stories.  If an adjacent structure is three stories and 38 ft. tall, new infill may be three stories, but must vary in façade height by a minimum of 2 ft. 6.27 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of the Commercial Core.  Refer to the zone district regulations to determine the maximum height limit on the subject property.  A minimum 9 ft. floor to ceiling height is to be maintained on second stories and higher.  Additional height, as permitted in the zone district, may be added for one or more of the following reasons: - In order to achieve at least a two-foot variation in height with an adjacent building. - The primary function of the building is civic. (i.e. the building is a Museum, Civic Building, Performance Hall, Fire Station, etc.) - Some portion of the property is affected by a height restriction due to its proximity to a historic resource, or location within a View Plane, therefore relief in another area may be appropriate. - To benefit the livability of Affordable Housing units. - To make a demonstrable (to be verified by the Building Department) contribution to the building's overall energy efficiency, for instance by providing improved daylighting. 6.28 Height variation should be achieved using one or more of the following:  Vary the building height for the full depth of the site in accordance with traditional lot width.  Set back the upper floor to vary the building façade profile(s) and the roof forms across the width and the depth of the building.  Vary the façade (or parapet) heights at the front.  Step down the rear of the building towards the alley, in conjunction with other design standards and guidelines. Height Variation for Larger Sites 6.29 On sites comprising more than two traditional lot widths, the façade height shall be varied to reflect traditional lot width.  The façade height shall be varied to reflect traditional lot width.  Height should be varied every 60 ft. minimum and preferably every 30 ft. of linear frontage in keeping with traditional lot widths and development patterns.  No more than two consecutive 30 ft. façade modules may be three stories tall, within an individual building.  A rear portion of a third module may rise to three stories, if the front is set back a minimum of 40 feet from the street façade. (e.g. at a minimum, the front 40 feet may be no more than two stories in height.) Exhibit D – Commercial Design Standards Page 7 of 8 P87 IV.A. 6.30 On sites comprising two or more traditional lots, a building shall be designed to reflect the individual parcels. These methods shall be used:  Variation in height of building modules across the site  Variation in massing achieved through upper floor setbacks, the roofscape form and variation in upper floor heights  Variation in building façade heights or cornice line Height Adjacent to Historic Structures 6.31 A new building should step down in scale to respect the height, form and scale of a historic building within its immediate setting. 6.32 When adjacent to a one or two story historic building that was originally constructed for commercial use, a new building within the same block face should not exceed 28 in height within 30 ft. of the front façade.  In general, a proposed multi-story building must demonstrate that it has no negative impact on smaller, historic structures nearby.  The height and proportions of all façade components must appear to be in scale with nearby historic buildings. 6.33 New development adjacent to a single story historic building that was originally constructed for residential use shall not exceed 28 ft. in height within 30 ft. of the side property line adjacent to the historic structure, within the same block face. 6.34 The setting of iconic historic structures should be preserved and enhanced when feasible.  On sites comprising more than two traditional lot widths, the third floor of the adjacent lot width should be set back a minimum of 15 ft from the front facade.  Step a building down in height adjacent to an iconic structure.  Locate amenity space adjacent to an iconic structure. Exhibit D – Commercial Design Standards Page 8 of 8 P88 IV.A. EXHIBIT E DEMOLITION 26.415.080. Demolition of designated historic properties or properties within a historic district. It is the intent of this Chapter to preserve the historic and architectural resources that have demonstrated significance to the community. Consequently no demolition of properties designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures or properties within a Historic District will be allowed unless approved by the HPC in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section. 4. The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the property owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the standards for demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a) The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b) The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, c) The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen or d) No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a) The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic District in which it is located and b) The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c) Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. Exhibit E – Demolition Page 1 of 2 P89 IV.A. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the additions on the former Aspen Times building proposed for demolition do not have any historic significance and do not appear on the 1898 Sanborn map, as shown below. The proposed length of the building is shorter than what appears on the map, however Staff finds that enough of the original building length is being retained to preserve the integrity of the historic structure. The removal of the non-historic additions will enhance the restoration of the historically significant original structure. The additions can be removed without affecting the integrity of the property. Staff finds that criteria d, and a-c are met and recommends approval of demolition. Exhibit E – Demolition Page 2 of 2 P90 IV.A. EXHIBIT F DRC COMMENTS Transportation • The TIA guidelines require a narrative which I don’t see. This is needed in order to fully understand what the applicant is planning in regards to TDM and MMLOS measures. Staff requests that a complete TIA package including narrative be submitted. • The TDM measures indicated by the applicant are existing conditions at the Hotel Jerome (ie: already in place). The TIA is not meant to provide credit for existing measures but rather to encourage new/improved measures to ensure reduced trips. We are working to make this clearer in the written guidelines. Staff requests that the applicant to consider new/enhanced TDM measures for this project. I am happy to discuss this further and provide examples if helpful. • The TIA indicates a self-funded ERH program as one mitigation measure. This is a change from the existing condition of a City-funded ERH program at the site. Can the applicant confirm that this is the intention? This can be handled in the narrative. Water • Fire flow calculation need to be submitted and approved before designing any new services to either the hotel or the Aspen Times Building. • Provisions will need to be made to abandon any existing services before any new services are installed. • Three separate full sized hard copy plan needs to be submitted and approved for any new service. • All construction will comply with the 2014 Water Distribution System Standards. Electric • Three separate full sized hard copy plan needs to be submitted and approved for any new electric service work. • The transformers will need to be located so it can be demonstrated that full access will be provided for City equipment to maintain and repair all new and existing installations. • No other utilities can cross under an electric system transformer installation. • Plan must show specific location of all meters, service panels and shut-offs. • Transformer locations must be open to the sky and covered by adequate easement to allow access to all sides. ACSD • Service is contingent upon compliance with the District’s rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. • ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. Exhibit F – DRC Comments Page 1 of 7 P91 IV.A. • On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. • Oil and Grease interceptors (NOT traps) are required for all food processing establishments. Locations of food processing shall be identified prior to building permit. • Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance establishments. o Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells. o Elevator shafts drains must flow thru o/s interceptor • Old service line connections must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. • Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. • One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements will be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. • Subject to the provisions of the final plat, permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. • All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district. • Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. • Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned capacity of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. The District would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the material cost difference for larger line). • The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. • The applicant’s engineer must furnish average and peak flows as well as service size for both buildings prior to final design. • The applicant will need to provide plans showing that the pool drain sizes conform to district regulations. • Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines and within 3 feet vertically below an ACSD main sewer line. • The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and requirements once detailed building and utility plans are available. Exhibit F – DRC Comments Page 2 of 7 P92 IV.A. Zoning • Established dimensions may be set through PD approval. All other dimensions must meet underlying zoning of CC. • Must meet the requirements of Chapter 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting, or variations permitted through PD approval. • Must meet the requirements of Chapter 26.510, Signs, or variations permitted through PD approval. • Provide updated Floor Area calculations to reflect proper exemptions/inclusions. • Applicable impact fees shall be calculated at the time of building permit. • Mechanical on roof: screen and location of items which need to meet the exception to height for both structures Environmental Health • The applicant will be granted a Special Review to receive an exemption for the space requirements of Section 12.10.030 for Commercial Buildings. • Given the use of the lodge and the space confines of the alleyway, it would be introduce difficulties in servicing a trash and recycling area located in the alley behind the Aspen Times building. • The applicant is proposing to add a compost program to divert waste, so the current waste facilities located off Bleeker Street will be adequate to the needs of the expanded lodge. Fire • Fire sprinklers in accordance with NFPA 13 and alarms in accordance with NFPA 72 will be required throughout. • Adequate Fire Department access to building and Fire Department appurtenances shall be provided, including access from the alley and Main Street. • International Fire Code and Building Code - 2009 edition will apply. Building Hotel Jerome and courtyard • During the initial remodel, the hotel was re-classified as 3B construction type. • We need to confirm that the additional sq. ft. proposed is allowable based on this re- classification. • We need to document a clear exit discharge route(s) through the courtyard/pool and dining patio. • Clear discharge route to avoid going through “intervening” spaces (pool, dining patio with tables and chairs). • Pool needs to have an enclosure around the perimeter and thus not have the exit discharge route go through this space. • Currently there are 7 doors that discharge into the courtyard. Exhibit F – DRC Comments Page 3 of 7 P93 IV.A. • Prefer not to have exits discharge into the alley. Alley could be dark, icy, service trucks parked. Exit needs to go to a public right of way. • Evaluate the “open” stair to the basement/garage of the hotel. • Evaluate the number of ANSI units to determine the number of Type A or Type B units are required for clearances in both dwelling units and sleeping units. • Type A requires clearances throughout the unit including the entry door, roll in showers. • Type B requires clearances in only one bathroom and the entry door. • Based on the number of ANSI units required, need to evaluate the lock-offs as those can become a sleeping unit and/or part of a dwelling unit and what clearances are required here. • The (2) 3 bedrooms units with kitchens will be classified as dwelling units and not sleeping units. • Kitchen in the 3 bedroom units and doors will need required clearances. • Level four addition exiting appears to work. • Level 2 & 3 expanded suites – need to determine the ruling on including microwaves will be classified as cooking and turn it from sleeping units to dwelling units. Aspen Times • Commercial space to have a bathroom. • Confirm if commercial space needs a second means of egress based on use. • Need an accessible route to the rear alley as second means of egress. • Ok if one of the exit discharges (west) goes to the alley as long as the (2) other exit discharges for Aspen Times go to a public right of way. • The elevator can’t open to the exit enclosure of the north stair at level one. • Evaluate and propose solution to the south exit stairs to prevent the level 3 users to exit through level 2 if there is a fire at level 1 of the stairs (presuming the doors want to be locked to prevent entering from the stair well when no fire is present). Project in general • If both structures are combined on one property, we need to provide an “assumed property line” to meet the criteria for protected openings, fire rating. • Again, need to evaluate the allowable sq ft based on construction type to see if we are able to have 2 buildings on one lot. APCHA • Based on the application, the APCHA Board is recommending approval of the redevelopment of the Aspen Times and Hotel Jerome with the following conditions: o The additional mitigation requirement of .8 FTE is satisfied through the use of the Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit program. o Although the land use code states that the additional employee generation mitigation of .8 can be satisfied at a Category 4 rate, with the applicant having the Exhibit F – DRC Comments Page 4 of 7 P94 IV.A. right to choose to provide mitigation at a lower category designation, due to the nature of the business, the employees that are generated by the development are within the service industry – Category 1 and 2 income levels; therefore, the recommendation is that the mitigation is satisfied at no higher than Category 2. • Should the interpretation of the Community Development Department be approved by City Council, the redevelopment of the Aspen Times and Hotel Jerome does not require any additional employee housing mitigation. Parks • It looks like the applicant is well aware of their requirement to pay mitigation in the event that a new landscape plan doesn’t cover the cost of removal. • I will likely be ok with the necessary removals, but I want to make sure to pass along the fact that there will be mitigation associated with these removals. • Also, Silva Cells in the right of way will likely be required if any trees are removed for a new pullout along Main Street (City of Aspen Engineering Design Standards 5.4). Engineering These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the project packet submitted for purpose of the DRC meeting. • Transportation Impact Analysis: o A complete Transportation Impact Analysis (“TIA”) shall be submitted to the COA. The TIA submitted was incomplete. Staff requests that the applicant to consider new/enhanced TDM measures for this project. • Drainage: o The use of two subsurface stormwater BMPs to provide for the water quality capture volume (the “WQCV”) is acceptable, but the designs must comply with the Engineering Design Standards (the “EDS”) and the Urban Runoff Management Plan (the “URMP”). The report indicates that detention will be provided by the drywell and by paying a fee-in-lieu of detention. Recent changes to the URMP have removed the detention requirement from this basin. A drainage report and plan must be submitted at building permit that provides for the WQCV and for conveyance of the 100-yr event from the site to the City of Aspen Stormsewer system. Provide a full major drainage report that meets URMP and Engineering Design Standards. • Snow Storage: o A minimum functional area equaling 30% of the paved area shall be provided contiguous to the paved and designed to accommodate snow storage. For heated areas, the functional area can be reduced to 10%. • Sidewalk and Curb and Gutter: o All sidewalk, curb and gutter must meet the Engineering Standards as outlined in Title 21 and the Engineering Design Standards adopted by Title 29. No Exhibit F – DRC Comments Page 5 of 7 P95 IV.A. information was provided. Please provide a sidewalk improvement plan. Specific comments on a street by street basis follow:  Mill Street • Engineering design for the Mill Street Complete Street Project has been completed. The applicant shall make improvements along Mill Street between Main and Bleeker Streets as shown in the design and bear costs if the project proceeds before the City of Aspen Engineering Department completes the improvements. This includes items such as new sidewalk, silva cells and new curb and gutter.  Intersection of Mill Street and Main Street • The Mill Street Complete Street Project increases the width of the Mill St sidewalk. The Main St sidewalk shall be increased an equal amount and encroach into the Main St parking lane. The existing curb radius shall be maintained.  Main Street • Work with the Engineering Department to provide a loading area. • Remove parking from Main/Mill intersection to the loading area. • Move curb and gutter into the parking lane. • Replace curb and gutter. • Create ADA compliant sidewalk. • Create ADA compliant entrances to the Aspen Times building and the J-Bar. • Provide a minimum 8-ft sidewalk width and 5-ft wide planting strip or silva cell technology.  Alley crossing • Follow alley crossing standards in the EDS.  Monarch Street • Replace curb and gutter. • Detached sidewalk may remain to preserve trees. Sidewalk width shall be increased to 6-ft if possible.  Bleeker Street • Bump out intersection. • Attached sidewalk may remain to preserve trees. Sidewalk width shall be increased to 6-ft if possible. • Utilize alley crossing detail for sidewalk. • Curb and gutter is in good shape. Some replacement may be necessary. • Alley: o Follow Vacation process as described in the Land Use Code. o Identify utility pedestals serving the property. Relocate all utility pedestals to within the property boundary. o Locate any new electric transformer within the property boundary. • Construction Management Exhibit F – DRC Comments Page 6 of 7 P96 IV.A. o Engineering is concerned about the Construction Impacts of this site. Please submit a construction management plan prior to Council review. The plan must include a planned sequence of construction that minimizes construction impacts. The plan shall describe mitigation for parking, staging/encroachments, and truck traffic. • Excavation Stabilization o Since no major excavations are proposed an excavations stabilization plan is not required. • Survey Requirements o A survey requirement is to pothole and provide depth to utilities. Please comply with this requirement at building permit submittal. Exhibit F – DRC Comments Page 7 of 7 P97 IV.A. P98 IV.A. P99 IV.A. P100 IV.A. P101 IV.A. P102 IV.A. P103 IV.A. P104 IV.A. P105 IV.A. P106 IV.A. P107 IV.A. P108 IV.A. P109 IV.A. P 1 1 0 I V . A . P111 IV.A. P112 IV.A. P113 IV.A. P 1 1 4 I V . A . P115 IV.A. P116 IV.A. P 1 1 7 I V . A . P 1 1 8 I V . A . P 1 1 9 I V . A . P 1 2 0 I V . A . P 1 2 1 I V . A . P 1 2 2 I V . A . P123 IV.A. P124 IV.A. P 1 2 5 I V . A . P 1 2 6 I V . A . P 1 2 7 I V . A . P 1 2 8 I V . A . P 1 2 9 I V . A . P 1 3 0 I V . A . P 1 3 1 I V . A . P132 IV.A. P133 IV.A. P134 IV.A. P135 IV.A. P136 IV.A. P 1 3 7 I V . A . P138 IV.A. P139 IV.A. P 1 4 0 I V . A . P 1 4 1 I V . A . P142 IV.A. P143 IV.A. P144 IV.A. P145 IV.A. P146 IV.A. P147 IV.A. P148 IV.A. P149 IV.A. P150 IV.A. P151 IV.A. P152 IV.A. P153 IV.A. P154 IV.A. P155 IV.A. P156 IV.A. P157 IV.A. P158 IV.A. P159 IV.A. P160 IV.A. P161 IV.A. P162 IV.A. P163 IV.A. P164 IV.A. P165 IV.A. P166 IV.A. P167 IV.A. P168 IV.A. P169 IV.A. P170 IV.A. P171 IV.A. P172 IV.A. P173 IV.A. P174 IV.A. P175 IV.A. P176 IV.A. P177 IV.A. P178 IV.A. P179 IV.A. P180 IV.A. P181 IV.A. P182 IV.A. P183 IV.A. P184 IV.A. P185 IV.A. P186 IV.A. P187 IV.A. P188 IV.A. P189 IV.A. P190 IV.A. P191 IV.A. P192 IV.A. P193 IV.A. P194 IV.A. P195 IV.A. P196 IV.A. P197 IV.A. P198 IV.A. P199 IV.A. P200 IV.A. P201 IV.A. P202 IV.A. P203 IV.A. P204 IV.A. P205 IV.A. P206 IV.A. P207 IV.A. P208 IV.A. P209 IV.A. P210 IV.A. P211 IV.A. P212 IV.A. P213 IV.A. P214 IV.A. P215 IV.A. P216 IV.A. P217 IV.A. P218 IV.A. P219 IV.A. P220 IV.A. P221 IV.A. P222 IV.A. P223 IV.A. P224 IV.A. P225 IV.A. P226 IV.A. P227 IV.A. P228 IV.A. P229 IV.A. P230 IV.A. P231 IV.A. P232 IV.A. P233 IV.A. P234 IV.A. P235 IV.A. P236 IV.A. P237 IV.A. P238 IV.A. P239 IV.A. P240 IV.A. P241 IV.A. P242 IV.A. P243 IV.A. P244 IV.A. P245 IV.A. P246 IV.A. P247 IV.A. P248 IV.A. P249 IV.A. P250 IV.A. P251 IV.A. P252 IV.A. P253 IV.A. P254 IV.A. P255 IV.A. P256 IV.A. P257 IV.A. P258 IV.A. P259 IV.A. P260 IV.A. P261 IV.A. P262 IV.A. P263 IV.A. P264 IV.A. P265 IV.A. P266 IV.A. P267 IV.A. P268 IV.A. P269 IV.A. P270 IV.A. P271 IV.A. P272 IV.A. P273 IV.A. P274 IV.A. P275 IV.A. P276 IV.A. P277 IV.A. P278 IV.A. P279 IV.A. P280 IV.A. P281 IV.A. P282 IV.A. P 2 8 3 I V . A . P 2 8 4 I V . A . P 2 8 5 I V . A . P 2 8 6 I V . A . P287 IV.A. P288 IV.A. P289 IV.A. P290 IV.A. P291 IV.A. P292 IV.A. P293 IV.A. P294 IV.A. P295 IV.A. P296 IV.A. P297 IV.A. P298 IV.A. P299 IV.A. P300 IV.A. P301 IV.A. P302 IV.A. P303 IV.A. P 3 0 4 I V . A . P305 IV.A. P306 IV.A. P307 IV.A. P308 IV.A. P309 IV.A. P 3 1 0 I V . A . P311 IV.A. P 3 1 2 I V . A . P 3 1 3 I V . A . P 3 1 4 I V . A . P315 IV.A. P316 IV.A. P317 IV.A. P318 IV.A. P319 IV.A. P320 IV.A. P321 IV.A. P322 IV.A. P323 IV.A. P324 IV.A. P325 IV.A. P326 IV.A. P327 IV.A. P328 IV.A. P329 IV.A. P330 IV.A. P331 IV.A. P332 IV.A. P333 IV.A. P334 IV.A. P335 IV.A. P336 IV.A. P337 IV.A. P338 IV.A. P339 IV.A. P340 I V . A . P341 I V . A . P 3 4 2 I V . A . P 3 4 3 I V . A . P 3 4 4 I V . A . P 3 4 5 I V . A . P 3 4 6 I V . A . P347 I V . A . P348 I V . A . P349 I V . A . P350 I V . A . P351 I V . A . P352 I V . A . P353 I V . A . P354 I V . A . P355 I V . A . P356 I V . A . P357 I V . A . P358 I V . A . P359 I V . A . P360 I V . A . P361 I V . A . P362 I V . A . P363 I V . A . P364 I V . A . P365 I V . A . P366 I V . A . P367 I V . A . MARCH 22 9:00am MARCH 22 12:00pm MARCH 22 4:00pm *ARTIST’S RENDERINGS BASED ON BEST AVAILABLE INFORMATION HOTEL JEROME SHADE STUDIES 12/03/2014 EXISTING PROPOSED MARCH 22 9:00am MARCH 22 12:00pm MARCH 22 4:00pm P 3 6 8 I V . A . JUNE 21 9:00am JUNE 21 12:00pm JUNE 21 4:00pm *ARTIST’S RENDERINGS BASED ON BEST AVAILABLE INFORMATION HOTEL JEROME SHADE STUDIES 12/03/2014 EXISTING PROPOSED JUNE 21 9:00am JUNE 21 12:00pm JUNE 21 4:00pm P 3 6 9 I V . A . SEPTEMBER 23 9:00am SEPTEMBER 23 12:00pm SEPTEMBER 23 4:00pm *ARTIST’S RENDERINGS BASED ON BEST AVAILABLE INFORMATION HOTEL JEROME SHADE STUDIES 12/03/2014 EXISTING PROPOSED SEPTEMBER 23 9:00am SEPTEMBER 23 12:00pm SEPTEMBER 23 4:00pm P 3 7 0 I V . A . DECEMBER 22 9:00am DECEMBER 22 12:00pm DECEMBER 22 4:00pm *ARTIST’S RENDERINGS BASED ON BEST AVAILABLE INFORMATION HOTEL JEROME SHADE STUDIES 12/03/2014 *ACTUALLY IN THE SHADOW OF THE MOUNTAIN EXISTING PROPOSED DECEMBER 22 12:00pm DECEMBER 22 4:00pm*ACTUALLY IN THE SHADOW OF THE MOUNTAIN DECEMBER 22 9:00am P 3 7 1 I V . A . P372 IV.A. P373 IV.A. P374 IV.A. Mirte Mallory LEHISITX 223 East Hallam Street �Q C Aspen, CO 81611 December 10, 2014 Dear Historic Preservation Commission, I am a neighbor of the two projects before you this evening. I am sorry that I cannot make the meeting in person, thanks for accepting my comments in lieu of my presence. 232 Bleek r We very much appreciate the applicant hearing the neighborhood concerns and adjusting the project accordingly. The applicant has removed the rear yard variance request and has accommodated for 4 on-site parking spaces. We also appreciate the applicant submitting a flat room within the 25-foot height limit. These adjustments have improved the project, the livability of the homes and have respected the public corridor, ie the alley, which is a highly-utilized neighborhood asset. We thank the HPC for recognizing the need to protect these set backs. Hotel Jerome I am sure all of you have had the opportunity to walk behind the Hotel Jerome in the last few days: it is an ice skating rink. The shadows currently cast by the Hotel Jerome make this a treacherous intersection for both pedestrians and vehicles. On a daily basis, pre-school children from the Yellow Brick walk along this corridor to the library. Currently, they must do so with great caution but fortunately there is some abatement from the ice due some sun coming over the top of the Hotel Jerome on the corner of Monarch and Bleeker. If the height variance request is granted to the applicant as requested, the public will bear the burden of the impacts. The pre-school children will be the ones having to re-route their approach to the library. Cars will continue to slip and slide. The dangerous intersection will be exacerbated. With the lower topography at the corner of Mill and Bleeker, the Hotel Jerome's height isn't as problematic and doesn't pose as great an impact on the community. The corner of Monarch and Bleaker is topographically higher and hence the impacts of a higher building will be detrimental to the community. Thank you for your consideration and for keeping in mind the balance between community impacts and private sector requests. Respectfully, Mirte Mallory Date: December 10, 2014 To: Historic Preservation Committee City of Aspen Re: 232 E. Bleeker Street—Duplex project- revised architectural plans Dear HPC Members& Staff: Please have this letter serve as our support for the revised plans for the 232 E. Bleeker Street Duplex project. We feel that the applicant has accommodated neighbor concerns by modifying the plan to remove the rear yard setback variance request and to accommodate the required on-site 4 parking spaces. We understand that this required condensing the structures and moving the structures forward, and we therefore support the variance request for a combined side yard of 10 feet (rather than 15 feet) and a front yard setback of 6 feet(rather than 10 feet). Furthermore, we understand that no height variance is being requested, and we believe that the flat roof form within the 25 foot height limit is more respectful of neighbors' views, rather than a gable roof with ridges which could extend substantially higher. Respectfully, Juan Diego Calle EXHIBIT Carl R. and Catherine M. Bergman P. O. Box 1365 Aspen, CO 81612 December 4, 2014 Justin Barker, Planner Community Development Dept. City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Justin: We would like to go on record in support of the Hotel Jerome development project as a neighboring business (Carl's Pharmacy). The Jerome is the only Landmark Hotel in Aspen and has over the years strived to remain significant. Their vision on providing suites for families seems viable and the short term remodel completed last year demonstrated their desire to make the facilities more inviting. The remodel of the Aspen Times respecting the historical structure and revamping of the6 courtyard seem to indicate their desire to respect our past and yet the new additions would once again give them the suites for families which they are missing. Since the property is in the Commercial Core, is already an existing structure, we feel this is where consideration should be given. Sincerely, Carl and Katie Bergman cc: Historic Preservation Commission EXHIBIT Mirte Mallory 223 East Hallam Street la _�Q C Aspen, CO 81611 December 10, 2014 Dear Historic Preservation Commission, I am a neighbor of the two projects before you this evening. I am sorry that I cannot make the meeting in person, thanks for accepting my comments in lieu of my presence. 232 Bleeker We very much appreciate the applicant hearing the neighborhood concerns and adjusting the project accordingly. The applicant has removed the rear yard variance request and has accommodated for 4 on-site parking spaces. We also appreciate the applicant submitting a flat room within the 25-foot height limit. These adjustments have improved the project, the livability of the homes and have respected the public corridor, ie the alley, which is a highly-utilized neighborhood asset. We thank the HPC for recognizing the need to protect these set backs. Hotel Jerome I am sure all of you have had the opportunity to walk behind the Hotel Jerome in the last few days: it is an ice skating rink. The shadows currently cast by the Hotel Jerome make this a treacherous intersection for both pedestrians and vehicles. On a daily basis, pre-school children from the Yellow Brick walk along this corridor to the library. Currently, they must do so with great caution but fortunately there is some abatement from the ice due some sun coming over the top of the Hotel Jerome on the corner of Monarch and Bleeker. If the height variance request is granted to the applicant as requested, the public will bear the burden of the impacts. The pre-school children will be the ones having to re-route their approach to the library. Cars will continue to slip and slide. The dangerous intersection will be exacerbated. With the lower topography at the corner of Mill and Bleeker, the Hotel Jerome's height isn't as problematic and doesn't pose as great an impact on the community. The corner of Monarch and Bleeker is topographically higher and hence the impacts of a higher building will be detrimental to the community. Thank you for your consideration and for keeping in mind the balance between community impacts and private sector requests. Respectfully, Mirte Mallory EXHIBIT:— AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE C ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 330 AAa,,,,.. s�-• 01-� �etyy.. t �',Aspen,CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: wed Dar, to 0 5:000,,, ,2014- STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, 14A..,� C-�----� (name,please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: V Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen(15) days prior to the public hearing on the_day of , 20_, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method ofpublic notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested,to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners sball be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAs or PUDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the vproposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. PUBLIC NOTICE aD S RE:330 E.MAIN ST.(HOTEL JEROYEI Mm>iD .�"�•✓/'^ V E. MAIN 6T.- DEVel. PMENT PROJECT REVIEW,PLANNED CONCEPTUAL MAJOR VELOPMENT.DEMOLITION.COMMERCIALI.L DESIGN CONCEPTUAL REYIE W,GROWTH ) mANAGEMENT REVIEWS.SUBDIVISION Signat e NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a pubic hearing will be held on Wormor WY.paceo ds'10,2014,at a S`h to begin at 5:00 p.m;=9. .holore Me Aspen Historin�reambers feryrva6°"°Pmmlaei°°.in°°an°+' davit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this a o day HPCwllcildB"anl'applimw130 S. lau0mtt byJer- p am°Pnd,erlba,LLC and 310 East Man St.Von. ZO f V GLA S C.Cr��\ turas,LLC,rb OM Thai Group.SNOW MSM s 9 by A V`e+ son,Chicago IL,60661,related to The ppmpertlos located at 310 and 330 E.Main Street TAe�pli_, cont footwear aypmeM W mange She Hotel Jerome property a+ri Cr 910 E.MYn prwartY vxs/e an etltlaoriel 55 of Cie demd shot hetlavebp Wage sese�OwpUe" be WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL intofount floor to the hotel Siong Bleaker SCeet,and reconfigure some lodges rooms In the hotel. The following e"ew" `Svd Mqqe � My commission expires: Genons"c cincrin o Zo b benegement,Conceptual Major Development, cfpWii Rant Commercial pasl�r SMrderE Con- cepmal Review.The properties ars legally on- /L/,�//r/�= scribed as: 310 E.Main Serest.All of w M.Set wast tan(10) Notary Publ• leer of Lot N,end We..I one he"of Lot I.rho said east one-half of tat L being more p8r5ccady described as follows:that portion of of L IWng affinity of a[lice dram perallet win me sidle 17I of Lot L and associatassociatassociationefmm and ederding to the and In.of sad ka',all of said property bang in Block 79,City Shot Tomato M Aspen Parcae ID 12937-07&21-001. 33D E.Man SCast-A parcel of lab abatedl in Ne ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: City and Trimmer Of Aspen,Coloreds,being SII or Eaast z'o 0o ie'r of Lot N'all in Block 79S'toagntle LIE PUBLICATION is."Vthe ins byy adi I�°°fe°rfo i]sang-m 11951 -fl PH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN) Je sme 111 Aa�tment amend SU"bdivb n EHOW 1- 3a3r"P521 pn lPletdBoUnsok 212,6 alae Reception o[E OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED 12731-07&21-003. Porto or IurCrer iMomaecn,cayylMat Justin Barter a Cha monl'1130°S.Galanai6lD A p tm no,$;o�T CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE .292 97.Iwtin baM1er® ryoiaapen.mm. ZED BY CR.S. §24-65.5-103.3 elWlllle Pember Acting CNalr,open Historic Pruervalion ebn Publahred in We Aspen Times on November 20. 2014.(ID726916) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: ?,/L X: L /.�, � 4Q5F7 Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 20Z STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) 1, �L /�i�Y ���� (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the day of , 20 , to and including the date and time /he public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAS or PUDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially� Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement. 77�� � Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) ays rior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signa e The regoing "Affidavit of Notic " was a owled e efore me this_day Of 20M, by WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL TARA L. NELSON NOTARY PUBLIC My.commission expires: STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY ID 20014030017 MY COMMISSION EXPIRESRES 09I26t2017 Notary Public ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPYOFTHEPUBLICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 330 E. MAIN ST. (HOTEL JEROME) AND 310 E. MAIN ST. — PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REVIEW, CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, DEMOLITION, COMMERCIAL DESIGN CONCEPTUAL REVIEW, GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEWS, SUBDIVISION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, December 10, 2014, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, in Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen. HPC will consider an application submitted by Jerome Properties, LLC and 310 East Main St. Ventures, LLC, c/o DRW Trading Group, 540 W. Madison, Chicago IL, 60661, related to the properties located at 310 and 330 E. Main Street. The applicant requests approval to merge the Hotel Jerome property with the 310 E. Main property, vacate an additional 55' of the alley, demolish and redevelop the rear portion of the 310 E. Main Street structure into lodge uses, redevelop the courtyard, add a fourth floor to the hotel along Bleeker Street, and reconfigure some lodge rooms in the hotel. The following reviews are requested of HPC: Planned Development Project Review, Subdivision Review, Growth Management, Conceptual Major Development, Demolition and Commercial Design Standard Conceptual Review. HPC's recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council who has final approval authority. The properties are legally described as: 310 E. Main Street— All of Lot M, the west ten (10) feet of Lot N, and the east one-half of Lot L, the said east one-half of Lot L being more particularly described as follows: that portion of Lot L lying easterly of a line drawn parallel with the side lines of Lot L and equidistant therefrom and extending to the end lines of said lot; all of said property being in Block 79, City and Townsite of Aspen. Parcel ID#2737-073-21-001. 330 E. Main Street — A parcel of land situated in the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, being all of Lots A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, O, P, Q, R, S, and the East 20.00 feet of Lot N, all in Block 79, together with the East 170.00 feet of the Alley in said Block 79, Vacated by Ordinance No. 1 (Series of 195 1) of the City of Aspen, Colorado, according to the Hotel Jerome Lot Line Adjustment and Subdivision Exemption plat filed June 12, 1991 at Reception No. 331521, in Plat Book 26 at Page 52. Parcel ID #2737-073-21-003. For further information, contact Justin Barker at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970)429-2797,justin.barker@cityofaspen.com. s/Willis Pember Acting Chair, Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on November 20, 2014 City of Aspen Account Easy Peel®Labels i ♦ ® Bend along line to a AVERY® 51600 i Use Avery®Template 51600 ,Feed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeTO , 225 NORTH MILL ST LLC 232 BLEEKER LLC 232 EAST MAIN STREET LLC 1530 BROADWAY 4TH FL 2385 NW EXECUTIVE CENTER DR#370 2001 N HALSTED#304 NEW YORK, NY 10036 BOCA RATON, FL 33431 CHICAGO, IL 60614 303 EAST MAIN LLLP 304 EAST HOPKINS HOLDINGS LLC 4 TOOLBOX LLC PO BOX 8016 2001 N HOLSTED#304 208 E MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81612 CHICAGO, IL 60614 ASPEN, CO 81611 AJAX JMG INVESTMENTS LLC ALH HOLDING CO ASPEN BRANCH HOLDINGS LLC 9401 WILSHIRE BLVD 9TH FL 435 E MAIN ST GENERAL COUNSEL BEVERLY HILLS, CA 902122974 ASPEN, CO 81611 3033 E FIRST AVE DENVER, CO 80206 ASPEN COMMUNITY UNITED METHODIST ASPEN FILM ASPEN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT CHURCH 110 E HALLAM ST#102 420 E HOPKINS AVE 200 E BLEEKER ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 BANK MIDWEST N A BANKERS MORTGAGE CORP BERKO GINA 1111 MAIN ST#2800 . 1616 ORCHARD AVE 292 GLEN EAGLES DR KANSAS CITY, MO 64105 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501 ASPEN, CO 81611 BLEEKER MILL DEVELOPMENT LLC BOHNETT MARSHA ANN TRUST BRYAN ROY MD PA PROFIT SHARING 345 PARK AVE 33RD FL 10780 NAVAJO WAY PLAN NEW YORK, NY 10154 OREGON CITY,OR 97045 5836 LONG BRAKE TRAIL RD EDINA, MN 55439 CANTINA BUILDING LLC CARLS REAL ESTATE LLC CHALAL JOSEPH B PO BOX 1247 PO BOX 1365 1005 BROOKS LN ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 DELRAY BEACH, FL 334836507 CITY OF ASPEN CITY OF ASPEN PUBLIC FACILITIES AUTH CJB REALTY INVESTORS LLC 130 S GALENA ST ATTN FINANCE DEPT 6544 WENONGA CIR ASPEN, CO 81611 130 S GALENA ST MISSION HILLS, KS 66208 ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMUNITY BANKS OF COLORADO DANIELS SIMON B ELM 223 LLC 1111 MAIN ST#2800 431 E HYMAN AVE 1230 SNOWBUNNY LN KANSAS CITY, MO 641052154 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ERNEMANN ANDREW&ASHLEY EXPLORE BOOKSELLERS& BISTRO R E FAREY SIOBHAN C 50% 39 POLECAT DR LLC 7903 CURTIS ST ASPEN, CO 81611 300 CRESCENT CT STE 850 CHEVY CHASE, MD 20815 DALLAS,TX 75201 ttiquettes faciles a peler ; A Repliez a la hachure afin de www.averycom Utilisez le gabarit AVERY 5160 ® ® i Sens de �...e... - reveler le rebord Pop-upT"' ; 1-800-GO-AVERY ,r, 3sy Peel®Labels i ♦ ® Bend along line to i Q AVERY®51600D i se Avery®Template 51600 Feed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeTm 1 RST 415 RIO GRANDE PLACE TRST FLEISHER DAVID M GARRETT GULCH EQUITY VENTURE LLC GOND 415 RIO GRANDE PLACE TRST BERKO GINA 2950 E BROAD ST ) BOX 8982 292 GLEN EAGLE COLUMBUS, OH 43209 ;PEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 . =TTMAN ROSA H TRUST HAYES MARY E&JAMES L FAM LP LLLP HENDERSON JAMES C '5 S FOREST 209 E BLEEKER ST KUCK KATHERINE M _NVER,CO 80246 ASPEN, CO 81611 4880 HARLEM RD GALENA, OH 43021 _NRY WILLIAM STONE REV TRUST HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP INC HODES ALAN&DEBORAH 82 TURNBURY DR 2710 E CAMELBACK RD STE 200 114 N ASPEN ST. CHFIELD, OH 44286 PHOENIX,AZ 85016 ASPEN,CO 81611 )DGSON PHILIP R 50% ISIS BUILDING LLC ISIS GROUP 2 N MONARCH ST 602 E COOPER#202 C/O COURTNEY LORD ;PEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 631 W BLEEKER ST ASPEN,CO 81611 .ROME PROPERTY LLC JW VENTURES LLC KREVOY SUSANNE SEP PROP TRUST 0 W MADISON ST PO BOX 8769 2311 LA MESA DR i1CAG0, IL 60661 ASPEN, CO 81612 SANTA MONICA,CA 90402 ?IBS KAREN REV LIV TRUST LESTER JIM LIGHT HOLDINGS LLLP )BOX 9994 395 SOUTH END AVE#29N 801 BASELINE RD ;PEN, CO 81612 NEW YORK, NY 10280 BOULDER, CO 80302 NDDEN WALTER ROSS 42.5% MILL& MAIN LLC MILLENNIUM PLAZA LLC 8 N MONARCH ST 3235 HARBOR VIEW DR PO BOX 1247 ;PEN, CO 81611 SAN DIEGO, CA 92106 ASPEN,CO 81612 NERS REAL ESTATE LLC MONARCH&HOPKINS LLC 50% MONARCH BUILDING LLC )BOX 1365 PO BOX 1247 PO BOX 126 ;PEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 WOODY CREEK, CO 81656 DNARCH HOLDINGS LLC MONARCH HOUSE LLC MYRIN CUTHBERT L JR 57.5% 8 WALLS WY 701 BRICKELL AVE#860 PO BOX 12365 3PREY, FL 34229 MIAMI, FL 33131 ASPEN, CO 81612 _WLON LLC OSA TRUST PEARCE FAMILY TRUST 0 DANFORTH 2311 LA MESA DR 216 E MAIN ST )BOX 1863 SANTA MONICA, CA 90402 ASPEN,CO 81611 ;PEN, CO 81612 iquettes faciles a peter ; A Repliez a la hachure afin dei www.avery.com Sens de [ilisez le gabarit AVERY®51600 j rharnpmpnt reveler le rebord Pop.upTm 1-800-GO-AVERY Easy Peel®Labels i ♦ Bend along line to i AVERVO 5160 i Use Avery®Template 51600 j Feed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeTM j 1 PEGOLOTTI DELLA PITKIN COUNTY PUPPY SMITH LLC ASPEN HOME CONSIGNMENT 530 E MAIN ST#302 602 E COOPER#202 202 E MAIN ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 RAYTON RENEE ROCKHILL BRITTANIE ROCKING LAZY J PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 12104 PO BOX 10261 202 E MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 SEDOY MICHAEL SEMRAU FAMILY LLC SHVACHKO NATALIA 35 SUTTON PL#1913 300 S SPRING ST#203 35 SUTTON PL#19B NEW YORK, NY 10022 ASPEN, CO 816112806 NEW YORK, NY 10022 SMITH GARY W SSM LAND AQUISITION CO LLC STAPLE GREGORY C 50% 3416 MT BONNELL CIR 2121 KIRBY DR#99 7903 CURTIS ST AUSTIN,TX 78731 HOUSTON,TX 77019 CHEVY CHASE, MD 20815 WELLS FARGO BANK WHITMAN RANDALL A C/O THOMSON PROPERTY TAX 4845 HAMMOCK LAKE DR SERVICES CORAL GABLES, FL 33156 PO BOX 2609 CARLSBAD, CA 92018 Etiquettes faciles a peter: A Repliez a la hachure afin de www.avery.com ® ® , Sens de reveler le rebord Po u TM ' 1-800-GO-AVERY ' Utilisez le gabarit AVERY- 5160 r Sens de P P , , LAW OFFICES OF OATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ, KELLY MORROW, P.C. PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION THIRD FLOOR ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING 533 E.HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN,COLORADO,81611 OKG� CON LEONARD DATES RICHARDA OATES TELEPHONE(970)9261700 FACSIMILE(970)9261121 TED D.GARDENSWARTZ DIRECT(970)504.1853 DAVID KELLY MARIA MORROW OF COUNSELsm000kgl wn STEPHEN R CONNOR ANNE MARIE MCPHEE. SARAHM.OATES STEPHANIE HOLDER September 25, 2014 VIA E-MAIL Sunny Vann Vann Associates vaiiiiassociates@comcast.net Re: Mineral Estate Research—310 and 330 Main Street(Aspen Times/Hotel Jerome) Dear Sunny: At the request of the owner of 310 Main Street("Aspen Times"), 310 Main Street Ventures, LLC, and the owner of 330 Main Street("Hotel Jerome" and collectively"Properties"),Jerome Property LLC, I researched the public records to determine if there are any mineral estate owners who must be notified pursuant to the City of Aspen Community Development requirements for public notice as part of the land use application process. I have determined there are no such mineral estate owners. I reviewed the records of the Pitkin County Assessor and there were no mineral estate owners in the tax records and/or Assessor's records for either of the Properties. I reviewed the Owners' Warranty Deeds for both Properties for any requests for notifications by any mineral estate owner filed in the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's records("Records")and no such requests appear in the chain of title. I also reviewed the Records for any notices filed since the recording of said Warranty Deeds and no notices requesting notification by a mineral estate owner appear in the Records as of September 24, 2014. Sincerely, OATES,KNEZEVICH,GARDENSWARTZ,KELLY& MORROW,P.C. B Sarah M. Oates AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 33c� �. M�.���5 E►.l 310 C %AA-0'J'T,Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: I() OeG 201 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin' ) 1, 5 AWO _77kyLO;Z (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that 1 have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said noticew s posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the'7� day of of 201i­f� to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAS or PUDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title; or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public ins p ction in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days pri r to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature A- The fo egoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknA wlec�ed b ore me this E day of r» e [ 20 , by 6X/y e"i WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL STAN'PpN 1{. MOORE My commission expires: Z NOTARY PUBLIC bTATL 01 COLORADO " ;gslon Exo.ros oa ai_o^.5 Public ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPYOFTHEPUBLICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BYC.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS O PROPERTY , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED DPPUUWC' HEARING DATE: /6 ,20/0 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin 1, /4tt7� (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15)days prior to the public hearing on the day of 20 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. V/Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method ofpublic notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAS or PUDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. S711ure L The f/p�regoing "Affidavit of Notice" was ac wled/ged before me this day Of AJteev�, cG 20/`/, by c t& iir �• �tL� 77 'NI't 1Z. b400IZ:. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL PUBLIC / �LORADO My commission expires: ZY (v -4!24!- n",'0'E, - No ary Public ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPYOFTHEPUBLICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 Neighborhood Outreach for the Hotel Jerome Project Documented as of December 8, 2014 In keeping with the recommendations of the Community Development department,the Hotel Jerome project team has endeavored to meet with key neighbors and community leaders to share information about the plan (including project details and renderings) and to address questions and concerns. Additional outreach efforts are being planned. The feedback has been generally positive and the project team has been responsive to concerns raised including circling back to those individuals requesting follow-up information. Listed below are the property representatives, neighbors, community leaders and groups who have participated in these meetings. In addition, many informal conversations have taken place with other community stakeholders and residents. Discussions with residential neighbors or their representatives: • 309 E. Main Street • 315 E. Main Street • 202 N. Monarch Street • 204 N. Monarch Street • 218 N. Monarch Street • 250 E. Bleeker Street • 117 N. Monarch Street Discussions with neighboring businesses and other interested parties: • The Miner's Building-319 E. Main Street • Carl's Pharmacy-306 E. Main Street • Conoco Gas Station—323 E. Main Street • Jerome Professional Building—201 N. Mill Street • U.S. Bank-400 E. Main Street • Aspen Skiing Company • Aspen Community Foundation • Aspen Club &Spa • The Molly Gibson Lodge/Hotel Aspen/Mountain House Lodge Presentation to community leaders: 0 Public Affairs Committee,Aspen Chamber Resort Association PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE Date: Wednesday,Dec. 10,2014 recommendations on all reviews to City Council, who has final Time: 5:oo PM approval authority. Applicants are QjaGe•130 S Galena St.,Council Jerome Property, LLC & 310 E. Cbamber&-U-ttHaL— Main St. Ventures, LLC c/o DRW Purpose: rading Group, 540 W. Madison, HPC is asked to review an hicago, IL 60661. For further application to merge the 310&330 formation contact Aspen E. Main St properties vacate lanning Dept. at 970-429-2797 additional right-of-wayredevebp the 310 E. Main St.propgry with lodes_ uses,reclevelm the courtyard add a partial 4th floor to the Hotel Jerome,_ and reconfiure some existing lodge rooms_Planned Development Subdivision. MQS Demolition PUBLIC NOTICE n..] en]aCO�ID !i.nP�Ea6uS r City Council.wno has final apDroaal authorRy Applicants are Jerome Property.LLC 6 310 E Mam Sr Ventures LLC o o DR" Trading Group.540 W Madison Chicago.IL 60661 For further mfonnaimn conlacl Ayeo Planning Dern PUBLIC NOTICE Date Time Plact Purfi + „ I�,