Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout#landuse case.HP.610 E Hyman Ave.0011.2012.AHPC0011.2012.AHPC 610 E HYMAN AVE 2737 182 12 004 ASPENMODEN LANDMARK DESIGNATION jo 1 15- b�✓5� z� 4P��) 0 7L7j....� THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER PARCEL ID NUMBERS PROJECT ADDRESS PLANNER CASE DESCRIPTION REPRESENTATIVE DATE OF FINAL ACTION 0011.2012.AHPC 2737 18212004 610 E HYMAN AVE /_ AlyallIIuLQ04 ASPEN MODEN HPC CHARLES CUNNIFFE 12/11/2012 CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY ON: 09/10/2015 C� <.7 Z �2 --a© 4 - ��I111Jt� File Edit Record Navigate Form Reports Format Tab Help 00(c • 20(z- AP(:— �J o Routing Status Fees Fee Summary Main Actions Attachments Routing History Valuation I ArchjEng I Custom Fields Sub Permits Parcels 0 C N Permit type ahpc Aspen Historic Land Use Pami 0 0011.2012.AHPC Address 610 E HYMAN AVE Apt City ASPEN State CO ap 1611 Permit Information Master permit Routing queue aslu0? Applied 3�18r"1012 Project Status pending Approved Description APPLICATON FOR AHC DESIGNATION - CONCEPTUAL HPC DEVELOPMENT Issued ASPENMODEN LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND NEGOTAITION - SUBMITTED BY MITCH HAAS ClosedjFinal Submitted HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC Cb& Running Days ❑0 Expires 3�Z3�2013 Submitted via Owner Last name CUNNIFFE 610 E. HYMAN, L 1 First name CHARLES L 610 E HYMAN AVE Phone (970) 925-7819 AddressASPEN CO 81611 Applicant [] Owner is ap*ant? [] Contractor is applcant? Last name 610 E. HYMAN, LLC First name CHARLES CUNNIFFE 1610 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN CO Phone (970) 925-5590 Cust # 29246 Address 81611 Lender Last name First name Phone () Address AspenGold5 (server) angelas _ 1 of 1 ck-=tr 2 a5 0 A4 , Lk, tp.0o �*' 31332 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council n� THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ( 'r 1 FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Second Reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 2012, AspenModern negotiation for historic designation of 610 E. Hyman Avenue, CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 10, 2012 DATE: January 14, 2013 SUMMARY: Following are the staff memo and attachments that were presented to City Council at the December 10, 2012 public hearing on this application. This project is a negotiation for voluntary landmark designation and preservation incentives. Comments provided by City Council prior to the decision to continue the hearing appeared to be in favor of a requested floor area increase, in favor of 5 years of vested rights (rather than the 10 years that is proposed by the applicant), in favor of a waiver of on -site parking requirements and cash -in -lieu fees, and in favor of allowing a shared trash/recycling arrangement with the property to the east. Council was inclined to require the payment of Parks Impact Fees and Transportation Demand Management Fees, and at least a portion of the affordable housing mitigation generated by an upcoming remodel of the property. The appropriate amount of affordable housing mitigation, and whether or not it would be locked in to today's calculations, was not resolved. The applicant would like to complete the negotiation and will propose an affordable housing fee at the hearing. Staff has revised the attached ordinance to reflect our understanding of Council's direction. 610 E. Hyman Avenue was constructed for well known gallery owner Patricia Moore in 1963. It was designed by Ellie Brickham, who in 1951 was the first female architect to practice in Aspen. The offices of Charles Cunniffe Architects have been located in the building for twenty years. In late 2010, Charles Cunniffe proposed voluntary designation and a building expansion through the Ordinance #48 landmark negotiation process, which was the City's first effort to incentivize designation of postwar era properties. HPC reviewed the project twice before the Patricia Moore Inc. occupies the first floor of this building "designed by Mi&i Rrickham. Miss Moore occupies the second floor apartment. • application was terminated after no significant progress. In April 2012, the application was re -submitted in advance of reduced height limits going into effect in the downtown. The proposal now falls under the AspenModern ordinance (largely similar to Ordinance #48) within which the applicant can request special benefits. The special benefits entailed in this application are represented in a building expansion, which is being reviewed by HPC concurrent with the designation. The applicant has requested approval for a 949 square foot expansion of office space and a 1,546 square foot residential floor area increase for the expansion of an existing free market apartment. The apartment will not exceed the maximum net livable unit size for the zone district. In combination, the commercial floor area and the residential free market floor area will exceed what is allowed as a total development for the site by 692 square feet. An extended period of vested rights is requested to provide more flexibility on the start date for the project. The office expansion is on the second floor, along the alley, on top of a non -historic garage. The free market residential addition is a new third story which is located partially on the garage and partially on the roof of the historic building. HPC has granted Conceptual design approval for the new construction and has provided a recommendation that City Council pursue a negotiation for landmark designation. HPC's support for this action is strongly conditioned upon a requirement that the applicant reverse certain changes that have been made to the original design of the building; namely the restoration of arched windows on the ground floor, restoration of the building's original white stucco panels, and removal of an awning that covers an open air patio on the second floor. Throughout several previous HPC meetings the applicant has been unwilling to agree to restore the form of the ground floor windows, leading staff to have recommended denial of the application to HPC. HPC supported the project proceeding only with restoration. A restoration plan that meets HPC's expectations was submitted in November and is Exhibit F of this packet. APPLICANT: 610 E. Hyman LLC, Charles Cunniffe, represented by Haas Land Planning. PARCEL ID: 2737-182-12-004. ADDRESS: 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot M, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: C-1, Commercial. Second Reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 2 of 10 • To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures as an example of AspenModern, an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. The quality of significance of properties shall be evaluated according to criteria described below. At least two of the criteria a-d, and criterion a must be met: a. The property is related to an event, pattern, or trend that has made a contribution to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific event, pattern or trend is identified and documented in an adopted context paper; b. The property is related to people who have made a contribution to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific people are identified and documented in an adopted context paper; c. The property represents a physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman, or design philosophy that is deemed important and the specific physical design, designer, or philosophy is documented in an adopted context paper; d. The property possesses such singular significance to the City, as documented by the opinions of persons educated or experienced in the fields of history, architecture, landscape architecture, archaeology or a related field, that the property's potential demolition or major alteration would substantially diminish the character and sense of place in the city as perceived by members of the community, and e. The property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association, given its age. The City Council shall adopt and make available to the public score sheets and other devices which shall be used by the Council and Historic Preservation Commission to apply this criterion. Staff Response: 610 E. Hyman Avenue was built in 1963 for owner Patricia Moore. The Patricia Moore Gallery was a respected business in town for many years, and displayed the work of many important artists on the main floor of the building. An upper floor residential studio unit was part of the original design. Ms. Moore sold the property in 1988. Second Reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 3 of 10 0 • 610 E. Hyman was constructed for a woman who played an important role in the local arts community, and it was designed by Aspen's first woman architect. This is one of the few Ellie Brickham buildings that remains in Aspen. Ellie Brickham (1923-2008) moved to Aspen in 1951 after attending the University of Colorado's School of Architecture from 1941-1944. Construction was a family business, and her motivation to become a designer began as a child. According to the research paper, "Aspen's Twentieth -Century Architecture: Modernism 1945-1975:" "Early in her career, Brickham worked in Fritz Benedict's office and collaborated on projects with both Benedict and Bayer, participating in work going on at the Aspen Institute. Like Benedict, she had a strong interest in passive solar techniques. During her time in that office and, later, in her own practice out of her home, she designed a number of residences and commercial buildings in town, including houses for several Music Festival artists in Aspen Grove, the elegantly simple brick Strandberg Residence (1973, 433 Bleeker Street -demolished) and the Patricia Moore Building (1962, 610 E. Hyman Avenue). In Pitkin County, she designed numerous homes in Pitkin Green and Starwood, on Red Mountain, including her own house (1955), with south and west walls made completely of glass. Her works, which total at least sixty in the Aspen area, are generally characterized by spare, simple forms and minimal detailing. Brickham's projects focus on an "impeccable sense of proportion and feeling of lightness," according to a 1977 Aspen Times article." The building that Ellie Brickham designed for Patricia Moore appears to have been influenced by "New Formalism," an architectural approach of the early 1960s which emphasized symmetrical, smooth -skinned, flat roofed buildings with screens and grilles. The facade of 610 E. Hyman has six attenuated brick piers that extend from the base to the eaves and stucco arched spandrels for a more "decorated" look that reflected the 1960s evolution of modernist design. A related example is Phillip Johnson's 1962 Lincoln Center in New York, below. HPC presented an Honor Award to Ellie Brickham in 2001, in recognition of her influence on the built environment in Aspen. The neighborhood where this structure was built includes several other AspenModern related properties. Relatively few of the noted postwar properties are commercial structures. It is important to carefully consider preservation opportunities for this small Page 4 of 10 r collection of highly visible downtown structures. Staff finds that historic designation criteria a, c, and a are met. The second component of designation is scoring the physical integrity of the building. Staff s score sheet is attached as Exhibit B. Several elements of this building were altered through previous remodels. The front entry door was originally centered on the fagade. Now there are entries on both ends of the storefront level. Originally all of the street -facing opening were arched, but the ground floor windows have been changed to have square transom windows. A lightwell has been added to the front fagade so the building no longer meets the sidewalk in the center, the basement office level is exposed to view, and there are no kickplates below the windows. The stucco color has been changed from white to a masonry color. A seasonal canopy has been added to enclose the rooftop courtyard. These alterations have affected the integrity score for the building and need to be taken into account when determining the appropriate package of preservation incentives to approve for the project. Staff scored the building as a "Better/Best" example of AspenModern, with 15 out of 20 points. According to Municipal Code Section 26.415.025.C.1.b, the Historic Preservation Commission, using context papers and integrity scoring sheets for the property under consideration, shall provide Council with an assessment of the property's conformance with the designation criteria of Section 26.415.030.C.1. When any benefits that are not included in Section 26.415.110 are requested by the property owner, HPC shall also evaluate how the designation, and any development that is concurrently proposed, meets the policy objectives for the historic preservation program, as stated at Section 26.415.010, Purpose and Intent. As an additional measure of the appropriateness of designation and benefits, HPC shall determine whether the subject property is a "good, better, or best" example of Aspen's 201h century historic resources, referencing the scoring sheets and matrix adopted by City Council. The City Council may negotiate directly with the property owner or may choose to direct the Community Development Director, or other City staff as necessary, to negotiate with the property owner to reach a mutually acceptable agreement for the designation of the property. The City Council may choose to provide this direction in Executive Session, pursuant to State Statute. As part of the mutually acceptable agreement, the City Council may, at its sole discretion, approve any land use entitlement or fee waiver permitted by the Municipal Code and may award any approval that is assigned to another Board or Commission, including variations. Council shall consider the appropriateness of benefits in light of whether the property is identified as a "good, better, or best" example of Aspen's 201h century history and shall also seek to be equitable in the benefits awarded through the negotiation process. The monetary value of benefits being requested shall be Second Reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 5 of 10 0 • defined, to the extent possible. Council shall seek compatibility with the neighborhood surrounding the subject property. The Land Use Code states that, as a further measure of the value of negotiation, the proposal should meet the Purpose and Intent Statements of the Historic Preservation program, which are: §26.415.010. Purpose and intent. The purpose of this Chapter is to promote the public health, safety and welfare through the protection, enhancement and preservation of those properties, areas and sites, which represent the distinctive elements of Aspen's cultural, educational, social, economic, political and architectural history. Under the authority provided by the Home Rule Charter of the City and Section 29-20- 104(c), C.R.S., to regulate land use and preserve areas of historical, architectural, archaeological, engineering and cultural importance, this Chapter sets forth the procedures to: A. Recognize, protect and promote the retention and continued utility of the historic buildings and districts in the City; B. Promote awareness and appreciation of Aspen's unique heritage; C. Ensure the preservation of Aspen's character as an historic mining town, early ski resort and cultural center; D. Retain the historic, architectural and cultural resource attractions that support tourism and the economic welfare of the community; and E. Encourage sustainable reuse of historic structures. F. Encourage voluntary efforts to increase public information, interaction or access to historic building interiors. The City does not intend by the historic preservation program to preserve every old building, but instead to draw a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest in preserving the City's cultural, historic, and architectural heritage. This should be accomplished by ensuring that demolition of buildings and structures important to that heritage are carefully weighed with other alternatives. Alterations to historically significant buildings and new construction in historic areas shall respect the character of each such setting, not by imitating surrounding structures, but by being compatible with them as defined in historic preservation guidelines. Staff Response: The applicant requests the following special, site specific incentives through AspenModern negotiation, in exchange for landmark designation. Second Reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 6 of 10 Floor area bonus The existing residential unit is currently just below the 1,500 square feet maximum floor area allowed for free market apartments on this property. The applicant wishes to enlarge the unit. As a preservation benefit, a floor area increase of 1,546 square feet is requested, making the total free market floor area 3,046 square feet. A portion of the FAR assigned to the residential use is actually common circulation area, garage, deck area, etc. If this benefit is approved, the combination of the commercial floor area and the residential floor area will also exceed what is allowed as a total development for the site by 692 square feet. Extension of vested rights The applicant requests extended vested rights. All projects receive an automatic three years of vested rights, or protection from changes to Land Use regulation. The applicant requests 10 years to allow for the start date of the project to be more flexible. The applicant requests the following standard benefits offered to landmarked properties. Affordable housing The new office space triggers affordable housing mitigation, however the applicant would like to take advantage of a preservation benefit which is already in place for all landmarks at Section 26.470.060.4 of the Municipal Code. The Community Development Director can grant an exemption to affordable housing requirements for up to 4 employees as part of the expansion of a mixed use, landmarked building. There are no review standards that must be met for the approval of this exemption. If the property is not landmark designated, and mitigation were required for this development, it would be for the equivalent of 1.725 employees, or $242,000 if paid as cash -in -lieu. Parking The expansion of the free market residential unit does not trigger additional parking requirements, but the new office space does generate the need for a fraction of one space. A full space could theoretically be provided on -site to meet the requirement (although it is apparently not physically possible), or the owner could pay cash -in -lieu. HPC has recommended that the review standards of Section 26.415.110.0 of the Municipal Code are met and that no on -site parking or cash -in -lieu payment must be required. The cash -in -lieu payment would typically be $28,500. Park Development Impact Fee and Transportation Demand Impact Fee Historic Landmark properties are exempt from paying certain fees that offset the need for the City to develop more parks or transportation systems as a result of new development. The exemption is standard. There are no review criteria. Second Reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 7 of 10 The proposed development would result in a waiver of approximately $12,000 in Park Development Impact Fee and $1,400 in Transportation Demand Impact Fee. In conducting their Conceptual Design review for the proposed building expansion, HPC made two determinations that Council should be aware of. First, HPC allowed the rear addition to reach a height of 38'. The maximum height limit for the zone district, under the rules that were in place at the time of application, is 36', which can be increased to as much as 40' through Commercial Design Review. HPC determined that a 38' height was acceptable because of the drop in elevation from the front of the property to the alley. The building already has a complex combination of floor levels, which the board acknowledged through their approval. The proposed drawings show a height of 38' 11 ", which must be amended for the Final HPC meeting. The second important determination that HPC made is related to Utility, Delivery and Trash Storage area. The Municipal Code requires this property to have an area parallel to the alley dedicated to the service needs of the building. This area is to be 15 feet long and 10 feet deep. The area cannot also be used as a parking space. This property currently has no service area that meets the code. The applicant proposes to maintain their existing arrangement to accept recycling items from adjacent properties, in exchange for those properties accommodating the trash disposal needs of 610 E. Hyman. The recycling area that 610 E. Hyman shares with others is not directly along the alley, but apparently has easy and workable access to the alley. HPC felt that a waiver of the requirement is allowable, if an agreement that is acceptable to Council can be provided during the negotiation. The applicant has provided a letter from the adjacent property owner, attached to this packet as Exhibit G. The letter indicates that shared trash and recycling can continue, however there is no detail about how the arrangement will work or be guaranteed into the future. Staff has provided diagrams of the proposed arrangement. Staff recommends Council direct one of the following: Require the creation of a binding, recorded agreement, to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's Office, which details how the shared arrangement will function, including the size and type of trash and recycling bins that will be provided, how users of both buildings will have unlimited access to the facilities, which waste hauler will provide services. etc. Also require a plan for exact placement and size of trash and recycling containers for both the 610 E. Hyman property and the 616 E. Hyman property, to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department. Note that if the sites dealt with their needs Second Reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 8 of 10 OR individually, the Environmental Health Department would expect to see a 4 yard dumpster and 4 recycling containers (comingled, office paper, newspapers/magazines, and cardboard) on each site. Locating all trash storage on one -site and all recycling on the other does not mean that half as many containers are sufficient. • Waive the requirement for one on -site parking space (requiring cash -in -lieu payment instead) so that one of the existing parking spaces along the alley can be converted to a trash and recycle area that serves the needs of the 610 E. Hyman property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The negotiated benefits are policy matters for Council to decide. HPC used the designation criteria, adopted context papers, and scoring sheets to forward a recommendation to City Council regarding the importance of the building. During the three previous discussions of this project, HPC was focused on the importance of restoring the front facade of the building as much as possible, given the requested preservation incentives. Three particular actions were identified as important; restoring the arched windows on the lower half of the front facade, removing the canopy that currently covers the upper floor patio and restoring the original color of the stucco panels. Community Development and HPC only support the award of the benefits that are requested if there is a dedicated effort to return all of the character defining features of the building within reason. It is understood that moving the entry doors back to the center, and eliminating the lightwell are impractical. Nonetheless, on other AspenModern projects, including Mason and Morse and Aspen Core, the applicant's financial commitment to restoration efforts are very substantial. Consistently high standards for the AspenModern process are important in staffs opinion. Historic and current images of the building are depicted on the following page. The 610 E. Hyman building represents Ellie Brickham as an architect and is indicative of post-war commercial development in Aspen in the 1960s. This building, and the building immediately west of the subject site, are the only known examples of Ms. Brickham's work left to preserve in Aspen. The building meets the designation criteria in its existing condition. With designation, some of the incentives involved in this project, such as affordable housing waiver and development impact fee waiver, are typically provided. Other incentives, including the floor area bonus, parking variance, height. utility/trash/storage and vested rights are all specific to this project. Second Reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 9 of 10 An AspenModern negotiation period between the applicant and the City is limited to a 90 day duration. Council can grant extensions and approved an extension to February 21, 2013. If the negotiation is not successfully completed by that time, Council must either grant another extension or the process will expire and development on the site will be subject to the new regulations for the C-1 zone district, including a 28' height limit. Staff finds that approval of this project, with HPC's requirement to include restoration of the ground floor window form, is consistent with what has occurred on the four previous AspenModern negotations related to downtown properties. The architectural integrity of the building will be greatly enhanced. The restoration work is highly unlikely to occur outside of this process. The building could be demolished or heavily altered in other ways if it is not designated. The attached ordinance includes all of the negotiation requests, to be amended by City Council as desired. EXHIBITS: Ordinance # , Series of 2012 Exhibit A: Integrity Score Sheet Exhibit B: Draft, October 24th, 2012 HPC minutes Exhibit C: HPC Resolution #27, Series of 2012 Exhibit D: Elevations Exhibit E: Floor plans Exhibit F: Restoration Plan Exhibit G: Letter and site plans related to trash and recycling areas Second Reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 10 of 10 • 9 ORDINANCE #23 (Series of 2012) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO APPROVING HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND BENEFITS THROUGH THE ASPENMODERN PROGRAM FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 610 E. HYMAN AVENUE, LOT M, BLOCK 99, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL ID: 2737-182-12-004 WHEREAS, the applicant, 610 E. Hyman LLC, represented by Haas Land Planning, submitted an application on March 28, 2012, pursuant to Section 26.415.025(C), AspenModern Properties, of the Aspen Municipal Code, to voluntarily participate in the AspenModern ninety -day negotiation period for the properties located at 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot M, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen; and WHEREAS, an AspenModern negotiation period ends 90 days after initiation unless extended by City Council. Council passed lZesolution #119, Series of 2012 to extend this negotiation to February 21, 2013; and WHEREAS, Municipal Code Section 26.415.025.C(1)(b) states that, during the negotiation period, "the Community Development Director shall confer with the Historic Preservation Commission, during a public meeting, regarding the proposed building permit and the nature of the property. The property owner shall be provided notice of this meeting;" and WHEREAS, the property owners' representative met with the Historic Preservation Commission on May 23, 2012 and October 24, 2012; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on October 24, 2012, the HPC considered the application; found that 610 E. Hyman Avenue is a "better/best" example of the Modern style in Aspen evaluated the designation and proposed development; and, found that the policy objectives for the historic preservation program stated at Section 26.415.010, Purpose and Intent are met, and recommended City Council ("Council") approval of Historic Landmark Designation and negotiation with conditions; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.025.C(1)(d), states that, during the negotiation period, "council may negotiate directly with the property owner or may choose to direct the Community Development Director, or other City staff as necessary, to negotiate with the property owner to reach a mutually acceptable agreement for the designation of the property"; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.025.C(1)d establishes that "as part of the mutually acceptable agreement, the City Council may, at its sole discretion, approve any land use entitlement or fee waiver permitted by the Municipal Code and may award any approval that is assigned to another Board or Commission, including variations;" and Ordinance 423, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 1 of 5 WHEREAS, in addition to Historic Landmark Designation and benefits available to Landmarked properties subject to the Aspen Municipal Code, the applicant has identified preservation incentives that are requested as part of the AspenModern negotiation process; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department performed an analysis of the application for Landmark Designation and found that the review standards are met, with conditions. The staff report analyzed the proposed preservation incentives and monetary value of the benefits where possible; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Historic Landmark Designation Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council hereby approves Historic Designation for 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot M, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen subject to the conditions described herein. Upon the effective date of this ordinance, the City Clerk shall record with the real estate records of the Clerk and Recorder of the County, a certified copy of this ordinance. The location of the historic landmark property designated by this ordinance shall be indicated on the official maps of the City that are maintained by the Community Development Department. Section 2: Aspen Modern Negotiation Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council hereby approves the following, with the conditions that the applicant is required to restore the building as represented in Exhibit F of the January 14, 2013 Council packet, and the applicant is required to pay Park Development Impact Fees and Transportation Demand Impact Fees for the proposed expansion. 1. A free market residential floor area increase of 1,546 square feet, making the total free market floor area 3,046 square feet. The combination of the commercial floor area and the residential free market floor area will exceed what is allowed as a total development for the site by 692 square feet, and 2. Waiver of the fraction of a parking space and the cash -in -lieu payment generated by the proposed expansion; and 3. Waiver of the on -site Utility/Trash/Recycling requirement generated by the proposed expansion based on a satisfactory written agreement to share Recycling and Trash Ordinance #23, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 2 of 5 0 • Storage area with the property directly to the west (616 E. Hyman). A binding, recorded agreement, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's Office, detailing how the shared arrangement will function, including the size and type of trash and recycling bins that will be provided, how users of both buildings will have unlimited access to the facilities, and which waste hauler will provide services. In addition, there shall be a plan provided for exact placement and size of trash and recycling containers for both the 610 E. Hyman property and the 616 E. Hyman property, to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department; and 4. Waiver of mitigation for x% of the 1.725 FTE generated by the proposed expansion. The cash in lieu fee to be paid shall be $x, which is the mitigation calculation at the time of this Ordinance. Section 3: Vested Rights The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site -specific development plan and a vested property right attaching to and running with the Subject Property and shall confer upon the Applicant the right to undertake and complete the site specific development plan and use of said property under the terms and conditions of the site specific development plan including any approved amendments thereto. The vesting period of these vested property rights shall be for five (5) years which shall not begin to run until the date of the publications required to be made as set forth below. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of § 26.104.050, Void Permits. Zoning that is not part of the approved site -specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval by the Historic Preservation Commission, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to Chapter 26.308, Vested Property Rights. Pursuant to § 26.304.070(A), Development Orders, such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of five (5) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot M, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the Development Order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this Ordinance of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this Ordinance. Ordinance #23, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 3 of 5 The vested rights granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review. The period of time permitted by law to exercise the right of referendum to refer to the electorate this Section of this Ordinance granting vested rights; or, to seek judicial review of the grant of vested rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as set forth above. The rights of referendum described herein shall be no greater than those set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. Section 4: Material Representations All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Historic Preservation Commission or 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 an authorized entity. Section 5: Litigation This ordinance 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 6: Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance 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. The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 7: Public Hearing A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 10th day of December, 2012 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 121h day of November, 2012. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Ordinance #23, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 4 of 5 ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2013. ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: James R. True, City Attorney Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Ordinance #23, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 5 of 5 INTEGRITY SCORING F'V � C � t � If a statement is true, circle the number of points associated with that true statement. LOCATION OF BUILDING ON THE LOT: The building is in its original location. 2 points The building has been shifted on the original parcel, but maintains its original 1 point alignment and/or proximity to the street. The property is located within the geographical area surrounded by Castle 1 point Creek, the Roaring Fork River and Aspen Mountain. The property is outside of the geographical area surround by Castle Creek, the 1/2 point Raoring Fork River and Aspen Mountain. DESIGN: The form of the building (footprint, roof and wall planes) are unaltered from 3 points the original design. a.) The form of the building has been altered but less than 25% of the original walls have been removed, OR b.) The alterations to the form all occur at the rear of the subject building, OR 2 points c.) The form of the building has been altered but the addition is less than 50% of the size of the original building, OR d.) There is a roof top addition that is less than 50% of the footprint of the roof. MATERIALS Exterior materials The original exterior materials of the building are still in place, with the 2 points, exception of normal maintenance and repairs. 50% of the exterior materials have been replaced, but the replacements 1 point match the original condition. Windowsdoors The original windows and doors of the building are still in place, with the 2 points exception of normal maintenance and repairs. 50% of the original windows and doors have been replaced, but the 1 point replacements match the original condition. Integrity Score (this page) maximum of 10 points: Character Defining Features Score (first page) maxi- mum of 10 points: HISTORIC ASSESSMENT SCORE: ❑ Q� 3 4--A C/! _ C a) (� o S > O a) O!^>�, • r� ACC Y W U ^Y, a) 6 C: L^^",,' c E, 6 t7 U �- U) to (D > > t 0 = V5 �11JN�E U OU H m C �a O w L OL N O m O c: L E(0 O C Q) C O a) M O 3 � c c a c U O O a) c 0 c E :a O .a O c v> c o m O 0 O N U a) N m E ` 2 O O U U E E 2 'C M 0. N a) 8 U) c C CO m 0❑X I I I❑X f0 oc cU U a i. o 0 O u> -F j rn LL C E O O O vi � O • a c O Lp W 7LL > a) N N P-1 A u C r L CD Q Q N _0 Q Q ':3 cfl O a' > > wD O N CU 0)Q U 4= N O� i 0 0 E L 4- p as L � 'O U_r_ U p N ca c c c� Co N N Q U Q N m w O ❑x R O _ O O a) N O Q) + M N C C O � O 0 .N N O O aci 0 '�' .c 3 c U Lo E � o o a U c 10 "O N N> L N L a) E p cc N Q O 'a O E O N — N d to rn (0 N L 0 -ja4) 'D O a) L � •3 U � cv O E T E rn (0 � � U 'm C;) %r- O cCc N � 5 N M a) '� CN (a ca G C �o f, U)C N N I� r .I ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24 2012 MOTION: Jay moved to approve resolution #26 second by Jane. Motion carried 4-1. Nora opposed. 610 E. Hyman — AspenModern Negotiation for Voluntary Landmark Designation, Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Special Review for utility/trash recycling area, continued from October loth — public hearing Jane recused herself. Amy summarized the staff memo. This is an AspenModern negotiation, a voluntary offer of designation in exchange for some landmark benefits that are available for all properties. In terms of designation staff finds that it meets the criteria. Ellie Brickham in 1951 was Aspen's first female architect. This is a good example of her design talents. There have been alterations to the building and it scored 15 out of 20. In terms of the negotiation the first incentive has to do with floor area. There is an allowance for 1500 square feet of residential free market floor area on the property and the applicant is asking for just over twice as much. That floor area figure covers not only the actual living area of the unit but also drags in common hallway and deck at -ea. This project is asking for doubling. It also pushes them slightly over the cap for what a building that just has commercial and free market uses ought to have by 692 square feet. On vested rights everyone receives three years and they are asking for ten years to allow more time to move forward. There are standard landmark benefits which are available to all designated properties. They are eligible for an affordable housing mitigation waiver for the office space they are creating. If they had to pay for a non -historic property it would be around $250,000, but they wouldn't pay anything in this scenario. The expansion of the office space triggers the need for a partial parking space onsite and they are asking to not provide the parking space but not pay the cash -in -lieu fee which would have been about $28,000. Their residential development is exempt from certain fees related to city parks and transportation. In terms of the incentives city council is the body that can award those incentives but ETC generally makes comments. I-IPC is also asked to review the conceptual design for the proposed addition at the back of the building. In terms of the HPC guidelines staff finds that the addition is acceptable because it is along the alley and doesn't encroach upon the historic building itself. It doesn't have a negative impact. In terms of the commercial design HPC needs to consider the request to go over the height limit. The height limit is 36 feet ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2012 measured from grade and their proposal is 38.11 to the top of the residential unit in the back. Our concern is that it looks like the floor to ceiling height on the third floor is about 12 feet which seems like it could be reduced and the height increase lessened. On the utility delivery issue every property downtown is expected to have a certain amount devoted to the functional needs of the building about 120 square feet and it should be along the alley so trash can be picked up easily. This property currently has no trash area that meets code. There is an internalized area for recycling and they have an agreement with the neighbor. That does not meet the standards. We have not seen any agreement that this will continue. In theory HPC could grant a complete waiver but we do not .think.that an appropriate plan. One suggestion is to eliminate one of the existing on -site parking spaces which then generates its own variance and cash -in -lieu and perhaps that is a way to accommodate the trash. Council has already awarded an extension on this project part of which HPC's agendas were so blocked up but the current extension expires in December. If this project cannot leave HPC with a recommendation tonight staff is not inclined to recommend an additional extension. We feel there has not been enough preservation effort represented in the project to out weight the benefits. The character of the windows has changed from the original design which has changed how you perceive the building from the street. We are concerned about having a certain standard to hold up that the AspenModern program can achieve certain things that the community can clearly see. The removal of the canopy and stucco on the fagade are not significant movement back to the original character. We would like to see this project work out but we feel we are not in the right place to approve it and we are not recommending HPC approval. Nora asked what has changed since we saw this the last two times. Amy said one of the things was the calculations on the building which were not clear enough for us to take a position.. We didn't understand what some of the square footages were. Amy said designation doesn't happen if the negotiation doesn't occur. Staff finds that the building worthy of designation but we are concerned that the other end of the proposal isn't meeting up to the standards. Willis asked for clarification regarding the trash. Amy said they are required to have 120 square feet on the site for their trash area and they have none 7 Ll L� ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2012 that qualifies now. ^HPC can accept any arrangement that you think appropriate. If you were going to ask them to provide any on the site it is going to impact one of the existing parking spaces. HPC can grant a variance to eliminate the parking space and you can eliminate the fee. Charles Cunniffe said in 2003 when he got approval to build the garage in the back the building was designed to have two stories in the future. The trash area was negotiated with the city and the city allowed us to do a recycle center instead of the traditional dumpster. The building has a gas meter on the back of it and has the meters along the car port. The recycling center has three bins for glass, aluminum and paper. It is used jointly with the neighboring properties. We would continue to work something out with them. We are attempting to be as paper free as possible. Most of our products are recyclable. It is the only 30 foot lot that is constrained in the neighborhood and if you put a 10 x 20 space in the back you would have a ten foot parking space. It is in the best interest to have a recycling center rather than a trash/utility area. We have four spaces and have the adequate parking. It is a two car garage and a two tandem space which was also approved in 2003. Ellie Brickham was a friend of mine through the architectural world. When I talked to her about what I wanted to do with the building she was very much in favor of me changing the windows. It is a better solar gain and the additions of the transoms allowed for ventilation. I haven't changed anything regarding the solid/void pattern on the front of the building. The only thing I altered is the lower arch is now squared off for a transom window. Mitch Haas, Hass land planning: With ordinance 48 and Aspen Modern the 90 day negotiation forces us to take a short view of the property and the effects of designation. It seems to put everyone in we want everything right now or nothing at all approach to a negotiation which is not really how one enters into a negotiation. There were three points of restoration: the arched windows, color of the stucco and the removal of the canopy. Charles agreed to two of the three. On the integrity assessment it scored 15 points which is on the border of better and best. By doing the two restorations we would be in the best example. If this building is not on the inventory there would be no HPC review or consideration ever going forward. In the way of incentives we have asked for additional free market area. The building is not efficiently laid out and there is a lot of common area and stairs than would be in any other building. We have requested a free market area of 3,053 square feet. The unit itself is 8 0 0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2012 1908 square feet of net livable space. Right now it is a studio to become a one bedroom unit. 286 square feet is counted as wall thicknesses and another 473 in circulation spaces that are shared for the commercial spaces below and another 385 deck space that is counting as floor area. Also the code requires an elevator. There is no parking requirement in the Cl zone district and none for the residential unit. At the alley the proposed height is 40 feet as submitted because the alley starts lower than the sidewalk. We are trying to look at the ceiling heights a little closer. We can drop it to 38 feet at the alley. Both buildings are going to go to three stories and will overwhelm this building. Mitch said the trash sits behind the golfco building to the east and is shared with this building. The recycling is behind our building. The golfco building has been approved by P&Z which is 9 feet along the alley and 20 feet deep. This project will be coming back for HPC final review and it doesn't have to be completely satisfied and addressed right now. When we come in for final we will either have letters of agreement from the neighbor or we will have a specific proposal for the H PC. We will resolve it or we won't get final approval from the HPC. You should save this building. Charles said if you look at the drawings there is not a significant alteration on the building. The most significant alteration is the canopy which is going to be removed. I feel what I did as appropriate to the building. Amy said she didn't hear until tonight that there was an tandern parking space on the site. I was under the impression that there were three parking spaces. That is adequate for the net leasable. The code does not allow commercial uses to count stacked parking spaces as adequate you have to have unobstructed access to the alley. That fourth space is not OK as the mitigation for this commercial building. It is great that you are working with your neighbors on recycling but the other side of the equation is that you have no place to put your trash. I don't think the existing arrangement is going to. work. Vice -chair Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. Junee Kirk said she served on the preservation committee. I recall that there weren't that many on the AspenModern list that were to be preserved. I'm surprised that this is coming under ordinance 448. 17 • 0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION _MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2012 Amy said the task force did not get to that level of detail. We aren't actually talking about getting this building to perfection. There are changes that we aren't even suggestion that should be undone like moving the entry to the center and filling in the light well. Vice -chair Jay Maytin closed the public comment portion of the agenda item. Jay said you can walk to the recycling area from the alley. If this agreement falls apart would you be able to collect your trash in this area. Charles said we have adequate access and this case is unique because it is a single tenant. All the changes are above the garage and there are no changes to the first floor. Nora said I thought it was clear that there were things that we wanted to see done before we thought it could be designated. I can't support designation and this is a very significant building and I don't feel as though we are being given the respect of what the restoration should look like. Maybe the board should vote on whether this building should be designated. Charles said he had to move the doors per code issues which were not in effect in 1962. It was a building code. Willis said he doesn't see anything substantially different presented from the last meeting. Mitch said we had to get all the calculations in the cad. Charles said before I wasn't willing to change the stucco or the canopy and now I am willing to change those. Willis asked if Charles talked to Marty Flug about memoralizing the trash agreement. Charles said we co -share the cost now and I can talk to him. Commissioner comments: Nora said she cannot support designation. Willis said there are four points of restoration that have been discussed. The same four things have been discussed at every hearing in the past. The to 0 E ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2012 canopy, the arches at the second level, the stucco color and the entry door change. We aren't asking for perfection and eliminated the entry door. The other three are the essence of Ellie Brickham. AspenModern negotiation has potential for demolition. The spirit of AspenModern is for the developer to think twice about their actions. We have asked for three out of four things and you should just do it and enjoy the benefits that with it. Jay said his fear is that this building will go away and people will be upset. The removal of the canopy was a huge step. I don't agree with the ten year vested rights. This building will probably be dwarfed after the two buildings on either side are done. This will be a better project than letting it go. I also agree that the utility for a restaurant should be different than for an office building. Sallie said it is great that the canopy is removed. The color change is good but I think when we asked for three I wanted three. I would support giving more time and figuring out how we can designate a building that looks like the original building that she designed. Charles said the arches are not functional. Willis said part of the charm is the arches that speak to the era. Charles said the arches are one of many things that make the building historic. If you put the arches back there is less light. MOTION: Willis moved to approve resolution #27 with the following condition& that the first level arches return to the restoration and some agreement about the trash be submitted and that council take up the issues of vested rights. All the incentives are ok. Motion second by Sallie. Motion carried 3-1. Nora voted no. MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn; second by Nora. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 11 • RECEPTION#. 69397 16/2012 at 10:21:43 AM, 1 OF 3, R $21.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVE HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND PRESERVATION BENEFITS THROUGH THE ASPENMODERN PROGRAM FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 610 E. HYMAN AVENUE, LOT M, BLOCK 99, L TY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, MAJOR OR DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL , AND GRANTING CONCEPTUAL L DESIGNN REVIEW APPROVAL RESOLUTION #27, SERIES OF 2012 PARCEL ID: 2737-182-12-004 WHEREAS, on March 28, 2012, the applicant, 610 E. Hyman LLC, Charles Cunniffe, represented by Haas Land Planning, requested that the property located at 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot M, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, be considered for voluntary historic designation in exchange 6.415.025 and Section 26.415 030 of the Mu icapal Cern negotiation de tana n process as described at Sect WHEREAS, an AspenModern negotiation period ends 90 days after initiation unless extended by City Council. Council passed Resolution #53, Series of 2012 to extend this negotiation to December 23, 2012; and WHEREAS, an AspenModern negotiation requires that the Historic Preservation Commission, using context papers and integrity scoring sheets for the property under consideration, provide Council with an assessment of the property's conformance with the designation criteria of Section 26.415.030.C. I - When any benefits that are not included in Section 26.415.110 are requested by the property owner, HPC shall also evaluate how the designation, and any development that is concurrently proposed, meets the policy objectives for the historic preservation program, as stated at Section 26.415.010, Purpose and Intent. As an additional measure of the appropriateness of designation and benefits, HPC shall determine whether the subject property is a "good, better, or best" example of Aspen's 20`h century historic resources, referencing the scoring sheets and matrix adopted by City Council; and WHEREAS, concurrent with the designation application, Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval was requested for an expansion to the subject building; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation applicable CodeGuidelines Sect ons eThe HPC Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipa Code and other 610 E. Hyman Avenue - AspenModern HPC Resolution #27, Series of 2012 may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Commercial Design Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Objectives and Guidelines per Section 26.412.040 of the Municipal Code. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, the proposed expansion project includes a parking waiver, which HPC may grant according to the review standards of Section 26.415.110.C, Benefits, of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the proposed expansion project includes a reduction to the required Utility/Delivery and Trash Storage area, which HPC may grant based on the review standards of Section 26.430, Special Review; and WHEREAS, the proposed redevelopment includes a height increase, which HPC may grant according to the review standards of Section 26.412, Commercial Design Review, of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report to HPC dated October 24, 2012, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards. The staff recommendation was that the property should be designated a landmark as it meets the criteria for designation and the integrity score qualifies as the "better/best" category of historic resources. Staff recommended that the proposed incentives were not appropriate within the AspenModern program due to lack of adequate restoration work, and the project did not meet review standards related to Conceptual Design Review. Staff recommended denial of the project; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on October 24, 2012, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application during a duly noticed public hearing, the staff memo and recommendation, and public comments, and recommended Council pursue negotiation for landmark designation for this "better/best" example of an AspenModern resource, with conditions. HPC approved Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual Commercial Design with conditions. The vote of the members was 3 to 1. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby finds that the property located at 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot M, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen, meets the designation criteria of Land Use Code Section 26.415.030.C.1. HPC supports Council negotiation for voluntary designation of this property only with the condition that the resto restorationapplicant workis considered restore necessary to original the ground floor windows. Thisto support a package of preservation incentives which include the following: A free market residential floor area increase of 1,546 square feet, making the total free market floor area 3,046 square feet. The combination of the commercial floor area and 610 E. Hyman Avenue - AspenModern HPC Resolution #27, Series of 2012 0 the residential free market floor area will exceed what is allowed as a total development for the site by 692 square feet. 2. 10 years vested rights. 3. Growth Management affordable housing mitigation waiver for the 1.725 employees generated by the proposed 949 square feet of new net leasable space. (This waiver is available in the Municipal Code for all historic landmarks) 4. On -site parking waiver, and waiver of cash -in -lieu fee for the required 0.95 parking spaces generated by the proposed 949 square feet of new net leasable space. (This waiver is available in the Municipal Code for all historic landmarks) 5. Park Development and Transportation Demand Management mitigation fees generated by residential and commercial expansion. (This waiver is available in the Municipal Code for all historic landmarks) HPC hereby grants Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval with the following conditions: 1. HPC approves a full waiver of the required on -site Utility, Delivery and Trash Storage Area with the condition that the applicant provides City Council with an acceptable written agreement for shared Trash Storage area amongst adjacent property owner(s) on Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen. 2. The applicant must restudy the design of the new addition so the project does not exceed a maximum height of 38'. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 24th day of October, 2012. ay aytin, Vice Chair Approved as to Form: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 610 E. Hyman Avenue — AspenModem HPC Resolution #27, Series of 2012 UU. 1SS>'016016-XYJ 06SSSZ6016•121 MIROJ'k3dSV' MYNWAH1SY3019 S.I.J 111H��1V AJJINNno S_I-I2IV1-Io OOY oloo'N3dSY ?AV Wi iAH 3 019 -]AV NVWIvI-I '=1 M9 LS:Y026'U6,fd "M 00}[id i3AVNIN IWL 019 woo•ay.uum.ffmm S103DHO2t]V 3-�31NNno STI?JVHO OOb'MOIOO 'N3dSV 3nN3AV NVWAH ISV3 M9 W N o co Q SNimin8 N` VIAH 1SV3 U9 IL - I u L c Q LL LL LL LL U. 0 3nN3AV NMA.H ISV3 019 S1O31IHO2JV 33JINNno S3121VHO ONIC-linS NVWAH ISV3 OW If (54Y'O[9O[fi YYi 1 Ou55'5290[8'131 I 11919 0J N3dSV I '31�Y MYIAH 1SY3019 a S1O311HOHV 3HHINNno S3]HVHO I 0 J z a ui cn W o O oa y 5 a w LL9 Oo i i OOd210100'N3dSV s o 3nN3AVNMMISV30L9 f JNImIfl9 NVINAH 1SV3 N9 v O • CJ ■� 8 vs.cmwsava I mwwal 1 1,91. ooraas+ . W-.1. 00Vkj0100'N3dSV 3nN�AVNVMA.H 1S'V9 019 S10311HOHV 3=1=11NNno s31 vHo eNICIIIng NVNAH 1SV3 OL9 A it I %mmmomm MOA ....... ...... < rl G r • G u tfco Ltd. 616 East Hyman, Aspen, Colorado 81611 - (070) 925.2496 Martin Flug Chalrman November 30, 2012 Amy Guthrie 130 S Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Trash/Recycling Agreement for 616 E. Hyman Avenue and 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Amy, This letter Is to confirm that the Owners of 616 E. Hyman Avenue and 610 E. Hyman Avenue have a cooperative agreement for their trash and recycling services. The trash receptacle is behind 616 E. Hyman Ave.; this trash service Is shared with 610 E. Hyman Ave. The recycling bins are behind 610 E. Hyman Ave,; the recycling services Is shared with 616 E. Hyman Ave. Please let us know if you require additional Information. Sincerely, n Steven Ferrell Gulfco, Ltd. 0 :ca�uLau���s. No NEI F I I u m P2SS ARCHITECT E PLANNING Proposed Level One Plan 616 E. HYP"AAN D 1-3 October 16, 2012 / vz�z I Lo � . V MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Directoavv/ FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Second Reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 2012, AspenModern negotiation for historic designation of 610 E. Hyman Avenue DATE: December 10, 2012 SUMMARY: 610 E. Hyman Avenue was constructed for well known gallery owner Patricia Moore in 1963. It was designed by Ellie Brickham, who in 1951 was the first female architect to practice in Aspen. The offices of Charles Cunniffe Architects have been located in the building for twenty years. In late 2010, Charles Cunniffe proposed voluntary designation and a building expansion through the Ordinance #48 landmark negotiation process, which was the City's first effort to incentivize designation of postwar era properties. HPC reviewed the project twice before the application was terminated after no significant progress. In April 2012, the application was re -submitted in advance of reduced height limits going into effect in the downtown. The proposal now falls under the AspenModern ordinance (largely similar to the applicant can request special benefits. Patricia Moore Inc. occupies the first flonr of this building designed by M;as BH('l;ham. Miss :Moore occupies the second floor apartment. Ordinance #48) within which The special benefits entailed in this application are represented in a building expansion, which is being reviewed by HPC concurrent with the designation. The applicant has requested approval for a 949 square foot expansion of office space and a 1,546 square foot residential floor area increase for the expansion of an existing free market apartment. The apartment will not exceed the maximum net livable unit size for the zone district. In combination, the commercial floor area and the residential free market floor area will exceed what is allowed as a total development for the site by 692 square feet. An Second Reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 1 of 10 extended period of vested rights is requested to provide more flexibility on the start date for the project. The office expansion is on the second floor, along the alley, on top of a non -historic garage. The free market residential addition is a new third story which is located partially on the garage and partially on the roof of the historic building. HPC has granted Conceptual design approval for the new construction and has provided a recommendation that City Council pursue a negotiation for landmark designation. HPC's support for this action is strongly conditioned upon a requirement that the applicant reverse certain changes that have been made to the original design of the building; namely the restoration of arched windows on the ground floor, restoration of the building's original white stucco panels, and removal of an awning that covers an open air patio on the second floor. Throughout several previous HPC meetings the applicant has been unwilling to agree to restore the form of the ground floor windows, leading staff to have recommended denial of the application to HPC. HOC supported the project proceeding only with restoration. A restoration plan that meets HPC's expectations was submitted in November and is Exhibit F of this packet. APPLICANT: 610 E. Hyman LLC, Charles Cunniffe, represented by Haas Land Planning. PARCEL ID: 2737-182-12-004. ADDRESS: 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot M, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: C-1, Commercial. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures as an example of AspenModern, an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. The quality of significance of properties shall be evaluated according to criteria described below. At least two of the criteria a-d, and criterion a must be met: a. The property is related to an event, pattern, or trend that has made a contribution to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific event, pattern or trend is identified and documented in an adopted context paper; b. The property is related to people who have made a contribution to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the Second Reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 2 of 10 specific people are identified and documented in an adopted context paper; c. The property represents a physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman, or design philosophy that is deemed important and the specific physical design, designer, or philosophy is documented in an adopted context paper; d. The property possesses such singular significance to the City, as documented by the opinions of persons educated or experienced in the fields of history, architecture, landscape architecture, archaeology or a related field, that the property's potential demolition or major alteration would substantially diminish the character and sense of place in the city as perceived by members of the community, and e. The property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association, given its age. The City Council shall adopt and make available to the public score sheets and other devices which shall be used by the Council and Historic Preservation Commission to apply this criterion. Staff Response: 610 E. Hyman Avenue was built in 1963 for owner Patricia Moore. The Patricia Moore Gallery was a respected business in town for many years, and displayed the work of many important artists on the main floor of the building. An upper floor residential studio unit was part of the original design. Ms. Moore sold the property in 1988. 610 E. Hyman was constructed for a woman who played an important role in the local arts community, and it was designed by Aspen's first woman architect. This is one of the few Ellie Brickham buildings that remains in Aspen. Ellie Brickham (1923-2008) moved to Aspen in 1951 after attending the University of Colorado's School of Architecture from 1941-1944. Construction was a family business, and her motivation to become a designer began as a child. According to the research paper, "Aspen's Twentieth -Century Architecture: Modernism 1945-1975:" "Early in her career, Brickham worked in Fritz Benedict's office and collaborated on projects with both Benedict and Bayer, participating in work going on at the Aspen Institute. Like Benedict, she had a strong interest in passive solar techniques. During her time in that office and, later, in her own practice out of her home, she designed a number of residences and commercial buildings in town, including houses for several Music Festival artists in Aspen Grove, the elegantly simple brick Strandberg Residence (1973, 433 Bleeker Street -demolished) and the Second Reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 3 of 10 Patricia Moore Building (1962, 610 E. Hyman Avenue). In Pitkin County, she designed numerous homes in Pitkin Green and Starwood, on Red Mountain, including her own house (1955), with south and west walls made completely of glass. Her works, which total at least sixty in the Aspen area, are generally characterized by spare, simple forms and minimal detailing. Brickham's projects focus on an "impeccable sense of proportion and feeling of lightness," according to a 1977 Aspen Times article." The building that Ellie Brickham designed for Patricia Moore appears to have been influenced by "New Formalism," an architectural approach of the early 1960s which emphasized symmetrical, smooth -skinned, flat roofed buildings with screens and grilles. The facade of 610 E. Hyman has six attenuated brick piers that extend from the base to the eaves and stucco arched spandrels for a more "decorated" look that reflected the 1960s evolution of modernist design. A related example is Phillip Johnson's 1962 Lincoln Center in New York, below. HPC presented an Honor Award to Ellie Brickham in 2001, in recognition of her influence on the built environment in Aspen. The neighborhood where this structure was built includes several other AspenModern related properties. Relatively few of the noted postwar properties are commercial structures. It is important to carefully consider preservation opportunities for this small collection of highly visible downtown structures. Staff finds that historic designation criteria a, c, and a are met. The second component of designation is scoring the physical integrity of the building. Staff s score sheet is attached as Exhibit B. Several elements of this building were altered through previous remodels. The front entry door was originally centered on the facade. Now there are entries on both ends of the storefront level. Originally all of the street -facing opening were arched, but the ground floor windows have been changed to have square transom windows. A lightwell has been added to the front facade so the building no longer meets the sidewalk in the center, the basement office level is exposed to view, and there are no kickplates below the windows. The stucco color has been changed from white to a masonry color. A seasonal canopy has been added to enclose the rooftop courtyard. These alterations have affected the integrity score for the building and need to be taken into account when determining the appropriate package of preservation incentives to approve for the project. Staff scored the building as a "Better/Best" example of AspenModern, with 15 out of 20 points. Second Reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModem Negotation Page 4 of 10 • 0 According to Municipal Code Section 26.415.025.C.1.b, the Historic Preservation Commission, using context papers and integrity scoring sheets for the property under consideration, shall provide Council with an assessment of the property's conformance with the designation criteria of Section 26.415.030.C.1. When any benefits that are not included in Section 26.415.110 are requested by the property owner, HPC shall also evaluate how the designation, and any development that is concurrently proposed, meets the policy objectives for the historic preservation program, as stated at Section 26.415.010, Purpose and Intent. As an additional measure of the appropriateness of designation and benefits, HPC shall determine whether the subject property is a "good, better, or best" example of Aspen's 20`h century historic resources, referencing the scoring sheets and matrix adopted by City Council. The City Council may negotiate directly with the property owner or may choose to direct the Community Development Director, or other City staff as necessary, to negotiate with the property owner to reach a mutually acceptable agreement for the designation of the property. The City Council may choose to provide this direction in Executive Session, pursuant to State Statute. As part of the mutually acceptable agreement, the City Council may, at its sole discretion, approve any land use entitlement or fee waiver permitted by the Municipal Code and may award any approval that is assigned to another Board or Commission, including variations. Council shall consider the appropriateness of benefits in light of whether the property is identified as a "good, better, or best" example of Aspen's 20`h century history and shall also seek to be equitable in the benefits awarded through the negotiation process. The monetary value of benefits being requested shall be defined, to the extent possible. Council shall seek compatibility with the neighborhood surrounding the subject property. The Land Use Code states that, as a further measure of the value of negotiation, the proposal should meet the Purpose and Intent Statements of the Historic Preservation program, which are: §26.415.010. Purpose and intent. The purpose of this Chapter is to promote the public health, safety and welfare through the protection, enhancement and preservation of those properties, areas and sites, which represent the distinctive elements of Aspen's cultural, educational, social, economic, political and architectural history. Under the authority provided by the Home Rule Charter of the City and Section 29-20- 104(c), C.R.S., to regulate land use and preserve areas of historical, architectural, archaeological, engineering and cultural importance, this Chapter sets forth the procedures to: Second Reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 5 of 10 A. Recognize, protect and promote the retention and continued utility of the historic buildings and districts in the City; B. Promote awareness and appreciation of Aspen's unique heritage; C. Ensure the preservation of Aspen's character as an historic mining town, early ski resort and cultural center; D. Retain the historic, architectural and cultural resource attractions that support tourism and the economic welfare of the community; and E. Encourage sustainable reuse of historic structures. F. Encourage voluntary efforts to increase public information, interaction or access to historic building interiors. The City does not intend by the historic preservation program to preserve every old building, but instead to draw a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest in preserving the City's cultural, historic, and architectural heritage. This should be accomplished by ensuring that demolition of buildings and structures important to that heritage are carefully weighed with other alternatives. Alterations to historically significant buildings and new construction in historic areas shall respect the character of each such setting, not by imitating surrounding structures, but by being compatible with them as defined in historic preservation guidelines. Staff Response: The applicant requests the following special, site specific incentives through AspenModern negotiation, in exchange for landmark designation. Floor area bonus The existing residential unit is currently just below the 1,500 square feet maximum floor area allowed for free market apartments on this property. The applicant wishes to enlarge the unit. As a preservation benefit, a floor area increase of 1,546 square feet is requested, making the total free market floor area 3,046 square feet. A portion of the FAR assigned to the residential use is actually common circulation area, garage, deck area, etc. If this benefit is approved, the combination of the commercial floor area and the residential floor area will also exceed what is allowed as a total development for the site by 692 square feet. Extension of vested rights The applicant requests extended vested rights. All projects receive an automatic three years of vested rights, or protection from changes to Land Use regulation. The applicant requests 10 years to allow for the start date of the project to be more flexible. Second Reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 6 of 10 • The applicant requests the following standard benefits offered to landmarked properties. Affordable housing The new office space triggers affordable housing mitigation, however the applicant will take advantage of a preservation benefit which is already in place for all landmarks at Section 26.470.060.4 of the Municipal Code. The Community Development Director can grant an exemption to affordable housing requirements for up to 4 employees as part of the expansion of a mixed use, landmarked building. There are no review standards that must be met for the approval of this exemption. If the property is not landmark designated, and mitigation were required for this development, it would be for the equivalent of 1.725 employees, or $242,000 if paid as cash -in -lieu. Parking The expansion of the free market residential unit does not trigger additional parking requirements, but the new office space does generate the need for a fraction of one space. A full space could theoretically be provided on -site to meet the requirement (although it is apparently not physically possible), or the owner could pay cash -in -lieu. HPC has recommended that the review standards of Section 26.415.110.0 of the Municipal Code are met and that no on -site parking or cash -in -lieu payment must be required. The cash -in -lieu payment would typically be $28,500. Park Development Impact Fee and Transportation Demand Impact Fee Historic Landmark properties are exempt from paying certain fees that offset the need for the City to develop more parks or transportation systems as a result of new development. The exemption is standard. There are no review criteria. The proposed development would result in a waiver of approximately $12,000 in Park Development Impact Fee and $1,400 in Transportation Demand Impact Fee. In conducting their Conceptual Design review for the proposed building expansion, HPC made two determinations that Council should be aware of. First, HPC allowed the rear addition to reach a height of 38'. The maximum height limit for the zone district, under the rules that were in place at the time of application, is 36', which can. be increased to as much as 40' through Commercial Design Review. HPC determined that a 38' height was acceptable because of the drop in elevation from the front of the property to the alley. Second Reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 7 of 10 0 0 The building already has a complex combination of floor levels, which the board acknowledged through their approval. The proposed drawings show a height of 38' 11 ", which must be amended for the Final HPC meeting. The second important determination that HPC made is related to Utility, Delivery and Trash Storage area. The Municipal Code requires this property to have an area parallel to the alley dedicated to the service needs of the building. This area is to be 15 feet long and 10 feet deep. The area cannot also be used as a parking space. This property currently has no service area that meets the code. The applicant proposes to maintain their existing arrangement to accept recycling items from adjacent properties, in exchange for those properties accommodating the trash disposal needs of 610 E. Hyman. The recycling area that 610 E. Hyman shares with others is not directly along the alley, but apparently has easy and workable access to the alley. HPC felt that a waiver of the requirement is allowable, if an agreement that is acceptable to Council can be provided during the negotiation. The applicant has provided a letter from the adjacent property owner, attached to this packet as Exhibit G. The letter indicates that shared trash and recycling can continue, however there is no detail about how the arrangement will work or be guaranteed into the future. Staff has provided diagrams of the proposed arrangement. Staff recommends Council direct one of the following: •' Require the creation of a binding, recorded agreement, to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's Office, which details how the shared arrangement will function, including the size and type of trash and recycling bins that will be provided, how users of both buildings will have unlimited access to the facilities, which waste hauler will provide services. etc. Also require a plan for exact placement and size of trash and recycling containers for both the 610 E. Hyman property and the 616 E. Hyman property, to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department. Note that if the sites dealt with their needs individually, the Environmental Health Department would expect to see a 4 yard dumpster and 4 recycling containers (comingled, office paper, newspapers/magazines, and cardboard) on each site. Locating all trash storage on one -site and all recycling on the other does not mean that half as many containers are sufficient. • Waive the requirement for one on -site parking space (requiring cash -in -lieu payment instead) so that one of the existing parking spaces along the alley can be converted to a trash and recycle area that serves the needs of the 610 E. Hyman property. Second Reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 8 of 10 L] 9 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The negotiated benefits are policy matters for Council to decide. HPC used the designation criteria, adopted context papers, and scoring sheets to forward a recommendation to City Council regarding the importance of the building. During the three previous discussions of this project, HPC was focused on the importance of restoring the front facade of the building as much as possible, given the requested preservation incentives. Three particular actions were identified as important; restoring the arched windows on the lower half of the front facade, removing the canopy that currently covers the upper floor patio and restoring the original color of the stucco panels. Community Development and HPC only support the award of the benefits that are requested if there is a dedicated effort to return all of the character defining features of the building within reason. It is understood that moving the entry doors back to the center, and eliminating the lightwell are impractical. Nonetheless, on other AspenModern projects, including Mason and Morse and Aspen Core, the applicant's financial commitment to restoration efforts are very substantial. Consistently high standards for the AspenModern process are important in staffs opinion. Historic and current images of the building are depicted below. Second Reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 9 of 10 The 610 E. Hyman building represents Ellie Brickham as an architect and is indicative of post-war commercial development in Aspen in the 1960s. This building, and the building immediately west of the subject site, are the only known examples of Ms. Brickham's work left to preserve in Aspen. The building meets the designation criteria in its existing condition. With designation, some of the incentives involved in this project, such as affordable housing waiver and development impact fee waiver, would be automatic. Other incentives, including the floor area bonus, parking variance, height, utility/trash/storage and vested rights are all discretionary. An AspenModern negotiation period between the applicant and the City is limited to a 90 day duration. Council can grant extensions and has done so for this project. The current extension expires on December 23rd. If the negotiation is not successfully completed by that time, Council must either grant another extension or the process will expire and development on the site will be subject to the new regulations for the C-1 zone district, including a 28' height limit. Staff finds that approval of this project, with HPC's requirement to include restoration of the ground floor window form, is consistent with what has occurred on the four previous AspenModern negotations related to downtown properties. The architectural integrity of the building will be greatly enhanced. The restoration work is highly unlikely to occur outside of this process. The building could be demolished or heavily altered in other ways if it is not designated. The attached ordinance includes all of the negotiation requests, to be amended by City Council as desired. EXHIBITS: Ordinance # , Series of 2012 Exhibit A: Integrity Score Sheet Exhibit B: Draft, October 241h, 2012 HPC minutes Exhibit C: HPC Resolution #27, Series of 2012 Exhibit D: Elevations Exhibit E: Floor plans Exhibit F: Restoration Plan Exhibit G: Letter and site plans related to trash and recycling areas Second Reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 10 of 10 ORDINANCE #23 (Series of 2012) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO APPROVING HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND BENEFITS THROUGH THE ASPENMODERN PROGRAM FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 610 E. HYMAN AVENUE, LOT M, BLOCK 99, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL ID: 2737-182-12-004 WHEREAS, the applicant, 610 E. Hyman LLC, represented by Haas Land Planning, submitted an application on March 28, 2012, pursuant to Section 26.415.025(C), AspenModern Properties, of the Aspen Municipal Code, to voluntarily participate in the AspenModern ninety -day negotiation period for the properties located at 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot M, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen; and WHEREAS, an AspenModern negotiation period ends 90 days after initiation unless extended by City Council. Council passed Resolution #53, Series of 2012 to extend this negotiation to December 23, 2012; and WHEREAS, Municipal Code Section 26.415.025.C(1)(b) states that, during the negotiation period, "the Community Development Director shall confer with the Historic Preservation Commission, during a public meeting, regarding the proposed building permit and the nature of the property. The property owner shall be provided notice of this meeting;" and WHEREAS, the property owners' representative met with the Historic Preservation Commission on May 23, 2012 and October 24, 2012; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on October 24, 2012, the HPC considered the application; found that 610 E. Hyman Avenue is a "better/best" example of the Modern style in Aspen evaluated the designation and proposed development; and, found that the policy objectives for the historic preservation program stated at Section 26.415.010, Purpose and Intent are met, and recommended City Council ("Council") approval of Historic Landmark Designation and negotiation with conditions; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.025.C(1)(d), states that, during the negotiation period, "council may negotiate directly with the property owner or may choose to direct the Community Development Director, or other City staff as necessary, to negotiate with the property owner to reach a mutually acceptable agreement for the designation of the property"; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.025.C(1)d establishes that "as part of the mutually acceptable agreement, the City Council may, at its sole discretion, approve any land use entitlement or fee waiver permitted by the Municipal Code and may award any approval that is assigned to another Board or Commission, including variations;" and Ordinance #23, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 1 of 5 • 0 WHEREAS, in addition to Historic Landmark Designation and benefits available to all Landmarked properties subject to the Aspen Municipal Code, the applicant has identified preservation incentives that are requested as part of the AspenModern negotiation process; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department performed an analysis of the application for Landmark Designation and found that the review standards are met, with conditions. The staff report analyzed the proposed preservation incentives and monetary value of the benefits where possible; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Historic Landmark Designation Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council hereby approves Historic Designation for 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot M, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen subject to the conditions described herein. Upon the effective date of this ordinance, the City Clerk shall record with the real estate records of the Clerk and Recorder of the County, a certified copy of this ordinance. The location of the historic landmark property designated by this ordinance shall be indicated on the official maps of the City that are maintained by the Community Development Department. Section 2: Aspen Modern Negotiation Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council hereby approves the following preservation benefits, with the condition that the applicant is required to restore the building as represented in Exhibit F of the December 10, 2012 Council packet. 1. A free market residential floor area increase of 1,546 square feet, making the total free market floor area 3,046 square feet. The combination of the commercial floor area and the residential free market floor area will exceed what is allowed as a total development for the site by 692 square feet, 2. 10 years vested rights, and 3. Waiver of the requirement for one of the existing on -site parking spaces, to be converted to a Utility/Trash/Recycling area as required by the Land Use Code. The applicant shall pay a cash -in -lieu fee of $30,000 at the time of building permit. Ordinance #23, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 2 of 5 (ALTERNATIVE TO SECTION 2.3, ABOVE) Section 3: Utility, Delivery and Trash Storage Area The applicant has received a waiver of the on -site requirement based on a satisfactory written agreement to share Recycling and Trash Storage area amongst adjacent property owner(s) on Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen with the condition that there is a binding, recorded agreement, to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's Office, which details how the shared arrangement will function, including the size and type of trash and recycling bins that will be provided, how users of both buildings will have unlimited access to the facilities, which waste hauler will provide services. In addition, there shall be a plan provided for exact placement and size of trash and recycling containers for both the 610 E. Hyman property and the 616 E. Hyman property, to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department. Section 4: Vested Rights The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site -specific development plan and a vested property right attaching to and running with the Subject Property and shall confer upon the Applicant the right to undertake and complete the site specific development plan and use of said property under the terms and conditions of the site specific development plan including any approved amendments thereto. The vesting period of these vested property rights shall be for ten (10) years which shall not begin to run until the date of the publications required to be made as set forth below. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of § 26.104.050, Void Permits. Zoning that is not part of the approved site -specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to Chapter 26.308, Vested Property Rights. Pursuant to § 26.304.070(A), Development Orders, such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of ten (10) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot M, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the Development Order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this Ordinance of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this Ordinance. Ordinance 423, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 3 of 5 The vested rights granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review. The period of time permitted by law to exercise the right of referendum to refer to the electorate this Section of this Ordinance granting vested rights; or, to seek judicial review of the grant of vested rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as set forth above. The rights of referendum described herein shall be no greater than those set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. Section 5: Material Representations All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Historic Preservation Commission or 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 an authorized entity. Section 6: Litigation This ordinance 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 7: Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance 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. The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 8: Public Hearin A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the loth day of December, 2012 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 12t' day of November, 2012. ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Ordinance #23, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 4 of 5 FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2012. ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: James R. True, City Attorney Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Ordinance #23, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 5 of 5 INTEGRITY SCORING t�v �'c � t � If a statement is true, circle the number of points associated with that true statement. LOCATION OF BUILDING ON • The building is in its original location. 2 points The building has been shifted on the original parcel, but maintains its original 1 point alignment and/or proximity to the street. The property is located within the geographical area surrounded by Castle 1 point Creek, the Roaring Fork River and Aspen Mountain. The property is outside of the geographical area surround by Castle Creek, the 1/2 point Raoring Fork River and Aspen Mountain. DESIGN: The form of the building (footprint, roof and wall planes) are unaltered from 3 points the original design. a.) The form of the building has been altered but less than 25% of the original walls have been removed, OR b.) The alterations to the form all occur at the rear of the subject building, OR 2 points c.) The form of the building has been altered but the addition is less than 50% of the size of the original building, OR d.) There is a roof top addition that is less than 50% of the footprint of the roof. MATERIALS Exterior materials The original exterior materials of the building are still in place, with the 2 points exception of normal maintenance and repairs. 50% of the exterior materials have been replaced, but the replacements 1 point match the original condition. Windowsdoors The original windows and doors of the building are still in place, with the 2 points exception of normal maintenance and repairs. 50% of the original windows and doors have been replaced, but the 1 point replacements match the original condition. Integrity Score (this page) maximum of 10 points: Character Defining Features Score (first page) maxi- mum of 10 points: HISTORIC ASSESSMENT SCORE: • Fxl m c •a �12 0m C L C N So C O N ro O N .- U C v a O o > U C rn 4- o f° 0 c0.EsE 0 ia o Fxl � 00 U O ro ro E ` O 0 L 0 U U E E O 'C ro d N � 0 m o U) � U CD c m RXs 11 111>1< Fxl � N N � 4- N O Q vi O 4- cr > � 0.— M C O CO +� N O � 4�--- N O O E 0 E -0 v o o c c� 0 Co O O- cu n D U C D M O :U)0-2 �-C=Coa NQ U Q. m� O .� -0 _ 0 ro 0 3 O C 0 C `—° C E °' 0 =N U CL c O _ ro to fl V� C �. -c °N o— E 5.... 0 n 0 n 3 o ° 0 .c �03 o > z3 o' c ro 0 0a0i (U} rn ��,� 1 W U cn >+ C� o C � — (IS U f0 i7 D C O 0 ro C ? ro "O N>` 2 L N C ro ro NL+ O) � .N O 0 N N 3 Q D) (`0 _ 0 Q 0 c o ro o a E n ro Q ro c .� E u. p E Q U � N a a QN N Cl) M d u) 0 rn cf N W � o j � -Y E 5 U n 0 c •aE0 7 U � 42 — 0-0 ro E T E 0 rn -�+ N vi �v,E C •� Cl)`C o a N C ca N N M L roro� o m L U) U) a) L 70 • ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24 2012 MOTION: Jay moved to approve resolution #26 second by Jane. Motion carried 4-1. Nora opposed. 610 E. Hyman — AspenModern Negotiation for Voluntary Landmark Designation, Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Special Review for utility/trash recycling area, continued from October loth — public hearing Jane recused herself. Amy summarized the staff memo. This is an AspenModern negotiation, a voluntary offer of designation in exchange for some landmark benefits that are available for all properties. In terms of designation staff finds that it meets the criteria. Ellie Brickham in 1951 was Aspen's first female architect. This is a good example of her design talents. There have been alterations to the building and it scored 15 out of 20. In terms of the negotiation the first incentive has to do with floor area. There is an allowance for 1500 square feet of residential free market floor area on the property and the applicant is asking for just over twice as much. That floor area figure covers not only the actual living area of the unit but also drags in common hallway and deck area. This project is asking for doubling. It also pushes them slightly over the cap for what a building that just has commercial and free market uses ought to have by 692 square feet. On vested rights everyone receives three years and they are asking for ten years to allow more time to move forward. There are standard landmark benefits which are available to all designated properties. They are eligible for an affordable housing mitigation waiver for the office space they are creating. If they had to pay for a non -historic property it would be around $250,000, but they wouldn't pay anything in this scenario. The expansion of the office space triggers the need for a partial parking space onsite and they are asking to not provide the parking space but not pay the cash -in -lieu fee which would have been about $28,000. Their residential development is exempt from certain fees related to city parks and transportation. In terms of the incentives city council is the body that can award those incentives but UPC generally makes comments. UPC is also asked to review the conceptual design for the proposed addition at the back of the building. In terms of the HPC guidelines staff finds that the addition is acceptable because it is along the alley and doesn't encroach upon the historic building itself. It doesn't have a negative impact. In terms of the commercial design UPC needs to consider the request to go over the height limit. The height limit is 36 feet R ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2012 measured from grade and their proposal is 38.11 to the top of the residential unit in the back. Our concern is that it looks like the floor to ceiling height on the third floor is about 12 feet which seems like it could be reduced and the height increase lessened. On the utility delivery issue every property downtown is expected to have a certain amount devoted to the functional needs of the building about 120 square feet and it should be along the alley so trash can be picked up easily. This property currently has no trash area that meets code. There is an internalized area for recycling and they have an agreement with the neighbor. That does not meet the standards. We have not seen any agreement that this will continue. In theory I PC could grant a complete waiver but.we do not think.that an appropriate plan. One suggestion is to eliminate one of the existing on -site parking spaces which then generates its own variance and cash -in -lieu and perhaps that is a way to accommodate the trash. Council has already awarded an extension on this project part of which HPC's agendas were so blocked up but the current extension expires in December. If this project cannot leave UPC with a recommendation tonight staff is not inclined to recommend an additional extension. We feel there has not been enough preservation effort represented in the project to out weight the benefits. The character of the windows has changed from the original design which has changed how you perceive the building from the street. We are concerned about having a certain standard to hold up that the AspenModern program can achieve certain things that the community can clearly see. The removal of the canopy and stucco on the fagade are not significant movement back to the original character. We would like to see this project work out but we feel we are not in the right place to approve it and we are not recommending HPC approval. Nora asked what has changed since we saw this the last two times. Amy said one of the things was the calculations on the building which were not clear enough for us to take a position.. We didn't understand what some of the square footages were. Amy said designation doesn't happen if the negotiation doesn't occur. Staff finds that the building worthy of designation but we are concerned that the other end of the proposal isn't meeting up to the standards. Willis asked for clarification regarding the trash. Amy said they are required to have 120 square feet on the site for their trash area and they have none ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24,201 that qualifies now. ^HPC can accept any arrangement that you think appropriate. If you were going to ask them to provide any on the site it is going to impact one of the existing parking spaces. HPC can grant a variance to eliminate the parking space and you can eliminate the fee. Charles Cunniffe said in 2003 when he got approval to build the garage in the back the building was designed to have two stories in the future. The trash area was negotiated with the city and the city allowed us to do a recycle center instead of the traditional dumpster. The building has a gas meter on the back of it and has the meters along the car port. The recycling center has three bins for glass, aluminum and paper. It is used jointly with the neighboring properties. We would continue to work something out with them. We are attempting to be as paper free as possible. Most of our products are recyclable. It is the only 30 foot lot that is constrained in the neighborhood and if you put a 10 x 20 space in the back you would have a ten foot parking space. It is in the best interest to have a recycling center rather than a trash/utility area. We have four spaces and have the adequate parking. It is a two car garage and a two tandem space which was also approved in 2003. Ellie Brickham was a friend of mine through the architectural world. When I talked to her about what I wanted to do with the building she was very much in favor of me changing the windows. It is a better solar gain and the additions of the transoms allowed for ventilation. I haven't changed anything regarding the solid/void pattern on the front of the building. The only thing I altered is the lower arch is now squared off for a transom window. Mitch Haas, Hass land planning; With ordinance 48 and Aspen Modern the 90 day negotiation forces us to take a short view of the property and the effects of designation. It seems to put everyone in we want everything right now or nothing at all approach to a negotiation which is not really how one enters into a negotiation. There were three points of restoration; the arched windows, color of the stucco and the removal of the canopy. Charles agreed to two of the three. On the integrity assessment it scored 15 points which is on the border of better and best. By doing the two restorations we would be in the best example. If this building is not on the inventory there would be no HPC review or consideration ever going forward. In the way of incentives we have asked for additional free market area. The building is not efficiently laid out and there is a lot of common area and stairs than would be in any other building. We have requested a free market area of 3,053 square feet. The unit itself is 8 • 0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2012 1908 square feet of net livable space. Right now it is a studio to become a one bedroom unit. 286 square feet is counted as wall thicknesses and another 473 in circulation spaces that are shared for the commercial spaces below and another 385 deck space that is counting as floor area. Also the code requires an elevator. There is no parking requirement in the C 1 zone district and none for the residential unit. At the alley the proposed height is 40 feet as submitted because the alley starts lower than the sidewalk. We are trying to look at the ceiling heights a little closer. We can drop it to 38 feet at the alley. Both buildings arc going to go to three stories and will overwhelm this building. Mitch said the trash sits behind the golfco building to the east and is shared with this building. The recycling is behind our building. The golfco building has been approved by P&Z which is 9 feet along the alley and 20 feet deep. This project will be coming back for HPC final review and it doesn't have to be completely satisfied and addressed right now. When we come in for final we will either have letters of agreement from the neighbor or we will have a specific proposal for the H PC:. We will resolve it or we won't get final approval from the HPC. You should save this building. Charles said if you look at the drawings there is not a significant alteration on the building. The most significant alteration is the canopy which is going to be removed. I feel what I did as appropriate to the building. Amy said she didn't hear until tonight that there was an tandem parking space on the site. I was under the impression that there were three parking spaces. That is adequate for the net leasable. The code does not allow commercial uses to count stacked parking spaces as adequate you have to have unobstructed access to the alley. That fourth space is not OK as the mitigation for this commercial building. It is great that you are working with your neighbors on recycling but the other side of the equation is that you have no place to put your trash. I don't think the existing arrangement is going to.work. Vice -chair Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. Junee Kirk said she served on the preservation committee. I recall that there weren't that many on the AspenModern list that were to be preserved. I'm surprised that this is coming under ordinance #48. W 0 • ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION _MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2012 Amy said the task force did not get to that level of detail. We aren't actually talking about getting this building to perfection. There are changes that we aren't even suggestion that should be undone like moving the entry to the center and filling in the light well. Vice -chair Jay Maytin closed the public comment portion of the agenda item. Jay said you can walk to the recycling area from the alley. If this agreement falls apart would you be able to collect your trash in this area. Charles said we have adequate access and this case is unique because it is a single tenant. All the changes are above the garage and there are no changes to the first floor. Nora said I thought it was clear that there were things that we wanted to see done before we thought it could be designated. I can't support designation and this is a very significant building and I don't feel as though we are being given the respect of what the restoration should look like. Maybe the board should vote on whether this building should be designated. Charles said he had to move the doors per code issues which were not in effect in 1962. It was a building code. Willis said he doesn't see anything substantially different presented from the last meeting. Mitch said we had to get all the calculations in the cad. Charles said before I wasn't willing to change the stucco or the canopy and now I am willing to change those. Willis asked if Charles talked to Marty Flug about memoralizing the trash agreement. Charles said we co -share the cost now and I can talk to him. Commissioner comments; Nora said she cannot support designation. Willis said there are four points of restoration that have been discussed. The same four things have been discussed at every hearing in the past. The 10 • 0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2012 canopy, the arches at the second level, the stucco color and the entry door change. We aren't asking for perfection and eliminated the entry door. The other three are the essence of Ellie Brickham. AspenModern negotiation has potential for demolition. The spirit of AspenModern is for the developer to think twice about their actions. We have asked for three out of four things and you should just do it and enjoy the benefits that with it. Jay said his fear is that this building will go away and people will be upset. The removal of the canopy was a huge step. I don't agree with the ten year vested rights. This building will probably be dwarfed after the two buildings on either side are done. This will be a better project than letting it go. I also agree that the utility for a restaurant should be different than for an office building. Sallie said it is great that the canopy is removed. The color change is good but I think when we asked for three I wanted three. I would support giving more time and figuring out how we can designate a building that looks like the original building that she designed. Charles said the arches are not functional. Willis said part of the charm is the arches that speak to the era. Charles said the arches are one of many things that make the building historic. If you put the arches back there is less light. MOTION: Willis moved to approve resolution 427 with the following conditions that the first level arches return to the restoration and some agreement about the trash be submitted and that council take up the issues of vested rights. All the incentives are ok. Motion second by Sallie. Motion carried 3-1. Nora voted no. MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn; second by Nora. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk • RECEPTION#: 59397 q 15I2012 at-��" J 0:21:43 AM, 1 OF 3, R $21.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVE HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND PRESERVATION BENEFITS THROUGH THE ASPENMODERN PROGRAM FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 610 E. HYMAN AVENUE, LOT M, BLOCK 99, CITY AND DE ELOPMENT AND COMMERWNSITE OF ASPEN, CIAL DESIGN REVIEW , AND GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJORAPPROVAL RESOLUTION #27, SERIES OF 2012 PARCEL ID: 2737-182-12-004 WHEREAS, on March 28, 2012, the applicant, 610 E. Hyman LLC, Charles Cunniffe, represented by Haas Land Planning, requested that the property located at 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot M, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, be considered for voluntary historic designation in exchan�ion 26.415e for specific benfits �030 of the Municipal Code;h the AspenModern tand iation process as described at Section6.415.025 and Sect WHEREAS, an AspenModern negotiation period ends 90 days after initiation unless extended by City Council. Council passed Resolution #53, Series of 2012 to extend this negotiation to December 23, 2012; and WHEREAS, an AspenModern negotiation requires that the Historic Preservation Commission, using context papers and integrity scoring sheets for the property under consideration, provide Council with an assessment of the property's conformance with the designation criteria of Section 26.415.030.C.I. When any benefits that are not included in Section 26,415.110 are requested by the property owner, HPC shall also evaluate how the designation, and any development that is concurrently proposed, meets the policy objectives for the historic preservation program, as stated at Section 26.415.010, Purpose and Intent. As an additional measure of the appropriateness of designation and benefits, HPC shall determine whether the subject property is a "good, better, or best" example of Aspen's 20`h century historic resources, referencing the scoring sheets and matrix adopted by City Council; and WHEREAS, concurrent with the designation application, Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval was requested for an expansion to the subject building; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Dable Codedelines Sections. �The HPC Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the MunicipalCode and other appl 610 E, Hyman Avenue - AspenModern HPC Resolution #27, Series of 2012 • • may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Commercial Design Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Objectives and Guidelines per Section 26.412.040 of the Municipal Code. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, the proposed expansion project includes a parking waiver, which HPC may grant according to the review standards of Section 26.415.110.C, Benefits, of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the proposed expansion project includes a reduction to the required Utility/Delivery and Trash Storage area, which HPC may grant based on the review standards of Section 26.430, Special Review; and WHEREAS, the proposed redevelopment includes a height increase, which HPC may grant according to the review standards of Section 26.412, Commercial Design Review, of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report to HPC dated October 24, 2012, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards. The staff recommendation was that the property should be designated a landmark as it meets the criteria for designation and the integrity score qualifies as the "better/best" category of historic resources. Staff recommended that the proposed incentives were not appropriate within the AspenModern program due to lack of adequate restoration work, and the project did not meet review standards related to Conceptual Design Review. Staff recommended denial of the project; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on October 24, 2012, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application during a duly noticed public hearing, the staff memo and recommendation, and public comments, and recommended Council pursue negotiation for landmark designation for this "better/best" example of an AspenModem resource, with conditions. HPC approved Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual Commercial Design with conditions. The vote of the members was 3 to 1. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby finds that the property located at 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot M, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen, meets the designation criteria of Land Use Code Section 26.415.030.C.1. HPC supports Council negotiation for voluntary designation of this property only with the condition that the applicant is required to restore the original arched form of the ground floor windows. This restoration work is considered necessary to support a package of preservation incentives which include the following; 1. A free market residential floor area increase of 1,546 square feet, making the total free market floor area 3,046 square feet. The combination of the commercial floor area and 610 E. Hyman Avenue — AspenModern HPC Resolution #27, Series of 2012 • 0 the residential free market floor area will exceed what is allowed as a total development for the site by 692 square feet. 2. 10 years vested rights. 3. Growth Management affordable housing mitigation waiver for the 1.725 employees generated by the proposed 949 square feet of new net leasable space. (This waiver is available in the Municipal Code for all historic landmarks) arking 4. On -site parking waiver,waiver949 square feetlieu fee for the r of new net leasable space. (Thispwai err spaces generated by proposed is available in the Municipal Code for all historic landmarks) 5. Park Development and Transportation Demand Management mitigation fees generated by residential and commercial expansion. (Phis waiver is available in the Municipal Code for all historic landmarks) HPC hereby grants Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval with the following conditions: 1. HNC approves a full waiver of the required on -site Utility, Delivery and Trash Storage Area with the condition shathe applicant provides City red ash Storage area amongst adjacent tacceptablel with an written agreementntfor ofor property owner(s)on Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen. 2. The applicant must restudy the design of the new addition so the project does not exceed a maximum height of 38'. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 24th day of October, 2012. Approved as to Form: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: L ' Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk ay aytin, Vice Chair 610 E. Hyman Avenue -- AspenModern HPC Resolution #27, Series of 2012 rnorvan �y LK Kn rAnNAED GOrreR- ROOr rAGA rROrosGD K �1 poor .n w-1 Kn --AZIP — C.O-"M ►,vas �I. AOrO's[D RCOr ML AD(xTN7N Kn eRaNa — ANNovlzev Al1K Noonp rworosev lrreR ML ADPTION Kn GONlARA — RMN•SGRE[N e.mlM TLlE sTe "o""M NGn rATINA[D — GOrrER r'.ulLs -L1LN9r1w 6MM! -- _ LIK or ADJACENT ex�snw eeLVlw rRoov.ww NEn ---------- ADDITIp1 CL.• Isp'-II- y rRaroxv Rao► _L1LML App TIp1 0... IJ4.-e• rROrO•lD L ' _R MLII AOPTIOM - exlsnw MAIN -0Le` [L . .K a ADJAGewr exonw euLrnw 2 WEST ELEVATION • r-o- LIK Or ADJACENT F - - n�arasED euLOw s•WrNrLnsr� I------_------ 4 EAST ELEVATION • r'o- K or AD.tAcewr rRORDSED euLrnw LiK 0 ADJK.eVT ExISTIw dMLDw LIK Cr ADJAGEW MOP CIWO VALMHO Kn rAnMAED GOFRR Ro" rAUA _ _ rROrasED Kf+ yy I!L,.OM ADDITION -1 Kn P—AED GOr'ER rAKLs Kn am,.= -.0CNz[D ALUM. rYNDOr6 uK or ADJAGCNr ewsnw eulDn+p ex'snw RDOI y+�+'-cunnrffe.com ewsnw eRwrt ex,snw Lr.eR� (n ui T } X. LL - - e,asnw ww = Q - eva _ - - EL.• W LL ex,snw eNnar �_ Z U SOUTH HYMAN AVE. ELEVATION (n • r-o- LU J �T — - LIK Or ADJAGCIT AOrOSED OILDIw U Kn —ACV LorRR — 1!P rATMA[D GIPM _ ROar fAGA ROOF rAGIA nbro5lD Nb+ _ _ _ LIK Of ADJAL I rROFfY1D eUlLpw -Nm rAnNAED Gor/ER rAKLS LIK Or A ExISTIw E — Kn eRONze A PC0 ZED ALUM. -pore Kn [.OMlsARA- RAIM-SGR[GN L'K Or AD.:ACLM rworpyeD anLDw - Kn rATINAEO- GOrrER PAWLS Kn rATNAtD ` CGNT DIw _.-. GOFrOI PAWLS Q J w -�C/[L ADDI / el.• a+'- O MmM w cl W — - — -T � exnnw euLaw Q Z p CC J Q Kn eRaNze G � U ANNoazro ALw. nNDOY6 } 2 Z ~Q W --_ - - - - rROPo5co Ur It L Q LEVEL Apm,n zik ♦/) CD, •lEr1 LU - GOFIpMA RAM-sGn![N O ..,...,.. . GCV9-M PAWLS DRAWING. - -- --- - - - - ELEVATIONS SSLI'E OATS Admilk 41 t 1=2 Vt:L) JOB w )0= NOV302012 NORTH ALLE ELEVATION s s�4ro. . r-o- CITY OF ASPEN CCkIMUN1Ty DEWL A3.1 pt4 STREET ELEVATION v / F— U W H 2 U Q E W LL E _ c z U z U W J Q 2 U DATE A3.2 Fj �¢�OXD KN ¢q�.AD➢ln Qw oROP09CD ROQ L %1e�5T M 6�S�SI is www.cunnitfe.com �" xo Lu LL 2 � Q W L LL Z Z a Z U CA _ W w J Q � U � V Z J W �a Im Z m W Q Z Z O Q J S � � QN W Q coD Q W C) 'r W "-m.6 eanDia ISSUE _ DATE Y 11M14 _ JOB ND. J000( SHEET NO. A4.1 r LOWER LEVEL PLAN 1 BASEMENT LEVEL PLAN To- ROOF /SITE PLAN - LOT M ROOF LEVEL PLAN UPPER LEVEL PLAN www.c nniffe.com 0 Z_ 0 J w ::D Z O co oZ a Q Qo mo _ a wQ (n o w 0 co oaAmNc: m. 777 1 ISSUE 1 DATE erc rtEviav 10-1612 JOB NO. XXXX SHEET NO. A2.1 or}ff owns amwff A"Ws P 1- �� t<xtDtttr44 . Y VTIM ��A , 45T7144: . _wAIN :LPL' PLAN . � p, -o t �r• 1 1 HIM ' ' i pN�XCA/ATEO Ii 1t �j • II -bA95MENT PUAN N �8..= . xojw- t:r- 8u1t.41tiai oN LOT,- tN /o K ` 1. , a asavA�aR -APBti To ,i .WkW. ROOP I, N w6 ' - /,w.Y.Er{j�uil.CfltGtoN i.oYs3 Ki4. too.o Fr. . -ar�l�{e�INa RoPPJ6ITE PLAN - LoT M N �Yca- • \. tZa[iP rt,6VF-L PLAN- • N 6X IST4JG WAN ill 6XI4TtNQ Ayp.TmeKr • ` .. T' N i .-UPP.Et2 L.EV6L PLAN N f x g w 4 U_ LE C) 6 U ORJIl51IJl;: sx,E: - OATT: I j JM W. owl j SHEET W. i A2.1 i poss P, LA^P-Y%," pOSS ARCHITECTURE I PLANNING 616 E. HYMAN RED VELOPMENT -;1<F. iII:V•I1•,FFy; A}{lt C:]Gf: ��: it ell SCHEMATIC DESIGN: PLAN-PP,OPOSED LEVEL w�` Proposed Level One Plan October 16, 2012 7 t t o 40 -Mmpppl L55YOt5'O16XVd Pi5S5Z60[6131 0�'R3dSY �atlNYl1AH1SM3019 U: VJ uhluunn-mm S.LOA_LII-IMIV '=]_I-iINNN:) s:i-lHVNo ALOAV 2 MIAH 3 019 -JAV NVWAN '--] 069 O Q W I W n� T i �� Gulfco Ltd. Martin Rug Chairman November 30, 2012 Amy Guthrie 130 S Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 616 East Hyman, Aspen, Colorado 81611 - (970) 925-2496 Re: Trash/Recycling Agreement for 616 E. Hyman Avenue and 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Amy, This letter is to confirm that the Owners of 616 E. Hyman Avenue and 610 E. Hyman Avenue have a cooperative agreement for their trash and recycling services. The trash receptacle is behind 616 E. Hyman Ave.; this trash service is shared with 610 E. Hyman Ave. The recycling bins are behind 610 E. Hyman Ave.; the recycling services is shared with 616 E. Hyman Ave. Please let us know if you require additional information. Sincerely, Steven Ferrell Gulfco, Ltd. ISSi'ON016 XVd , 0655'916016.131 *D'f,'?dSV ?AV NYAAH1SV3019 � z W00'Ohl U W19'/ :YlA S.13311H:DdV 3JJINNno S3-1�IVH0 0 OOVWIO'J '13aSV 3AV NW.AH 3 019 AAV NVAAH .a M9 z 0 J W uj Q CY) 1 /• ••t K' lM�i • -tQ n c }'7f' .r •'�� • :,` . at�� • ail r _ ✓� ;f C a 44 — = r • r ., ' #' .. . is ,.a1rt1' .iris.'; ^ A`"f. 4., R ♦ ,rj.' _ iy Ar ,� . • • AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE OF PROPERTY: Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: i." CE'mk(-r 10 ,20V2- STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Piitkin I, (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of AspetV, 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. X Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on they day of k7;,101;". h- t/ , 20 12 ; to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. X Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. L.. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions that create more than one lot, Planned Unit Developments, Specially Planned Areas, and COWAPs are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. ,,� J� 4 azt�, Si ature C/ , The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 3o day of K)Ogcynrn y , 201 a., by �Tnd,� J0Lr)bsa-y\. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL CAITLIN STROTHER DOYLE NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: of o701CP STATE OF COLORADO 0 -1 NOTARY ID 20124057288 MY COMMISSION_ EXPIRES SEPT. 4, 2016 Notary Public ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPY OF THE PUBLICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 • • PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 610 E. HYMAN AVENUE- ASPENMODERN NEGOTIATION FOR VOLUNTARY LANDMARK DESIGNATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, December 10, 2012 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by 610 E. Hyman, LLC, c/o Charles Cunniffe, 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO, 81611. The project affects the property located at 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot M, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, PID#2737-182- 12-004. The applicant proposes voluntary landmark designation and requests preservation incentives through the AspenModern program. For further information, contact Amy Guthrie at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429- 2758, amy.guthrie@cityofaspen.com. s/ Michael Ireland, Mayor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on November 22, 2012 City of Aspen Account 308 HUNTER LLC 4 SKIERS LP 517 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC 490 WILLIAMS ST 1108 NORFLEET DR 517 E HOPKINS AVE DENVER, CO 80218 NASHVILLE, TN 372201412 ASPEN, CO 81611 520 EAST COOPER PTNRS LLC 530 HOPKINS LLC 630 EAST HYMAN LLC 402 MIDLAND PARK 5301/2 E HOPKINS 532 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 633 SPRING II LLC 635 E HOPKINS LLC ALPINE BANK ASPEN 418 E COOPER AVE #207 532 E HOPKINS ATTN ERIN WIENCEK ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 PO BOX 10000 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 ARCADES ASSOCIATES LTD LLC ASPEN ART MUSEUM ASPEN BLOCK 99 LLC C/O KRUGER & CO 590 N MILL ST 532 E HOPKINS AVE 400 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN CORE VENTURES LLC ASPEN PLAZA LLC AUSTIN LAWRENCE CONNER LLC 418 E COOPER AVE #207 PO BOX 1709C/O STEVE MARCUS 532 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 AVP PROPERTIES LLC BASS CAHN 601 LLC BATTLE GERALD LIVING TRUST 630 E HYMAN AVE #25 PO BOX 4060 HIXON BURT LIVING TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 2847 NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92659 BAUM ROBERT E BERN FAMILY ASPEN PROPERTY LLC BG SPRING LLC PO BOX 1518 65 FIRST NECK LN 300 S SPRING ST #202 STOCKBRIDGE, MA 01262 SOUTHAMPTON, NY 11968 ASPEN, CO 81611 BISCHOFF JOHN C BOOGIES BUILDING OF ASPEN LLC BORGIOTTI CLAUDIO 502 S VIA GOLONDRINA C/O LEONARD WEINGLASS 9610 SYMPHONY MEADOW LN TUCSON, AZ 85716-5843 534 E COOPER AVE VIENNA, VA 22192 ASPEN. CO 81611 CHATEAU ASPEN CONDO ASSOC CHATEAU ASPEN UNIT 21-A LLC CICUREL CARY 630 E COOPER AVE 421 ASPEN AIRPORT BUSINESS CTR 2615 N LAKEWOOD ASPEN, CO 81611 STE G CHICAGO, IL 60614 ASPEN, CO 816113551 CJAR LLC COOPER STREET DEVELOPMENT LLC DUNN JUDITH A REV LIV TRUST 2514 LAKE MEAD DR C/O PYRAMID PROPERTY ADVISORS 8051 LOCKLIN LN LAFAYETTE, CO 80026 418 E COOPER AVE #207 COMMERCE TOWNSHIP, MI 48382 ASPEN, CO 81611 0 • EB BUILDING ASPEN LLC 1601 ELM ST #4000 DALLAS, TX 75201 EXELCEDAR INC 20% 534 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 FURNGULF LTD A COLO JOINT VENTURE 616 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 GONE WEST LLC 401 W CENTER SEARCY, AR 721451406 GROSFELD ASPEN PROP PART LLC 10880 WILSHIRE BLVD #2222 LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 HORSEFINS LLC 601 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 EDGETTE JAMES J & PATRICIA 19900 BEACH RD STE 801 JUPITER ISLAND, FL 33469 FERRY JAMES H III BOX 167 GLENCOE, IL 60022-0167 GELD LLC C/O LOWELL MEYER PO BOX 1247 ASPEN. CO 81612-1247 GOODING SEAN A 80% & RICHARD L 20% C/O PARAGON RANCH INC 620 E HYMAN AVE #1 E ASPEN, CO 81611 HIMAN LLC PO BOX 6159 SWANBOURNE WA 6010 AUSTRALIA, HUNTER PLAZA ASSOCIATES LLP 205 S MILL ST #301A ASPEN. CO 81611 JENNE LLP JOSHUA & CO REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS 1510 WINDSOR RD LLC AUSTIN, TX 77402 300 S HUNTER ST ASPEN, CO 81611 LCT LP TENNESSEE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP PO BOX 101444 NASHVILLE, TN 37224-1444 MARTELLBARBARA 702 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 LUCKYSTAR LLC PO BOX 7755 ASPEN, CO 81612 MASON & MORSE INC 514 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ERGAS VENESSA BLAIR & CLAUDE PO BOX 4316 ASPEN, CO 81612 FITZGERALD FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LTD C/O PITKIN COUNTY DRY GOODS LLC 520 E COOPER ASPEN, CO 81611 GOFEN ETHEL CARO TRUSTEE 455 CITY FRONT PLAZA CHICAGO, IL 60611 GREENWAY COMPANY INC 666 TRAVIS ST #100 SHREVEPORT, LA 71101 HOPKINS DEV LLC 345 PARK AVE 33RD FLR NEW YORK, NY 10154 JARDEN CORPORATION 2381 EXECUTIVE CENTER DR BOCA RATON, FL 33431 JOYCE EDWARD 1310 RITCHIE CT CHICAGO, IL 60610 MALLARD ENTERPRISES LP 317 SIDNEY BAKER S #400 KERRVILLE, TX 78028 MATTHEWS ZACHARY PO BOX 10582 ASPEN, CO 81612 MCMURRAY WILLIAM & HELEN MIAO SANDRA MORRIS ROBERT P 29 MIDDLE HEAD RD 9610 SYMPHONY MEADOW LN 600 E HOPKINS AVE STE 304 MOSMAN NSW 2088 VIENNA, VA 22182 ASPEN, CO 81611 AUSTRALIA, MYSKO BOHDAN D NATTERER HELEN NIELSON COL STEVE & CAROL D 615 E HOPKINS 67 BAYPOINT CRES 501 S FAIRFAX ASPEN, CO 81611 OTTAWA ONTARIO ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 CANADA K2G6R1, NONNIE LLC OBERHOLTZER JORDAN OLITSKY TAMAR & STEPHEN PO BOX 565 PO BOX 10582 PO BOX 514 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 GWYNEDD VALLEY, PA 19437 P & L PROPERTIES LLC PITKIN CENTER CONDO OWNERS PITKIN COUNTY BANK 80% 101 S 3RD ST #360 ASSOC 534 E HYMAN AVE GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501 517 W NORTH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 REUSS/LIGHT LLC REVOLUTION PARTNERS LLC ROTHBLUM PHILIP & MARCIA PO BOX 5000 PO BOX 1247 40 EAST 80 ST #26A SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 ASPEN, CO 81612 NEW YORK, NY 10075 RUST TRUST RUTLEDGE REYNIE SCHNITZER KENNETH L & LISA L 9401 WILSHIRE BLVD #760 51 COUNTRY CLUB CIR 2100 MCKINNEY AVE #1760 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 SEARCY, AR 72143 DALLAS, TX 75201 SHUMATE MARK SILVER DIP EQUITY VENTURE LLC SJA ASSOCIATES LLC BLDG 421 G ABC 2100 MCKINNEY STE 1760 418 E COOPER AVE #207 ASPEN, CO 81611 DALLAS, TX 75201 ASPEN, CO 81611 SNOWMASS CORPORATION STERLING TRUST COMP STEWART TITLE CO 174 CALLAWASSIE DR 2091 MANDEVILLE CYN RD C/O JENNIFER SCHUMACHER OKATIE, SC 29909 LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 PO BOX 936 TAYLORSVILLE, NC 28681 SUITE 300 OFFICE LLC SWEARINGEN WILLIAM F TENNESSEE THREE 567 SAN NICOLAS DR PENTHOUSE 450 CONWAY MANOR DR NW PO BOX 101444 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ATLANTA, GA 303273518 NASHVILLE, TN 37224-1444 TENNESSEE THREE RENTALS THOMPSON ROSS & LYNETTE TOMKINS FAMILY TRUST C/O J H COBLE 1502 GREYSTONE DR 520 E COOPER AVE #209 5033 OLD HICKORY BLVD CARBONDALE, CO 81623 ASPEN, CO 81611 NASHVILLE, TN 37218-4020 TREUER CHRISTIN L TROUSDALE JEAN VICK VICTORIAN SQUARE LLC 981 E BRIARWOOD CIR N 611 E HOPKINS AVE 418 E COOPER AVE #207 LITTLETON, CO 80122 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 0 0 WAVO PROPERTIES LP WEIDEL LAWRENCE W WISE JOSEPH 512 1/2 E GRAND AVE #200 PO BOX 1007 1320 HODGES ST DES MOINES, IA 50309-1942 MONROE, GA 30655 RALEIGH, NC 27604-1414 WOLF LAWRENCE G TRUSTEE 22750 WOODWARD AVE #204 FERNDALE, MI 48220 YERAMIAN CHARLES REV TRUST PO BOX 12347 ASPEN, CO 81612 WOODS FRANK J III 51027 HWY 6 & 24 STE 100 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 WRIGHT CHRISTOPHER N 13 BRAMLEY RD LONDON W10 6SP UK, 0 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPER 1,1-I -1 I •OVAAM SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: N&L) t)A-t i D��%M RrV, 10 (� 's A, 201 z STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) Aspen, CO I,441,1y,� �' �A�A !3%� (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: c/ 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. tt)tR31 _ 4 .osting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the v0-4mmunity Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof v ti� watenals, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in r: {j, height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the _ day of , 20, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the oNmers and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (Continued on next page) C� Rezoning or text amendment: Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the tent of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map 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. !" v The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this Z3 day of 201Z, by JG �IGZ-yc A.�f PUBLIC RE:610 E. HYMAN AVENUE -NOTICE ASPENMODERN NEGOTIATION FOR VOLUNTARY LANDMARK DESIGNATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing wlll be held on Monday, December 10. 2012 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before th1 Aspen Ciry Council, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an apppticatlon sub- mitted byy 6f0 E. Hyman, LC, c/o Charles Cun- ntfTe, 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO, 81611. The project affects the propertyy located at 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot M, Block 89, City and Town - site of Aspen, Colorado, PIDp2737-182.120- The applicant proposes voluntary landmark desig- nation and requests preservation incenves through the Aspen Modern program. For futirther information, contact Amy Guthrie at the City of As- pen Community De c me apartment, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2758, amy.guth- n. C C tyofaspen.com. at Michael Ireland, Mayor Alden City Council Published in the Aspen Times on November 22, 2012.(8613331 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: a Notary Public - ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: * COPY OF THE PUBLICATION * PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) * LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENT AGENGIES NOTIED BY MAIL * APPLICANT CERTICICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 • • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director CJ" 4 V I FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: First Reading of Ordinance #4D, Series of 2012, AspenModern negotiation for historic designation 610 E. Hyman Avenue DATE: November 12, 2012 SUMMARY: 610 E. Hyman Avenue was constructed for well known gallery owner Patricia Moore in 1963. It was designed by Ellie Brickham, who in 1951 was the first female architect to arrive in Aspen. The offices of Charles Cunniffe Architects have been located in the building for twenty years. In late 2010, Charles Cunniffe proposed voluntary designation and a building expansion through the Ordinance #48 landmark negotiation process, which was the City's first effort to incentivize designation of postwar era properties. HPC reviewed the project twice before the application was terminated after no significant progress. In April 2012, the application was re -submitted in advance of reduced height limits going into effect in the downtown. The proposal now falls under the AspenModern ordinance (largely similar to Ordinance #48) within which the applicant can request special benefits. Patricia Moore Tne. occupies the first floor of this building designed by'Miss Brickham. bliss Moore occupies the second floor apartment. Concurrent with the designation review, the applicant requests approval for a 949 square foot second floor expansion of office space, and a third floor addition to an existing free market apartment, converting it from a studio to a one bedroom apartment. The office expansion sits entirely on top of a non -historic garage. The free market residential addition is partially on the garage and partially on the roof of the historic building. HPC has provided a recommendation that City Council pursue a negotiation for landmark designation. HPC's support for this action is strongly conditioned upon a requirement First Reading of Ordinance #_, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 1 of 10 that the applicant reverse certain changes that have been made to the original design of the building; namely the restoration of arched windows on the ground floor, restoration of the building's original white stucco panels, and removal of an awning that covers an open air patio on the second floor. Throughout several previous HPC meetings about this project, including the October 241h HPC meeting, the applicant has been unwilling to agree to restore the form of the ground floor windows. Staff had recommended denial of the application to HPC. HPC provided Council with a recommendation of approval, with conditions. In preparation for Council review, the applicant has indicated that the window restoration will occur. Staff has requested drawings to insure that the restoration work will meet HPC's intentions. Second reading will not be scheduled until Staff has a clear understanding of the preservation plan. HPC has granted Conceptual approval for the design of the project, dependent on Council approval of the designation. APPLICANT: 610 E. Hyman LLC, Charles Cunniffe, represented by Haas Land Planning. PARCEL ID: 2737-182-12-004. ADDRESS: 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot M, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: C-1, Commercial. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures as an example of AspenModern, an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. The quality of significance of properties shall be evaluated according to criteria described below. At least two of the criteria a-d, and criterion a must be met: a. The property is related to an event, pattern, or trend that has made a contribution to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific event, pattern or trend is identified and documented in an adopted context paper; b. The property is related to people who have made a contribution to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific people are identified and documented in an adopted context paper; First Reading of Ordinance #_, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 2 of 10 c. The property represents a physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman, or design philosophy that is deemed important and the specific physical design, designer, or philosophy is documented in an adopted context paper; d. The property possesses such singular significance to the City, as documented by the opinions of persons educated or experienced in the fields of history, architecture, landscape architecture, archaeology or a related field, that the property's potential demolition or major alteration would substantially diminish the character and sense of place in the city as perceived by members of the community, and e. The property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association, given its age. The City Council shall adopt and make available to the public score sheets and other devices which shall be used by the Council and Historic Preservation Commission to apply this criterion. Staff Response: 610 E. Hyman Avenue was built in 1963 for owner Patricia Moore. The Patricia Moore Gallery was a respected business in town for many years, and displayed the work of many important artists on the main floor of the building. An upper floor residential studio unit was part of the original design. Ms. Moore sold the property in 1988. 610 E. Hyman was constructed for a woman who played an important role in the local arts community, and it was designed by Aspen's first woman architect. This is one of the few Ellie Brickham buildings that remains in Aspen. Ellie Brickham (1923-2008) moved to Aspen in 1951 after attending the University of Colorado's School of Architecture from 1941-1944. Construction was a family business, and her motivation to become a designer began as a child. According to the research paper, "Aspen's Twentieth -Century Architecture: Modernism 1945-1975:" "Early in her career, Brickham worked in Fritz Benedict's office and collaborated on projects with both Benedict and Bayer, participating in work going on at the Aspen Institute. Like Benedict, she had a strong interest in passive solar techniques. During her time in that office and, later, in her own practice out of her home, she designed a number of residences and commercial buildings in town, including houses for several Music Festival artists in Aspen Grove, the elegantly simple brick Strandberg Residence (1973, 433 Bleeker Street -demolished) and the Patricia Moore Building (1962, 610 E. Hyman Avenue). In Pitkin County, she designed numerous homes in Pitkin Green and Starwood, on Red Mountain, including her own house (1955), with south and west walls made completely of First Reading of Ordinance #_, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 3 of 10 • • glass. Her works, which total at least sixty in the Aspen area, are generally characterized by spare, simple forms and minimal detailing. Brickham's projects focus on an "impeccable sense of proportion and feeling of lightness," according to a 1977 Aspen Times article." The building that Ellie Brickham designed for Patricia Moore appears to have been influenced by "New Formalism," an architectural approach of the early 1960s which emphasized symmetrical, smooth -skinned, flat roofed buildings with screens and grilles. The fagade of 610 E. Hyman has six attenuated brick piers that extend from the base to the eaves and stucco arched spandrels for a more "decorated" look that reflected the 1960s evolution of modernist design. A related example is Phillip Johnson's 1962 Lincoln Center in New York, below. HPC presented an Honor Award to Ellie Brickham in 2001, in recognition of her influence on the built environment in Aspen. The neighborhood where this structure was built includes several other AspenModern related properties. Relatively few of the noted postwar properties are commercial structures. It is important to carefully consider preservation opportunities for this small collection of highly visible downtown structures. Staff finds that historic designation criteria a, c, and a are met. The second component of designation is scoring the physical integrity of the building. Staffs score sheet is attached as Exhibit B. Several elements of this building were altered through previous remodels. The front entry door was originally centered on the fagade. Now there are entries on both ends of the storefront level. Originally all of the street -facing opening were arched, but the ground floor windows have been changed to have square transom windows. A lightwell has been added to the front fagade so the building no longer meets the sidewalk in the center, the basement office level is exposed to view, and there are no kickplates below the windows. The stucco color has been changed from white to a masonry color. A seasonal canopy has been added to enclose the rooftop courtyard. These alterations have affected the integrity score for the building and need to be taken into account when determining the appropriate package of preservation incentives to approve for the project. Staff scored the building as a "Better/Best" example of AspenModern, with 15 out of 20 points. First Reading of Ordinance #_, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 4 of 10 According to Municipal Code Section 26.415.025.C.1.b, the Historic Preservation Commission, using context papers and integrity scoring sheets for the property under consideration, shall provide Council with an assessment of the property's conformance with the designation criteria of Section 26.415.030.C.1. When any benefits that are not included in Section 26.415.110 are requested by the property owner, HPC shall also evaluate how the designation, and any development that is concurrently proposed, meets the policy objectives for the historic preservation program, as stated at Section 26.415.010, Purpose and Intent. As an additional measure of the appropriateness of designation and benefits, HPC shall determine whether the subject property is a "good, better, or best" example of Aspen's 20`h century historic resources, referencing the scoring sheets and matrix adopted by City Council. The City Council may negotiate directly with the property owner or may choose to direct the Community Development Director, or other City staff as necessary, to negotiate with the property owner to reach a mutually acceptable agreement for the designation of the property. The City Council may choose to provide this direction in Executive Session, pursuant to State Statute. As part of the mutually acceptable agreement, the City Council may, at its sole discretion, approve any land use entitlement or fee waiver permitted by the Municipal Code and may award any approval that is assigned to another Board or Commission, including variations. Council shall consider the appropriateness of benefits in light of whether the property is identified as a "good, better, or best" example of Aspen's 20`h century history and shall also seek to be equitable in the benefits awarded through the negotiation process. The monetary value of benefits being requested shall be defined, to the extent possible. Council shall seek compatibility with the neighborhood surrounding the subject property. The Land Use Code states that, as a further measure of the value of negotiation, the proposal should meet the Purpose and Intent Statements of the Historic Preservation program, which are: §26.415.010. Purpose and intent. The purpose of this Chapter is to promote the public health, safety and welfare through the protection, enhancement and preservation of those properties, areas and sites, which represent the distinctive elements of Aspen's cultural, educational, social, economic, political and architectural history. Under the authority provided by the Home Rule Charter of the City and Section 29-20- 104(c), C.R.S., to regulate land use and preserve areas of historical, architectural, archaeological, engineering and cultural importance, this Chapter sets forth the procedures to: First Reading of Ordinance #_, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 5 of 10 • 0 A. Recognize, protect and promote the retention and continued utility of the historic buildings and districts in the City; B. Promote awareness and appreciation of Aspen's unique heritage; C. Ensure the preservation of Aspen's character as an historic mining town, early ski resort and cultural center; D. Retain the historic, architectural and cultural resource attractions that support tourism and the economic welfare of the community; and E. Encourage sustainable reuse of historic structures. F. Encourage voluntary efforts to increase public information, interaction or access to historic building interiors. The City does not intend by the historic preservation program to preserve every old building, but instead to draw a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest in preserving the City's cultural, historic, and architectural heritage. This should be accomplished by ensuring that demolition of buildings and structures important to that heritage are carefully weighed with other alternatives. Alterations to historically significant buildings and new construction in historic areas shall respect the character of each such setting, not by imitating surrounding structures, but by being compatible with them as defined in historic preservation guidelines. Staff Response: The applicant requests the following special, site specific incentives through AspenModern negotiation, in exchange for landmark designation. Floor area bonus The existing residential unit is currently just below the 1,500 square feet maximum floor area allowed for free market apartments on this property. "The applicant wishes to enlarge the unit. As a preservation benefit, a floor area increase of 1,546 square feet is requested, making the total free market floor area 3,046 square feet. A portion of the FAR assigned to the residential use is actually common circulation area, garage, deck area, etc. If this benefit is approved, the combination of the commercial floor area and the residential floor area will also exceed what is allowed as a total development for the site by 692 square feet. Extension of vested rights The applicant requests extended vested rights. All projects receive an automatic three years of vested rights, or protection from changes to Land Use regulation. The applicant requests 10 years to allow for the start date of the project to be more flexible. First Reading of Ordinance #_ , Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman , AspenModern Negotation Page 6 of 10 • 0 The applicant requests the following standard benefits offered to landmarked properties. Affordable housing The new office space triggers affordable housing mitigation, however the applicant will take advantage of a preservation benefit which is already in place for all landmarks at Section 26.470.060.4 of the Municipal Code. The Community Development Director can grant an exemption to affordable housing requirements for up to 4 employees as part of the expansion of a mixed use, landmarked building. There are no review standards that must be met for the approval of this exemption. If the property is not landmark designated, and mitigation were required for this development, it would be for the equivalent of 1.725 employees, or $242,000 if paid as cash -in -lieu. Parking The expansion of the free market residential unit does not trigger additional parking requirements, but the new office space does generate the need for a fraction of one space. A full space could theoretically be provided on -site to meet the requirement (although it is apparently not physically possible), or the owner could pay cash -in -lieu. HPC has recommended that the review standards of Section 26.415.110.0 of the Municipal Code are met and that no on -site parking or cash -in -lieu payment must be required. The cash -in -lieu payment would typically be $28,500. Park Development Impact Fee and Transportation Demand Impact Fee Historic Landmark properties are exempt from paying certain fees that offset the need for the City to develop more parks or transportation systems as a result of new development. The exemption is standard. There are no review criteria. The proposed development would result in a waiver of approximately $12,000 in Park Development Impact Fee and $1,400 in Transportation Demand Impact Fee. In conducting their Conceptual Design review for the proposed building expansion, HPC made two determinations that Council should be aware of. First, HPC allowed the rear addition to reach a height of 38'. The maximum height limit for the zone district, under the rules that were in place at the time of application, is 36', which can be increased to as much as 40' through Commercial Design Review. HPC determined that a 38' height was acceptable because of the drop in elevation from the front of the property to the alley. The building already has a complex combination of floor levels, which the board First Reading of Ordinance #_, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 7 of 10 acknowledged through their approval. The proposed drawings show a height of 38,11", which must be amended for the Final HPC meeting. The second important determination that HPC made is related to Utility, Delivery and Trash Storage area. The Municipal Code requires this property to have an area parallel to the alley dedicated to the service needs of the building. This area is to be 15 feet long and 10 feet deep. The area cannot also be used as a parking space. This property currently has no service area that meets the code. The applicant proposes to maintain their existing arrangement to accept recycling items from adjacent properties, in exchange for those properties accommodating the trash disposal needs of 610 E. Hyman. The recycling area that 610 E. Hyman shares with others is not directly along the alley, but apparently has easy and workable access to the alley. The applicant has not documented the trash storage/recycling arrangement with any written agreements. HPC felt that a waiver of the requirement is allowable, if an agreement that is acceptable to Council can be provided during the negotiation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The negotiated benefits are policy matters for Council to decide. HPC used the designation criteria, adopted context papers, and scoring sheets to forward a recommendation to City Council regarding the importance of the building. During the three previous discussions of this project, HPC was focused on the importance of restoring the front facade of the building as much as possible, given the requested preservation incentives. Three particular actions were identified as important; restoring the arched windows on the lower half of the front facade, removing the canopy that currently covers the upper floor patio and restoring the original color of the stucco panels. Community Development and HPC only support the award of the benefits that are requested if there is a dedicated effort to return all of the character defining features of the building within reason. It is understood that moving the entry doors back to the center, and eliminating the lightwell are impractical. Nonetheless, on other AspenModern projects, including Mason and Morse and Aspen Core, the applicant's financial commitment to restoration efforts are very substantial. Consistently high standards for the AspenModern process are important in staffs opinion. Historic and current images of the building are depicted below. First Reading of Ordinance #_, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 8 of 10 0 The 610 E. Hyman building represents Ellie Brickham as an architect and is indicative of post-war commercial development in Aspen in the 1960s. There are no other known examples of Ms. Brickham's individual work left to preserve in Aspen. (She is associated with the building immediately west of the subject site, but it has been approved for a significant remodel that will likely make it ineligible for designation at any time.) The building meets the designation criteria in its existing condition. With designation, some of the incentives involved in this project, such as affordable housing waiver and development impact fee waiver, would be automatic. Other incentives, including the floor area bonus, parking variance, height, utility/trash/storage and vested rights are all discretionary. An AspenModern negotiation period between the applicant and the City is limited to a 90 day duration. Council can grant extensions and has done so for this project. The current extension expires on December 23rd. If the negotiation is not successfully completed by that time, Council must either grant another extension or the process will expire and development on the site will be subject to the new regulations for the C-1 zone district, including a 28' height limit. Staff finds that approval of this project, with HPC's requirement to include restoration of the ground floor window form, is consistent with what has occurred on the four previous AspenModern negotations related to downtown properties. The architectural integrity of the building will be greatly enhanced. The restoration work is highly unlikely to occur First Reading of Ordinance #_, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 9 of 10 0 outside of this process. The building could be demolished or heavily altered in other ways if it is not designated. The substantial benefits requested should relate to a substantial preservation effort. During the review process, the applicant has been reluctant about what preservation efforts will be achieved. Staff recommends Second Reading not be scheduled until Community Development has a clear understanding of the preservation plan. EXHIBITS: Ordinance # , Series of 2012 Exhibit A: Integrity Score Sheet Exhibit B: Draft, October 241h, 2012 HPC minutes Exhibit C: Draft, HPC Resolution #27, Series of 2012 Exhibit D: Application First Reading of Ordinance #_, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 10 of 10 0 • ORDINANCE #43 (Series of 2012) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO APPROVING HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND BENEFITS THROUGH THE ASPENMODERN PROGRAM FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 610 E. HYMAN AVENUE, LOT M, BLOCK 99, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL ID: 2737-182-12-004 WHEREAS, the applicant, 610 E. Hyman LLC, represented by Haas Land Planning, submitted an application on March 28, 2012, pursuant to Section 26.415.025(C), AspenModern Properties, of the Aspen Municipal Code, to voluntarily participate in the AspenModern ninety -day negotiation period for the properties located at 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot M, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen; and WHEREAS, an AspenModern negotiation period extends 90 days after initiation unless extended by City Council. Council passed Resolution #53, Series of 2012 to extend this negotiation to December 23, 2012; and WHEREAS, Municipal Code Section 26.415.025.C(1)(b) states that, during the negotiation period, "the Community Development Director shall confer with the Historic Preservation Commission, during a public meeting, regarding the proposed building permit and the nature of the property. The property owner shall be provided notice of this meeting;" and WHEREAS, the property owners' representative met with the Historic Preservation Commission on May 23, 2012 and October 24, 2012; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on October 24, 2012, the HPC considered the application; found that 610 E. Hyman Avenue is a "better/best" example of the Modern style in Aspen evaluated the designation and proposed development; and, found that the policy objectives for the historic preservation program stated at Section 26.415.010, Purpose and Intent are met, and recommended City Council ("Council") approval of Historic Landmark Designation and negotiation with conditions; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.025.C(1)(d), states that, during the negotiation period, "council may negotiate directly with the property owner or may choose to direct the Community Development Director, or other City staff as necessary, to negotiate with the property owner to reach a mutually acceptable agreement for the designation of the property"; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.025.C(1)d establishes that "as part of the mutually acceptable agreement, the City Council may, at its sole discretion, approve any land use entitlement or fee waiver permitted by the Municipal Code and may award any approval that is assigned to another Board or Commission, including variations;" and Ordinance #_, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 1 of 5 WHEREAS, in addition to Historic Landmark Designation and benefits available to all Landmarked properties subject to the Aspen Municipal Code, the applicant has identified preservation incentives that are requested as part of the AspenModern negotiation process; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department performed an analysis of the application for Landmark Designation and found that the review standards are met, with conditions. The staff report analyzed the proposed preservation incentives and monetary value of the benefits where possible; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Historic Landmark Designation Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council hereby approves Historic Designation for 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot M, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen subject to the conditions described herein. Upon the effective date of this ordinance, the City Clerk shall record with the real estate records of the Clerk and Recorder of the County, a certified copy of this ordinance. The location of the historic landmark property designated by this ordinance shall be indicated on the official maps of the City that are maintained by the Community Development Department. Section 2: Aspen Modern Negotiation Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in "Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council hereby approves 1. A free market residential floor area increase of 1,546 square feet, making the total free market floor area 3,046 square feet. The combination of the commercial floor area and the residential free market floor area will exceed what is allowed as a total development for the site by 692 square feet, and 2. 10 years vested rights, with the condition that the applicant is required to restore the original arched form of the ground floor windows, to be approved by HPC, in addition to restoring the paint scheme on the stucco panels and removing the canopy over the upper floor patio. Ordinance #_, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 2 of 5 • u Section 3: Utility, Delivery and Trash Storage Area The applicant has received a waiver of the on -site requirement based on a satisfactory written agreement to share Recycling and Trash Storage area amongst adjacent property owner(s) on Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen. Section 4: Vested Rights The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site -specific development plan and a vested property right attaching to and running with the Subject Property and shall confer upon the Applicant the right to undertake and complete the site specific development plan and use of said property under the terms and conditions of the site specific development plan including any approved amendments thereto. The vesting period of these vested property rights shall be for ten (10) years which shall not begin to run until the date of the publications required to be made as set forth below. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of § 26.104.050, Void Permits. Zoning that is not part of the approved site -specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to Chapter 26.308, Vested Property Rights. Pursuant to § 26.304.070(A), Development Orders, such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of ten (10) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot M, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the Development Order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this Ordinance of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this Ordinance. The vested rights granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review. The period of time permitted by law to exercise the right of referendum to refer to the electorate this Section of this Ordinance granting vested rights; or, to seek judicial review of the grant of vested rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as set forth above. The rights of referendum described herein shall be no greater than those set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. Ordinance #_, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 3 of 5 Section 5: Material Representations All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Historic Preservation Commission or 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 an authorized entity. Section 6: Litigation This ordinance 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 7: Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance 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. The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 8: Public Hearing A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 12th day of December, 2012 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 12t' day of November, 2012. ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Ordinance #_, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 4 of 5 FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2012. ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: James R. True, City Attorney Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Ordinance #_, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 5 of 5 INTEGRITY SCORING If a statement is true, circle the number of points associated with that true statement. LOCATION OF ON • The building is in its original location. 2 points The building has been shifted on the original parcel, but maintains its original 1 point alignment and/or proximity to the street. The property is located within the geographical area surrounded by Castle 1 point Creek, the Roaring Fork River and Aspen Mountain. The property is outside of the geographical area surround by Castle Creek, the 1/2 point Raoring Fork River and Aspen Mountain. The form of the building (footprint, roof and wall planes) are unaltered from 3 points the original design. a.) The form of the building has been altered but less than 25% of the original walls have been removed, OR b.) The alterations to the form all occur at the rear of the subject building, OR 2 points c.) The form of the building has been altered but the addition is less than 50% of the size of the original building, OR d.) There is a roof top addition that is less than 50% of the footprint of the roof. MATERIALS Exterior materials The original exterior materials of the building are still in place, with the 2 points exception of normal maintenance and repairs. 50% of the exterior materials have been replaced, but the replacements 1 point match the original condition. Windowsdoors The original windows and doors of the building are still in place, with the 2 points exception of normal maintenance and repairs. 50% of the original windows and doors have been replaced, but the 1 point replacements match the original condition. Integrity Score (this page) maximum of 10 points: Character Defining Features Score (first page) maxi- mum of 10 points: HISTORIC ASSESSMENT SCORE: 51 W, U 0) i_ � N Ca Do) O 76 . O m O O C6 O o m O 3 Q) U tUn O O 70 70 U o c (D O N cv o E > �. �"— O O Q) c 0 .� 3 E � O U) O O (D X C (A :E Q) Q) O U) U N (B CB E U) 0 O O U U 0 L E E (0 a- N m _`o NO � U w U O U O Q) U C M [x� Fxl F I R R u L 4-0 F- m a--• w L a% Q O U co -0 -0^` `+— N Q L (n O }' :3 O C37 > Qc) N U U N (6 L > � -0 = N a)M Q .o - U (n E E(D U O O C c L -C a — � � O O- 0) C (� a) L O (n z Q U Q N m O o N (� L O O U m Fn O Q) _O O U M O Q) Cll � L C � E U) O co Q) L O C) U Ocz U cv U Z m w U > ` L O rn 0- E E o3 � 0- c Q t N p E ,'T cn vOi 0) c9 0 O co(D E o Q] 5 L L U co Cu O O 0 m E L ^(n 0) cz Ca L co E O U '� 0)`t- O O � U -0 N CO cu CO CU U O t- 0 10 (rr6 U) cn a) N i -0 N a) 0) L Q 0 O co L Q N N }' L � O Q O i C) O a_ ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COM ISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2012 610 E. Hyman — AspenModern Negotiation for Voluntary Landmark Designation, Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Special Review for utility/trash recycling area, continued from October 101h — public hearing Jane recused herself. Amy summarized the staff memo. This is an AspenModern negotiation, a voluntary offer of designation in exchange for some landmark benefits that are available for all properties. In terms of designation staff finds that it meets the criteria. Ellie Brickham in 1951 was Aspen's first female architect. This is a good example of her design talents. There have been alterations to the building and it scored 15 out of 20. In terms of the negotiation the first incentive has to do with floor area. There is an allowance for 1500 square feet of residential free market floor area on the property and the applicant is asking for just over twice as much. That floor area figure covers not only the actual living area of the unit but also drags in common hallway and deck area. This project is asking for doubling. It also pushes them slightly over the cap for what a building that just has commercial and free market uses ought to have by 692 square feet. On vested rights everyone receives three years and they are asking for ten years to allow more time to move forward. There are standard landmark benefits which are available to all designated properties. They are eligible for an affordable housing mitigation waiver for the office space they are creating. If they had to pay for a non -historic property it would be around $250,000. but they wouldn't pay anything in this scenario. The expansion of the office space triggers the need for a partial parking space onsite and they are asking to not provide the parking space but not pay the cash -in -lieu fee which would have been about $28,000. Their residential development is exempt from certain fees related to city parks and transportation. In terms of the incentives city council is the body that can award those incentives but HPC generally makes comments. HPC is also asked to review the conceptual design for the proposed addition at the back of the building. In terms of the HPC guidelines staff finds that the addition is acceptable because it is along the alley and doesn't encroach upon the historic building itself. It doesn't have a negative impact. In terms of the commercial design HPC needs to consider the request to go over the height limit. The height limit is 36 feet measured from grade and their proposal is 38.11 to the top of the residential unit in the back. Our concern is that it looks like the floor to ceiling height on the third floor is about 12 feet which seems like it could be reduced and Cei • ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2012 the height increase lessened. On the utility delivery issue every property downtown is expected to have a certain amount devoted to the functional needs of the building about 120 square feet and it should be along the alley so trash can be picked up easily. This property currently has no trash area that meets code. There is an internalized area for recycling and they have an agreement with the neighbor. That does not meet the standards. We have not seen any agreement that this will continue. In theory HPC could grant a complete waiver but we do not think that an appropriate plan. One suggestion is to eliminate one of the existing on -site parking spaces which then generates its own variance and cash -in -lieu and perhaps that is a way to accommodate the trash. Council has already awarded an extension on this project part of which HPC's agendas were so blocked up but the current extension expires in December. If this project cannot leave HPC with a recommendation tonight staff is not inclined to recommend an additional extension. We feel there has not been enough preservation effort represented in the project to out weight the benefits. The character of the windows has changed from the original design which has changed how you perceive the building from the street. We are concerned about having a certain standard to hold up that the AspenModern program can achieve certain things that the community can clearly see. The removal of the canopy and stucco on the fagade are not significant movement back to the original character. We would like to see this project work out but we feel we are not in the right place to approve it and we are not recommending HPC approval. Nora asked what has changed since we saw this the last two times. Amy said one of the things were the calculations on the building which were not clear enough for us to take a position. We didn't understand what some of the square footages were. Amy said designation doesn't happen if the negotiation doesn't occur. Staff finds that the building worthy of designation but we are concerned that the other end of the proposal isn't meeting up to the standards. Willis asked for clarification regarding the trash. Amy said they are required to have 120 square feet on the site for their trash area and they have none that qualifies now. HPC can accept any arrangement that you think appropriate. If you were going to ask them to provide any on the site it is VA • ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2012 going to impact one of the existing parking spaces. HPC can grant a variance to eliminate the parking space and you can eliminate the fee. Charles Cunniffe said in 2003 when he got approval to build the garage in the back the building was designed to have two stories in the future. The trash area was negotiated with the city and the city allowed us to do a recycle center instead of the traditional dumpster. The building has a gas meter on the back of it and has the meters along the car port. The recycling center has three bins for glass, aluminum and paper. It is used jointly with the neighboring properties. We would continue to work something out with them. We are attempting to be as paper free as possible. Most of our products are recyclable. It is the only 30 foot lot that is constrained in the neighborhood and if you put a 10 x 20 space in the back you would have a ten foot parking space. It is in the best interest to have a recycling center rather than a trash/utility area. We have four spaces and have the adequate parking. It is a two car garage and a two tandem space which was also approved in 2003. Ellie Brickham was a friend of mine through the architectural world. When I talked to her about what I wanted to do with the building she was very much in favor of me changing the windows. It is a better solar gain and the additions of the transoms allowed for ventilation. I haven't changed anything regarding the solid/void pattern on the front of the building. The only thing I altered is the lower arch is now squared off for a transom window. Mitch Haas, Hass land planning: With ordinance 48 and Aspen Modern the 90 day negotiation forces us to take a short view of the property and the effects of designation. It seems to put everyone in we want everything right now or nothing at all approach to a negotiation which is not really how one enters into a negotiation. There were three points of restoration: the arched windows, color of the stucco and the removal of the canopy. Charles agreed to two of the three. On the integrity assessment it scored 15 points which is on the border of better and best. By doing the two restorations we would be in the best example. If this building is not on the inventory there would be no HPC review or consideration ever going forward. In the way of incentives we have asked for additional free market area. The building is not efficiently laid out and there is a lot of common area and stairs than would be in any other building. We have requested a free market area of 3,053 square feet. The unit itself is 1908 square feet of net livable space. Right now it is a studio to become a one bedroom unit. 286 square feet is counted as wall thicknesses and ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2012 another 473 in circulation spaces that are shared for the commercial spaces below and another 385 deck space that is counting as floor area. Also the code requires an elevator. There is no parking requirement in the C 1 zone district and none for the residential unit. At the alley the proposed height is 40 feet as submitted because the alley starts lower than the sidewalk. We are trying to look at the ceiling heights a little closer. We can drop it to 38 feet at the alley. Both buildings are going to go to three stories and will overwhelm this building. Mitch said the trash sits behind the golfco building to the east and is shared with this building. The recycling is behind our building. The golfco building has been approved by P&Z which is 9 feet along the alley and 20 feet deep. This project will be coming back for HPC final review and it doesn't have to be completely satisfied and addressed right now. When we come in for final we will either have letters of agreement from the neighbor or we will have a specific proposal for the H PC. We will resolve it or we won't get final approval from the HPC. You should save this building. Charles said if you look at the drawings there is not a significant alteration on the building. The most significant alteration is the canopy which is going to be removed. I feel what I did as appropriate to the building. Amy said she didn't hear until tonight that there was an tandem parking space on the site. I was under the impression that there were three parking spaces. That is adequate for the net leasable. The code does not allow commercial uses to count stacked parking spaces as adequate you have to have unobstructed access to the alley. That fourth space is not OK as the mitigation for this commercial building. It is great that you are working with your neighbors on recycling but the other side of the equation is that you have no place to put your trash. I don't think the existing arrangement is going to work. Vice -chair Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. Junee Kirk said she served on the preservation committee. I recall that there weren't that many on the AspenModern list that were to be preserved. I'm surprised that this is coming under ordinance #48. Amy said the task force did not get to that level of detail. We aren't actually talking about getting this building to perfection. There are changes that we oil • • ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2012 aren't even suggestion that should be undone like moving the entry to the center and filling in the light well. Vice -chair Jay Maytin closed the public comment portion ofthe agenda item. Jay said you can walk to the recycling area from the alley. If this agreement falls apart would you be able to collect your trash in this area. Charles said we have adequate access and this case is unique because it is a single tenant. All the changes are above the garage and there are no changes to the first floor. Nora said I thought it was clear that there were things that we wanted to see done before we thought it could be designated. I can't support designation and this is a very significant building and I don't feel as though we are being given the respect of what the restoration should look like. Maybe the board should vote on whether this building should be designated. Charles said he had to move the doors per code issues which were not in effect in 1962. It was a building code. Willis said he doesn't see anything substantially different presented from the last meeting. Mitch said we had to get all the calculations in the cad. Charles said before I wasn't willing to change the stucco or the canopy and now I am willing to change those. Willis asked if Charles talked to Marty Flug about memoralizing the trash agreement. Charles said we co -share the cost now and I can talk to him. Commissioner comments: Nora said she cannot support designation. Willis said there are four points of restoration that have been discussed. The same four things have been discussed at every hearing in the past. The canopy, the arches at the second level, the stucco color and the entry door change. We aren't asking for perfection and eliminated the entry door. The 10 0 • ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2012 other three are the essence of Ellie Brickham. AspenModern negotiation has potential for demolition. The spirit of AspenModern is for the developer to think twice about their actions. We have asked for three out of four things and you should just do it and enjoy the benefits that with it. Jay said his fear is that this building will go away and people will be upset. The removal of the canopy was a huge step. I don't agree with the ten year vested rights. This building will probably be dwarfed after the two buildings on either side are done. This will be a better project than letting it go. I also agree that the utility for a restaurant should be different than for an office building. Sallie said it is great that the canopy is removed. The color change is good but I think when we asked for three I wanted three. I would support giving more time and figuring out how we can designate a building that looks like the original building that she designed. Charles said the arches are not functional. Willis said part of the charm is the arches that speak to the era. Charles said the arches are one of many things that make the building; historic. If you put the arches back there is less light. MOTION: Willis moved to approve resolution 27 with the following conditions that the first level arches return to the restoration and some agreement about the trash be submitted and that council take up the issues of vested rights. All the incentives are ok. Motion second by Sallie. Motion carried 3-1. Nora voted no. A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVE HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND PRESERVATION BENEFITS THROUGH THE ASPENMODERN PROGRAM FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 610 E. HYMAN AVENUE, LOT M, BLOCK 99, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL RESOLUTION #27, SERIES OF 2012 PARCEL ID: 2737-182-12-004 WHEREAS, on March 28, 2012, the applicant, 610 E. Hyman LLC, Charles Cunniffe, represented by Haas Land Planning, requested that the property located at 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot M, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, be considered for voluntary historic designation in exchange for specific benefits through the AspenModern negotiation process as described at Section 26.415.025 and Section 26.415.030 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, an AspenModern negotiation period ends 90 days after initiation unless extended by City Council. Council passed Resolution #53, Series of 2012 to extend this negotiation to December 23, 2012; and WHEREAS, an AspenModern negotiation requires that the Historic Preservation Commission, using context papers and integrity scoring sheets for the property under consideration, provide Council with an assessment of the property's conformance with the designation criteria of Section 26.415.030.C.1. When any benefits that are not included in Section 26.415.110 are requested by the property owner, HPC shall also evaluate how the designation, and any development that is concurrently proposed, meets the policy objectives for the historic preservation program, as stated at Section 26.415.010, Purpose and Intent. As an additional measure of the appropriateness of designation and benefits, HPC shall determine whether the subject property is a "good, better, or best" example of Aspen's 20`h century historic resources, referencing the scoring sheets and matrix adopted by City Council; and WHEREAS, concurrent with the designation application, Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval was requested for an expansion to the subject building; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC 610 E. Hyman Avenue — AspenModern HPC Resolution #27, Series of 2012 may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Commercial Design Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Objectives and Guidelines per Section 26.412.040 of the Municipal Code. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, the proposed expansion project includes a parking waiver, which HPC may grant according to the review standards of Section 26.415.110.C, Benefits, of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the proposed expansion project includes a reduction to the required Utility/Delivery and Trash Storage area, which HPC may grant based on the review standards of Section 26.430, Special Review; and WHEREAS, the proposed redevelopment includes a height increase, which HPC may grant according to the review standards of Section 26.412, Commercial Design Review, of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report to HPC dated October 24, 2012, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards. The staff recommendation was that the property should be designated a landmark as it meets the criteria for designation and the integrity score qualifies as the "better/best" category of historic resources. Staff recommended that the proposed incentives were not appropriate within the AspenModern program due to lack of adequate restoration work, and the project did not meet review standards related to Conceptual Design Review. Staff recommended denial of the project; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on October 24, 2012, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application during a duly noticed public hearing, the staff memo and recommendation, and public comments, and recommended Council pursue negotiation for landmark designation for this "better/best" example of an AspenModern resource, with conditions. HPC approved Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual Commercial Design with conditions. The vote of the members was 3 to 1. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby finds that the property located at 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot M, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen, meets the designation criteria of Land Use Code Section 26.415.030.C.1. HPC supports Council negotiation for voluntary designation of this property only with the condition that the applicant is required to restore the original arched form of the ground floor windows. This restoration work is considered necessary to support a package of preservation incentives which include the following: 1. A free market residential floor area increase of 1,546 square feet, making the total free market floor area 3,046 square feet. The combination of the commercial floor area and 610 E. Hyman Avenue — AspenModern HPC Resolution #27, Series of 2012 0 . the residential free market floor area will exceed what is allowed as a total development for the site by 692 square feet. 2. 10 years vested rights. 3. Growth Management affordable housing mitigation waiver for the 1.725 employees generated by the proposed 949 square feet of new net leasable space. (This waiver is available in the Municipal Code for all historic landmarks) 4. On -site parking waiver, and waiver of cash -in -lieu fee for the required 0.95 parking spaces generated by the proposed 949 square feet of new net leasable space. (This waiver is available in the Municipal Code for all historic landmarks) 5. Park Development and Transportation Demand Management mitigation fees generated by residential and commercial expansion. (This waiver is available in the Municipal Code for all historic landmarks) HPC hereby grants Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval with the following conditions: 1. HPC approves a full waiver of the required on -site Utility, Delivery and Trash Storage Area with the condition that the applicant provides City Council with an acceptable written agreement for shared Trash Storage area amongst adjacent property owner(s) on Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen. 2. The applicant must restudy the design of the new addition so the project does not exceed a maximum height of 38'. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 24th day of October, 2012. Approved as to Form: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Jay Maytin, Vice Chair 610 E. Hyman Avenue — AspenModern HPC Resolution #27, Series of 2012 :rgewp.TINtiD . COPPER PAxK ' TA.�!-�..Pp!N'fHiJ+.{5E p1iQRoDEt3_ -_�-11--..-.-. `{y ��r�t'r.•.aK C%tT"6R fA1tC�4_ -- - T.o. CX15TiNq fit: Ih7-4ry� L PFtopv6E.umcR LLVELD TIOrl-- FNp op tX113TiNG{ fy4[LD1NG - YJtCTtj Ne oFIY�Jh;F+T ►ttX-6t-.11 ___ — — 3D64 tJrMFZ -b7 7TLA Tt' _ "14 --- H@YPAYtNA"-� wpreft "Izt- p-oo'-TI- 1 I 1 1 �x14 +1J=t Lctir-1 II it E t-Tu:y I 11 u-1—_—_-----_ ---—._..( WE5T ELEV/TiON.. IIS"= I r o TLfl•A`.PnTIKEo T�o.E�Y. PEI'ITNOLI� _ �Fx'"aA SO. E. I& A, New PATIHAAD T1bYiH4- - ( fT 4 _ —_. _____ EX'4 RG0 DWGK _ _Xyv�E OF KxICaTIN4 P+LIf=DJNC�L-1J. l - ��-.X—' uPPErt Le•!eL_ .`"�-�: I - ! PRopvse6 ulrE>• 1 • � I NEVI C-o/ADnMA I 1 FSluti�SGRY. Ftt g.XA AWN LeWEL I �. hi r�rfww> L-iC4�•9 . I - XVPFirt PFHf-36 ,�'� 1 t=rT/yy J ------ ------------I---�---� II EAST tLEVATION NiW PATIUAA t.OPPER F• :K PR P�Ef_G L%'4 RCA ylyGK ex1♦ snla[o :EK'4 tIpP6R LEVC Ei4 MtoNzfn }uo0. N.�+M.fsfgab F�tY 1 II I � �- EX4 LO!lCR LtYC SOUTH (HYMAN P4E.) ELEYf+TION I/a %1-O Aeu'_ I�T1Nuso COP7GR'M6GIA � exaPoecv Correa PA HEEbIS PRoPo9E vKow. -RvPF tS d!u xrl;4 ,L - .. '!w 6rtol�c8 ANas pi.JlA.wIHDOW6 PROio6/v UF= �t..t1k-EP .Hfsw1 f.GA\DAIv. wN.i-OCREW c re�R tti'HN s TuI t6Te/ .cc1:6 -- —1 JI --_ 11 '1 11 II 11 II M?EMy .NORT ALLY FL1±�1lsY1QP! . Ids m _o U Q E e 0 u LL w LL - m u 4 z 3 553 V w �s _ � z U I LLJ 0 O LLJ z a O � J O LIJ = u V ta; — p W LL o N LL Q CD U U tlRAti,'tiG: ISSTJE DATE: 6-ci-IJ J03 H0. 473t SHEET ". A3.1 C>stxn narsmaert v_Kmn 0 LANf1PeJ�7�. pRDpOfEO_- �>ry�6-1) '- Hr'V�Mn[,7Ef2 r.��a7M - •Hrti4'Et.1NCEFK NtW �I •EL.l24-b � - - - .- ' .HEY✓ aFrticE 41-1 erC'4Y� . e�rosad U4Ni.WELL- rFU Ship —,—+- — _ BLiILDINCA StC'PION 8=0 p}�orE,ctl' t t .+as emu' FizclnSEs� 11Ety �{av� 6t:114 -15 pL1.fsY E Y.10. C•:/.3 CXI`i71!{C. .�EN7 �KIS�•Tthr� GAF1 c�F: orrl 0 r ET•r II+G Eli 1571NCS • HMV+�eT t27y �ltL-.l24� wTnl" EI. 6L. 114' R `Y- HYIAM r As14TING LEYEL� X+6TI"N rRY L-V*R+p 1:p�vtR LNrI. FL-. pKCEnr:rY• UN�' AdR- --WLvr ,UgpEC-Y- µF.VJ FL+f :J.F Fs6 K +, ML c I'rri� sFt P�LitLC' IIJG SCGI" (�)Ft p.•A E iSTIHl Pt'•F•1«:' EU6T+ .� vFPIc,: 311'+vit PNr_. 'rxtsn�+ 1JfJN Lt!\CL �JFtt LaVi L m LLiLu R B LL z U ��s R LU fu J -U LJ U� z LLo Qo Oa Q� zo wr� o g L1 Q �j LU C'?-1 WQa ao a� Oaf U� EAST-NifMAH AVE I —No 0013 SHEET NO. A4. I' 0 • • E ELKS BULD11:G VEGTRA BANK LOTS K t L 610 E. R04AN AVE. LOT N / O GRANDALL ELALO NS 500 BLOCK 600 BLOCK EAST HYMAN E SO AVUTH ELEVATION Y' - 20' A—FROVEO ASPER AFT NV5`_V.'4 A`�.D f3V-LD1\"a VIGTORIAN 5GJARE X-FROVED WLD;'-, FENTON LITTLE AN-CE5 WE GIN BhLPi-,* WILDN', 600 BLOCK 500 BLOCK EAST HYMAN AVE NORTH ELEVATION P' • 20' W U� H z o I.L n a a Oa Z O0 w S � tjz LU u`y w a o Q � o LU O Uo� rLE,/A tO.% AVE ELEVATtO\5 LSRX: DAZE: DES. DEV. 11-12-08 )06 NO. 0013 SKEET 110. A5,1 I �l%3(t QA2FS Q! `M[I.th'llTR 11111 �+ � '' ` , 1111111� . 1��ti \ t . IIIIIII �i i,1,1, \ \\\\ 1 N \ \; - �� �,, MEN G- ZI� ,,•,.,;s;,., , 3 - -- - -------------- - --- ------ ■ LOWER LEVEL PLAN BASEMENT LEVEL PLAN 1 ys. • �.-o.. LEGEND 6 ROOF / SITE PLAN — LOT M r'-0.. 5 ROOF LEVEL PLAN /e 0 UPPER LEVEL PLAN PROPOSED NET LEASABLE /LIVABLE AREA Commerical Free Market Commercial FAR / Free Market Net Livable Net Leasable / Livable Basement 800. CLO 1,2225+535.8+1023.6+27.7= 2,809.7 2,809.7 > 1,908.5 Lower Level 1,0021 C10 1,908.5 1,906.5 Main level 1,124.6 0.0 Upper Level 949.1 958.3 Roof Level 0.0 950.2 Total 3,875.8 1,908.5 0 WN www. cu n n iffe. com H W 2 Of Q W LL LL Z Z � z U w ti U) _ W J O a Q 2 U � (D Z E J_ w z O CY] > O Z Q K Q Q O � O } = Z = N a F- w Cn o Q W 0 r-- cD DRAWING: WT LEA6N M / MET WARZ ISSUE DATE We10.1Ir12 JOB NO. )0= SW-U NO. A2.2 ..-�r,i�ts a,u�i u[Nr[fi5 0 0 a MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 610 E. Hyman Avenue— AspenModern negotiation for Landmark Designation, Conceptual Major Development and Commercial Design Review, Public Hearing DATE: October 24, 2012 (Continued from May 23rd and October 1 Oth, 2012) SUMMARY: 610 E. Hyman Avenue was constructed for well known gallery owner Patricia Moore in 1963. It was designed by Ellie Brickham, who in 1951 was the first female architect to arrive in Aspen. The offices of Charles Cunniffe Architects have been located in the building for twenty years. In late 2010, Charles Cunniffe proposed voluntary designation and a building expansion through the Ordinance #48 landmark negotiation process, which was the City's first effort to incentivize designation of postwar era properties. HPQ reviewed the project twice before the application was terminated after no significant progress. In April 2012, the application was re -submitted in advance of reduced height limits going into effect in the downtown. The proposal now falls under the AspenModern ordinance (largely similar to Ordinance #48) within which the applicant can request special benefits. Patricia Moore Inc. occupies the first floor of this building designed by hiss Rrickham. ;Hiss Moore occupies the second floor apartment. The project entails a second floor expansion of the existing office space, on top of a garage that was added in 2003. The applicant also wishes to enlarge the existing upper floor apartment by constructing a rooftop addition. HPC is asked to make a recommendation to City Council regarding the historic significance of 610 E. Hyman and the appropriateness of the incentives that are requested. HPC is also asked to make a determination regarding Conceptual design review of the exterior changes. HPC Review 10.24.2012 610 E. Hyman — Charles Cunniffe Architects Page 1 of 15 • Ll APPLICANT: 610 E. Hyman LLC, Charles Cunniffe, represented by Haas Land Planning. PARCEL ID: 2737-182-12-004. ADDRESS: 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot M, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: C-1, Commercial §26.415. 030. C AspenModern 1. Criteria. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures as an example of AspenModern, an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. The quality of significance of properties shall be evaluated according to criteria described below. When designating a historic district, the majority of the contributing resources in the district must meet at least two of the criteria a-d, and criterion a described below: a. The property is related to an event, pattern, or trend that has made a contribution to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific event, pattern or trend is identified and documented in an adopted context paper; b. The property is related to people who have made a contribution to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific people are identified and documented in an adopted context paper; c. The property represents a physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman, or design philosophy that is deemed important and the specific physical design, designer, or philosophy is documented in an adopted context paper; d. The property possesses such singular significance to the City, as documented by the opinions of persons educated or experienced in the fields of history, architecture, landscape architecture, archaeology or a related field, that the property's potential demolition or major alteration would substantially diminish the character and sense of place in the city as perceived by members of the community, and HPC Review 10.24.2012 610 E. Hyman — Charles Cunniffe Architects Page 2 of 15 C� i e. The property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association, given its age. The City Council shall adopt and make available to the public score sheets and other devices which shall be used by the Council and Historic Preservation Commission to apply this criterion. Staff Response: 610 E. Hyman Avenue was built in 1963 for owner Patricia Moore. The Patricia Moore Gallery was a respected business in town for many years, and displayed the work of many important artists on the main floor of the building. An upper floor residential studio unit was part of the original design. Ms. Moore sold the property in 1988. 610 E. Hyman was constructed for a woman who played an important role in the local arts community, and it was designed by Aspen's first woman architect. This is one of the few Ellie Brickham buildings that remains in Aspen. Ellie Brickham (1923-2008) moved to Aspen in 1951 after attending the University of Colorado's School of Architecture from 1941-1944. Construction was a family business, and her motivation to become a designer began as a child. According to the research paper, "Aspen's Twentieth -Century Architecture: Modernism 1945-1975:" "Early in her career, Brickham worked in Fritz Benedict's office and collaborated on projects with both Benedict and Bayer, participating in work going on at the Aspen Institute. Like Benedict, she had a strong interest in passive solar techniques. During her time in that office and, later, in her own practice out of her home, she designed a number of residences and commercial buildings in town, including houses for several Music Festival artists in Aspen Grove, the elegantly simple brick Strandberg Residence (1973, 433 Bleeker Street -demolished) and the Patricia Moore Building (1962, 610 E. Hyman Avenue). In Pitkin County, she designed numerous homes in Pitkin Green and Starwood, on Red Mountain, including her own house (1955), with south and west walls made completely of glass. Her works, which total at least sixty in the Aspen area, are generally characterized by spare, simple forms and minimal detailing. Brickham's projects focus on an "impeccable sense of proportion and feeling of lightness," according to a 1977 Aspen Times article." The building that Ellie Brickham designed for Patricia Moore appears to have been influenced by "New Formalism," an architectural approach of the early 1960s which emphasized symmetrical, smooth -skinned, flat roofed buildings with screens and grilles. The fagade of 610 E. Hyman has six attenuated brick piers that extend from the base to the eaves and stucco arched spandrels for a more "decorated" look that reflected the 1960s evolution of modernist design, as in Phillip Johnson's 1962 Lincoln Center in New York, on the next page. HPC Review 10.24.2012 610 E. Hyman — Charles Cunniffe Architects Page 3 of 15 n f� HPC presented an Honor Award to Ellie Brickham in 2001, in recognition of her influence on the built environment in Aspen. The neighborhood where this structure was built includes several other AspenModern related properties. Relatively few of the noted postwar properties are commercial structures. It is important to carefully consider preservation opportunities for this small collection of highly visible downtown structures. Staff finds that historic designation criteria a, c, and a are met. The second component of designation is scoring the physical integrity of the building. Staffs score sheet is attached as Exhibit B. Please note that the scoring system was revised with the adoption of AspenModern and is now based on a 20 point scale, instead of the former 100 point scale. Several elements of this building were altered through previous remodels. The front entry door was originally centered on the fagade. Now there are entries on both ends of the storefront level. Originally all of the street -facing opening were arched, but the ground floor windows have been changed to have square transom windows. A lightwell has been added to the front fagade so the building no longer meets the sidewalk in the center, the basement office level is exposed to view, and there are no kickplates below the windows. The stucco color has been changed from white to a masonry color. A seasonal canopy has been added to enclose the rooftop courtyard. These alterations have affected the integrity score for the building and need to be taken into account when determining the appropriate package of preservation incentives to approve for the project. Staff scored the building as a "Better/Best" example of AspenModern, with 15 out of 20 points. §26.415.025.C.1.b. The Community Development Director shall confer with the Historic Preservation Commission, at a public meeting, regarding the proposed land use application or building permit and the nature of the property. The property owner shall be provided notice of this meeting. The Historic Preservation Commission, using context papers and integrity scoring sheets for the property under consideration, shall provide Council with an assessment of the property's conformance with the designation criteria of Section HPC Review 10.24.2012 610 E. Hyman — Charles Cunniffe Architects Page 4 of 15 26.415.030.C.1. When any benefits that are not included in Section 26.415.110 are requested by the property owner, HPC shall also evaluate how the designation, and any development that is concurrently proposed, meets the policy objectives for the historic preservation program, as stated at Section 26.415.010, Purpose and Intent. As an additional measure of the appropriateness of designation and benefits, HPC shall determine whether the subject property is a "good, better, or best" example of Aspen's 201h century historic resources, referencing the scoring sheets and matrix adopted by City Council. Staff Response: The applicant requests the following site specific incentives through AspenModern negotiation, in exchange for landmark designation. (The applicant also requests some standard benefits offered to landmarked properties. These benefits are discussed later in the memo.) 1) The existing residential unit is currently just below the 1,500 square feet maximum floor area allowed for free market apartments on this property. The applicant wishes to enlarge the unit. As a preservation benefit, a floor area increase of 1,546 square feet is requested, making the total free market floor area 3,046 square feet. A portion of the FAR assigned to the residential use is actually common circulation area, garage, deck area, etc. If this benefit is approved, the combination of the commercial floor area and the residential floor area will also exceed what is allowed as a total development for the site by 692 square feet. 2) The applicant requests extended vested rights. All projects receive an automatic three years of vested rights, or protection from changes to Land Use regulation. The applicant requests 10 years to allow for the start date of the project to be more flexible. The Land Use Code states that, as a further measure of the value of negotiation, Staff and HPC should evaluate whether the proposal meets the Purpose and Intent Statements of the Historic Preservation program, which are: §26.415.010. Purpose and intent. The purpose of this Chapter is to promote the public health, safety and welfare through the protection, enhancement and preservation of those properties, areas and sites, which represent the distinctive elements of Aspen's cultural, educational, social, economic, political and architectural history. Under the authority provided by the Home Rule Charter of the City and Section 29-20- 104(c), C.R.S., to regulate land use and preserve areas of historical, architectural, archaeological, engineering and cultural importance, this Chapter sets forth the procedures to: HPC Review 10.24.2012 610 E. Hyman — Charles Cunniffe Architects Page 5 of 15 A. Recognize, protect and promote the retention and continued utility of the historic buildings and districts in the City; B. 1'romote awareness and appreciation of Aspen's unique heritage; C. Ensure the preservation of Aspen's character as an historic mining town, early ski resort and cultural center; D. Retain the historic, architectural and cultural resource attractions that support tourism and the economic welfare of the community; and E. Encourage sustainable reuse of historic structures. F. Encourage voluntary efforts to increase public information, interaction or access to historic building interiors. The City does not intend by the historic preservation program to preserve every old building, but instead to draw a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest in preserving the City's cultural, historic, and architectural heritage. This should be accomplished by ensuring that demolition of buildings and structures important to that heritage are carefully weighed with other alternatives. Alterations to historically significant buildings and new construction in historic areas shall respect the character of each such setting, not by imitating surrounding structures, but by being compatible with them as defined in historic preservation guidelines. Affordable housing The new office space triggers affordable housing mitigation, however the applicant will take advantage of a preservation benefit which is already in place for all landmarks at Section 26.470.060.4 of the Municipal Code. The Community Development Director can grant an exemption to affordable housing requirements for up to 4 employees as part of the expansion of a mixed use, landmarked building. There are no review standards that must be met for the approval of this exemption. If the property is not landmark designated, and mitigation were required for this development, it would be for the equivalent of 1.725 employees, or $242,000 if paid as cash -in -lieu. Parking The expansion of the free market residential unit does not trigger additional parking requirements, but the new office space does generate the need for a fraction of one space. A full space could theoretically be provided on -site to meet the requirement (although it is apparently not physically possible), or the owner could pay cash -in -lieu. HPC must HPC Review 10.24.2012 610 E. Hyman — Charles Cunniffe Architects Page 6 of 15 find that the review standards of Section 26.415.1 10.0 of the Municipal Code are met. They require that: 1. The parking reduction and waiver of payment -in -lieu fees may be approved upon a finding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance or architectural character of a designated historic property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district. Staff Response: Normally a property owner would handle the parking requirement for this project as a cash -in -lieu payment, which in this case would be $28,050. The applicant is requesting a waiver of the fee as a preservation incentive. When paid, the cash in lieu fee is used for parking and transportation related construction or improvements. In other recent AspenModern projects, Council has required the cash payment. Staff would recommend that standard be continued. There is the possible need to discuss removal/waiver of one of the three existing on -site spaces in order to provide some utility/trash/storage area on this site. Further discussion below. Park Development Impact Fee and Transportation Demand Impact Fee Historic Landmark properties are exempt from paying certain fees that offset the need for the City to develop more parks or transportation systems as a result of new development. The exemption is standard. There are no review criteria. The proposed development would result in a waiver of approximately $12,000 in Park Development Impact Fee and $1,000 in Transportation Demand Impact Fee. Staff Response: The negotiated benefits are policy matters for Council to decide. HPC is asked to use the designation criteria, adopted context papers, and scoring sheets to forward a recommendation to City Council regarding the importance of the building. HPC may choose to comment on the specific incentive requests. During the three previous discussions of this project (minutes attached), HPC was focused on the importance of restoring the front facade of the building as much as possible, given the requested preservation incentives. Three particular actions were identified as important; restoring the arched windows on the lower half of the front facade, removing the canopy that currently covers the upper floor patio and restoring the original color of the stucco panels. The applicant proposes to address the stucco and canopy, but will not address the arched windows. Staff assumes that HPC's commitment to restoration of this building is the same as it was at the earlier meetings. Community Development does not support the award of the benefits that are requested without the dedicated effort to return all of the character defining features of the building within reason. It is understood that moving the entry HPC Review 10.24.2012 610 E. Hyman — Charles Cunniffe Architects Page 7 of 15 doors back to the center, and eliminating the lightwell are impractical. Nonetheless, on other AspenModern projects, including Mason and Morse and Aspen Core, the applicant's financial commitment to restoration efforts are very substantial. Consistently high standards for the AspenModern process are important in staff s opinion. Historic and current images of the building are depicted below. A glimpse of the subject building, circa 1960s, can be seen at the left edge of the photo. HPC Review 10.24.2012 610 E. Hyman — Charles Cunniffe Architects Page 8 of 15 0 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 structures) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit A." The existing building contains office space on the garden level and main floor, and a residential unit and courtyard on the upper floor. The property is within floor area limitations. The proposal is to create an addition at the back of the site, sitting on top of a garage/carport constructed in 2003. Immediately above the carport will be two new office spaces. On top of that will be a master bedroom expansion that will change the existing studio unit into a 1 bedroom. Because the proposed new construction is located at the rear of the property, visibility of the addition from the street will be very limited, in staff s assessment. Only a small portion of the proposed third floor encroaches onto the 1962 structure at all. Staff finds that the HPC guidelines for Conceptual HPC guideline approval are met. COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW The City has an adopted set of guidelines, "Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives" which are in addition to the HPC design guidelines. Development on this site is affected by the chapter that addresses what is known as the "Commercial Character Area." All of the Conceptual level guidelines address setback and height HPC Review 10.24.2012 610 E. Hyman — Charles Cunniffe Architects Page 9 of 15 0 0 issues that are not generally applicable to a remodel, rather than all new construction. Staff finds that no additional review is needed, except for discussion of the applicants request to exceed the 36' height threshold for three story buildings, discussed below. Any additional design guidelines that are applicable to Final will be presented to HPC at that time. An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the standards. B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the fagade of the building may be required to comply with this Section. C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means. Staff Response: The application includes a request to exceed the 36' height limit for third story elements. When measured from the alley grade, which is lower than the elevation at the front of the building, the addition is 38' 11" tall. The elevator overrun is no more than 5' above the roof height, which would be allowable. The Commercial guidelines state: 6.25 Maintain the average perceived scale of two-story buildings at the sidewalk. • Establish a two-story height at the sidewalk edge, or provide a horizontal design element at this level. A change in materials, or a molding at this level are examples. Staff finds that the goal of keeping the building scale low along the streetscape is achieved. However, the floor to ceiling height of the third floor addition appears to be HPC Review 10.24,2012 610 E. Hyman — Charles Cunniffe Architects Page 10 of 15 0 9 approximately 12.' This height could be reasonably reduced. Staff does not support a height increase to the degree that is requested. UTILITY, DELIVERY AND TRASH SERVICE PROVISION Section 26.575.060 of the Municipal Code requires this property to have an area parallel to the alley dedicated to the service needs of the building. This area is to be 15 feet long and 10 feet deep. The area cannot also be used as a parking space. This property currently has no service area that meets the code. The applicant proposes to maintain their existing condition. Expanding the building demands that the standard be addressed. In order to reduce the dimensions, the HPC must find that the following standards are met: B. forth at Chapter 26.430 if: 1. There is a demonstration that, given the nature of the potential uses of the building and its total square footage, the utility/trash/recycle service area proposed to be provided will be adequate. 2. Access to the utility/trash/recycle service area is adequate. 3. Measures are provided for enclosing trash bins and making them easily movable by trash personnel. 4. When appropriate, provisions for trash compaction are provided by the proposed development and measures are taken to encourage trash compaction by other development in the block. 5. The area for public utility placement and maintenance is adequate and safe for the placement of utilities. 6. Adequate provisions are incorporated to ensure the construction of the access area. Staff Response: Staff understands that when the garage/carport was built in 2003, trash was relocated off of this property to a shared location with the adjacent building. We are not certain if the required service area was an oversight during that review process. The shared arrangement with the adjacent property has not been documented with any form of a written agreement. Regardless, this is not a viable long term solution, especially because the adjacent building is under review for renovation, does not meet its own on site utility/trash/storage area requirements, and has made no representation that the needs of the 610 E. Hyman property are being accommodated. HPC Review 10.24,2012 610 E. Hyman — Charles Cunniffe Architects Page 1 1 of 15 0 The proposal for 610 E. Hyman shows a 27 square foot service at the back end of the garage. This is well below the 120 square foot requirement and does not directly abut the alley as required. 610 E. Hyman cannot be further expanded without providing for these functions. If the project is to go forward, staff recommends HPC consider a waiver of one of the existing on -site parking spaces. Cash -in -lieu payment should be required. The utility trash storage area could be accommodated in the former parking space, with the 15' required length oriented perpendicular to the alley instead of parallel, an exception that has been allowed for some other projects. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff has been supportive of the proposal for voluntary landmark designation. The 610 E. Hyman building represents Ellie Brickham as an architect and is indicative of post-war commercial development irk Aspen in the 1970s. We are generally supportive of the proposed addition. The building arguably meets the designation criteria in its existing condition. With designation, some of the incentives involved in this project, such as affordable housing waiver and development impact fee waiver, would be automatic. Other incentives, including the floor area bonus, parking variance, height, utility/trash/storage and vested rights are all discretionary by either HPC or Council. Staff believes that HPC has been consistent in their direction at the previous meetings. The project has been continued numerous times due to unclear or erroneous calculations and information. An AspenModern negotiation period between the applicant and the City is limited to a 90 day duration. Council can grant extensions and has done so for this project. The current extension expires on December 23rd. If the negotiation is not successfully completed by that time, Council must either grant another extension or the process will expire and development on the site will be subject to the new regulations for the C-I zone district, including a 28' height limit. Staff finds that approval of this project as proposed would be inconsistent with the negotiations that have occurred on the four previous AspenModern negotations related to downtown properties. The state of the building at the end of the project does not have enough historic integrity to justify the very valuable incentives that are requested. There is not a schedule that will allow for another meeting with HPC and then first and second reading of a City Council ordinance by December 10`h, their last meeting of the year. The project has not made progress as a result of the HPC input to date. Staff will not recommend in favor of another Council extension of the negotiation period. HPC Review 10.24.2012 610 E. Hyman — Charles Cunniffe Architects Page 12 of 15 Staff recommends denial of this project finding that the review criteria for designation are met, but the AspenModern negotiation and Conceptual Design Review criteria are not met. EXHIBITS• Exhibit A: Design Guidelines Exhibit B: Integrity Score Sheet Exhibit C: Previous HPC minutes Exhibit D: Application "Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Design Guidelines for 610 E. Hyman, Conceptual Review" 3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. ❑ Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntins/mullions, sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operation and groupings of windows. ❑ Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them, whenever conditions permit. o Preserve the original glass, when feasible. 3.2 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. ❑ Enclosing a historic window opening in a key character -defining facade is inappropriate, as is adding a new window opening. This is especially important on primary facades where the historic ratio of solid -to -void is a character -defining feature. ❑ Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear walls. ❑ Do not reduce an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or door or increase it to receive a larger window on primary facades. 7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices. ❑ Flat skylights that are flush with the roof plane may be considered only in an obscure location on a historic structure. Locating a skylight or a solar panel on a front roof plane is not allowed. ❑ A skylight or solar panel should not interrupt the plane of a historic roof. It should be positioned below the ridgeline. 7.6 When planning a rooftop addition, preserve the overall appearance of the original roof. ❑ An addition should not interrupt the original ridgeline. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. ❑ A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. ❑ An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. HPC Review 10.24.2012 610 E. Hyman — Charles Cunniffe Architects Page 13 of 15 ❑ An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. ❑ An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. ❑ An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. ❑ A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. ❑ An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic building. u A 1-story connector is preferred. u 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 Hill not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. ❑ For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. 10.12 When constructing a rooftop addition, keep the mass and scale subordinate to that of a historic building. ❑ An addition should not overhang the lower floors of a historic building in the front or on the side. ❑ Dormers should be subordinate to the overall roof mass and should be in scale with historic ones on similar historic structures. ❑ Dormers should be located below the primary structure's ridgeline, usually by at least one foot. 10.13 Set a rooftop addition back from the front of the building. HPC Review 10.24.2012 610 E. Hyman — Charles Cunniffe Architects Page 14 of 15 ❑ This will help preserve the original profile of the historically significant building as seen from the street.' 10.14 The roof form and slope of a new addition should be in character with the historic building. ❑ If the roof of the historic building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition should be similar. ❑ Eave lines on the addition should be similar to those of the historic building or structure. HPC Review 10.24.2012 610 E. Hyman — Charles Cunniffe Architects Page 15 of 15 0 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL DENY HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND PRESERVATION BENEFITS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 610 E. HYMAN AVENUE, LOT M, BLOCK 99, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO THROUGH THE ASPENMODERN PROGRAM, AND DENYING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW RESOLUTION # , SERIES OF 2012 PARCEL ID: 2737-182-12-004 WHEREAS, the applicant, 610 E. Hyman LLC, Charles Cunniffe, represented by Haas Land Planning, has requested that the property located at 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot M, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen be considered for voluntary historic designation in exchange for specific benefits through the AspenModern negotiation as described at Section 26.415.025 and Section 26.415.030 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, an AspenModern negotiation period extends 90 days after initiation unless extended by City Council. Council passed Resolution #53, Series of 2012 to extend this negotiation to December 23, 2012; and WHEREAS, the applicant also requested HPC Major Development (Conceptual) and Commercial Design Review (Conceptual) approval for an expansion to the subject building; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Commercial Design Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Objectives and Guidelines per Section 26.412.040 of the Municipal Code. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and 610 E. Hyman Avenue — AspenModern HPC Resolution # , Series of 2012 WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report to HPC dated October 24, 2012, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards. The staff recommendation was that the property chould be designated a landmark as it meets the criteria for designation and the integrity score qualifies as the "better/best" category of historic resources. Staff recommended that the proposed incentives were not appropriate within the AspenModern program, and the project did not meet review standards related to Conceptual Design Review. Staff recommended denial of the project; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on October 24, 2012, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application during a duly noticed public hearing, the staff memo and recommendation, and public comments, and found the project to be inconsistent with the review criteria by a vote of _ to NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby finds that the property located at 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot M, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen, meets the designation criteria of Land Use Code Section 26.415.030.C.1, but the proposal does not meet Land Use Code Section 26.415.025.C.1.b or Land Use Code Section 26.415.010 Purpose and Intent, relative to the AspenModern negotiation. HPC hereby denies Major Development (Conceptual) and Commercial Design Review (Conceptual) approval finding that the requested height increase does not meet the guidelines. The property has no qualifying utility/trash/storage area. f APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 24th day of October, 2012. Approved as to Form: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Ann Mullins, Chair 610 E. Hyman Avenue — AspenModern HPC Resolution # , Series of 2012 City of Aspen Commercial Character Area Conceptual Review Design Guidelines The follo«ving ct(-,ign guidelines shall apple at the conceptual revic% -t,w; Street & Alley System The street pattern is essential 'infrastructure' to the character of the Commercial Area. The network of streets, alleys and courts are key and should be retained for maximum public access. These should not be enclosed by gating and should not be spanned by development above to maintain view corridors and permit sun and light penetration along public ways. Wherever possible pedestrian access to alleys should be enhanced. The creation of additional public walkways to rear alleys and other public spaces enhances the attraction, permeability, intricacy and interest of the area and is encouraged. Improved access creates opportunities for additional commercial space, which is to be encouraged. Street Grid The original arrangement of parcels significantly affects the visual character of the area. The city was platted on a grid system of lots and blocks, and buildings were typically sited parallel with these lot lines. This development pattern should be maintained. 1.1 Orient a primary entrance toward the street. • A building should have a clearly defined primary entrance. • Providing secondary public entrances to commercial spaces is also encouraged on larger buildings. 1.2 Maintain the established town grid in all projects. • The network of streets and alleys should be retained as public circulation space and for maximum public access. • Streets and alleys should not be enclosed or closed to public access, and should remain open to the sky. The network of streets, alleys and existing pedestian passageways enhances access in the Commercial Area. The network of streets, alleys and existing pedestrian passageways should be retained for maximum public access. Commercial, Lodging and Historic District G ., page 15 Design Objectives and Guidelines 0 Commercial Character Area Internal Walkways 1.3 Public walkways and through courts should be designed to create access to additional commercial space. • These maybe shops that face onto walkways or courtyards. See also: Public Amenity Space design guidelines. Alleys Traditionally, alleyscapes were simple and utilitarian in character, with a variety of materials and building scales contributing to the human scale. This traditional character should be maintained, while accommodating compatible new uses. The continued development of visual interest in these alleys is encouraged. Greater variety in form and materials is also appropriate here. 1.4 Develop an alley fagade 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. City of Aspen Parking The character of the Commercial Area is one which is most appreciated on foot, and the human scale of streets and spaces lies at the heart of the attraction of the town center. Therefore, the visual impact of parking should be minimized. Whenever possible, parking should be placed underground. Where a parking structure might be considered this should have a 'wrap' of commercial and/or residential uses around it. Where it is permitted to be constructed, these guidelines shall apply: 1.5 The visual impacts of structured parking should be minimized. The access shall be: • Located on an alley when feasible or a secondary street, designed with the same attention to detail and materials as the primary building fagade, and integrated into the building design. 1.6 Structured parking should be placed within a'wrap' of commercial and/or residential uses. The visual impact of the entry to a parking facility should be minimized, as it is in this building. The opening is subordinate to the overall mass of the fagade. page 16 Commercial, Lodging and Historic District a"' Design Objectives and Guidelines City of Aspen Public Amenity Space On -site and communal open space has been a long-standing priority and characteristic of the city. Where it is required the form, orientation, quality and use of such open space is of the utmost importance. Well defined public space should be integrated with the traditional streetscape character of a well-defined street wall. The Planning and Zoning Commission and/or the Historic Preservation Commission will decide whether, where and in what form Public Amenity Space will be required. Public amenity space along the primary street frontage should be an accent within, and exception to, an otherwise well defined street fagade. The urban form within this area is however less tightly defined than in the Commercial Core and there will be greater opportunity to create public gathering space. There will be locations within the Commercial Area where either the character and setting of the site or of a historic building will influence the form, location or appropriateness of such a space. In every case Public Amenity Space should be well defined and carefully designed. The design of public gathering space, its enclosure, layout and content, will be an integral consideration in the proposed form of the space. Although a matter for full review and approval at the Final Stage, its design should be envisioned at the time of conceptual review. Public Amenity Space should be well-defined and designed to encourage pedestrian activity. Commercial Character Area Design Objectives Where considered to be compatible within the Commercial Area, public amenity space should achieve the following objectives: • Create street vitality through the promotion of public gathering space. • Maintain a well-defined street edge and street corner to ensure that such public space creates an accent within the street fagade. • Create an additional commercial frontage and/or space to the side or rear of the site or building • Create a well defined, localized public space atthe streetedge, where e.g. additional space for street dining might be beneficial. • Design a space that maximizes access to sunlight throughout the year. • Create a second level space, when appropriate, designed to ensure that it is permanently open to the public and provides interest in the form of a scenic or other interpretive marker for the life of its service as a public amenity space. • Achieve second floor patio space that provides access to affordable commercial uses. The Downtown Enhancement and Pedestrian Plan should serve as an additional reference. Commercial, Lodging and Historic District page 17 Design Objectives and Guidelines Commercial Character Area Amenity space is required in the Commercial Area. A street facing amenity space shall abut the public sidewalk, Street facing amenity space should be located to take advantage of solar exposure, City of Aspen Public Amenity Space Types Providing public amenity space is a requirement in the Commercial Area. Here particular types of public amenity space would be in character, ensuring that they are well defined and an accent within the street block. These include: • Street facing amenity space • Mid -block walkway amenity space • Alley side amenity space • Second level amenity space • Front yard amenity space Guidelines for the location and design of each of these types follows. Street Facing Amenity Space A street facing amenity space, usually located toward the middle of a block, may be considered. 1.7 A street facing amenity space shall meet all of the following requirements: • Abut the public sidewalk • Be level with the sidewalk • Be open to the sky • Be directly accessible to the public • Be paved or otherwise landscaped 1.8 A street -facing public amenity space shall remain subordinate to the line of building fronts in the Commercial Area. • Any public amenity space positioned at the street edge shall respect the character of the streetscape and ensure that street corners are well defined, with buildings placed at the sidewalk edge. • Sunken spaces, which are associated with some past developments, adversely affect the street character. Where feasible, these should be replaced with sidewalk level improvements. 1.9 Street facing amenity space shall contain features to promote and enhance its use. These may include one or more of the following: • Street furniture • Public art • Historical/interpretive marker page 18 0-41 Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines 0 • City of Aspen The detailed design of Public Amenity Space with regard to guideline 1.9 will be a matter for approval at the Final Review Stage, although it may be discussed at the Conceptual Stage. Mid -Block Walkway Amenity Space The Commercial Area should be highly regarded for its pedestrian character and 'walkability'. The opportunities created by the extension and enhancement of the public circulation network are encouraged. Typically only one such space would occur along a single block face. New buildings on sites occupying more than one traditional lot width may provide a mid - block walkway or through court within a single development or between two developments. This may also extend only part -way through the parcel if located away from the site boundary. This type of space shall be an extension of and a complement to the street and public circulation network within the center of the city. This form of Public Amenity Space should be a consideration on larger development sites within the city. It links the potential of additional commercial frontage and access, with human scale space and circulation, enriching the public experience. Situated along the edge of a development site, it should extend to link with the rear alley. Adjacent to a residential type historic building it can provide a respectful break and a space between the two. 1.10 Mid -block walkways shall remain subordinate in scale to traditional lot widths. • Mid -block public walkways shall be between 8 ft. and 10 ft. in width. 1.11 A mid -block walkway should provide public access to the following: • Additional commercial space and frontage within the walkway • Uses located at the rear of the property that are commercial in nature. Commercial Character Area Apassageway through a property, orone that leads to a plaza, may be considered for Public Amenity Space. It should remain subordinate to the overall wall plane of the block, and lead to activities within the property or along an alley. Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Q/i- page, Design Objectives and Guidelines Commercial Character Area Public amenity space located at an alley should generally be south facing to maximize solar access. Alleys can be enhanced for public amenity space and commercial use. page 20 City of Aspen Alley Side Amenity Space Public amenity space may be located to the rear of the site in association with the alleyway. Such a space shall provide access to commercial uses at the street or second floor level. Public amenity space may also be located at the corner of an alley and a street. Such spaces should be designed to enhance the use of alleys for supporting commercial uses. 1.12 An alley side amenity space shall be designed to have these characteristics: • Direct public access to commercial space at ground or second floor levels • Maximize solar access to the alley side amenity space • Enhance the attractiveness and use of the rear alley • Minimize the adverse impacts of adjacent service and parking areas <, Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines • • City of Aspen Second Level Amenity Space An outdoor patio space on a second floor, which is directly accessible to the general public, will be considered as a form of public amenity space when it is compatible with the context and is clearly inviting for public use. This will be most successful in association with outdoor dining space. In this respect it may be favorably considered within sites affected by mountain view planes. 1.13 A second floor amenity space should meet all of the following criteria: • Ensure consistent public access • Be dedicated for public use • Provide a public overlook and/or an interpretive marker • Be identified by a marker at street level 1.14 Second level space should be oriented to maximize solar access and views to the mountains or other landmarks. 1.15 Second level space should provide public access by way of a visible and attractive public stair or elevator from a public street, alley, or street level amenity space. 1.16 Second level dining may be considered. • If the use changes, the space must remain accessible to the public so long as it is to be considered meeting the Public Amenity Space requirement. Front Yard Amenity Space Three historic one-story residential type buildings exist in the Commercial Area. These are often defined by a landscaped front yard and side yard setback. To maintain and enhance this tradition in certain areas, a landscaped front yard amenity space may be considered. 1.17 Front and side yard amenity space should be provided in the context of a historic one story residential type building. Commercial Character Area Second level space shall be accessible from a public space such as a sidewalk or street facing amenity space. Second floor amenity space should be oriented to maximize solar access and views to the mountains. Front yard amenity space should be provided in the context of a historic one-story residential type building. Commercial, Lodging and Historic District [45 •, page 21 Design Objectives and Guidelines • Commercial Character Area r T Maintain the alignment of facades at the sidewalk's edge. City of Aspen Building Placement Street Fagades & Corners Street corners are important elements in the definition of the street block and in the framing of many of the views which characterize the center of the city. Here the buildings should strengthen and define the building wall at the street edge. Fagades should be oriented parallel to the street, with variation in front wall setbacks kept to a minimum. Breaks in the street wall should occur as an accent within the street block, not the predominant pattern. Setbacks The Commercial Area has a strong and relatively consistent street fagade line to the south and a much varied line as building scale reduces to the north. Corner buildings anchor the street block to varying degrees throughout the area. Setbacks within the Commercial Area should reinforce the objective of enhancing the urban character and a stronger urban edge of the street fagade and street corner. Local areas of open space further the objective of the street vitality created by well defined dining space. These should however remain as an accent within the street fagade. Side setbacks are associated with the more traditional small scale development within the area. They also provide the opportunity to enhance public passageways or through courts to the rear alley, with the advantages of improved public permeability, access and additional commercial frontage. See also Street & Circulation Pattern and Public Amenity Space design guidelines. Rear setbacks create the opportunity to achieve more creative and attractive commercial and public space to the rear of the site and alley. page 22 Commercial, Lodging and Historic District W Design Objectives and Guidelines • City of Aspen 1.18 Maintain the alignment of facades at the sidewalk's edge. • Place as much of the facade of the building at the property line as possible. • A minimum of 607o of the front facade shall be at the property line. • Locating an entire building front behind the established storefront line is inappropriate. 1.19 A building may be set back from its side lot lines in accordance with design guidelines identified in Street & Alley System and Public Amenity Space guidelines. Building Orientation Development within the Commercial Area is traditionally oriented with the street grid. This relationship should be maintained. 1.20 Building facades shall be parallel to the facing street(s) and primary entrances shall be oriented toward the street. Commercial Character Area Orient a building facade parallel to the facing street. 1.21 Orient a new building to be parallel to its lot lines, similar to that of traditional building orientations. • The front of a primary structure shall be oriented to the street. Building He* htr Mass & Scale The character of t e Commercial Area derives in part from the range and variety of building heights. These generally vary from one to three and four stories towards the mountain base. To the north, the building height frequently varies and traditional lot width becomes again evident in the modulation of the block face. This helps to express and maintain the human scale and architectural character of the area. New development should continue this variation while also enhancing the definition of the street facade. A new building should also be sensitive to the setting of an adjacent historic building and the edge of a historic district. Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Qlrt� Design Objectives and Guidelines �* page 23 • 11 Commercial Character Area A method of achieving height variation within a single building is to step the building along the primary facade. Height varied between two and three stories, with the three story portion at the rear of the lot. City of Aspen Height Variation Variation in height should occur where the site is larger than two traditional lot widths, in order to reduce overall scale of the building. A variation in fagade height, often in conjunction with setting back an upper floor, may be required. 1.22 Building facade height shall be varied from the fagade height of adjacent buildings of the same number of stories by a minimum of 2 feet. • If an existing structure is three stories and 38 ft. tall for example, then adjacent new infill may be three stories, but must vary in facade height by a minimum of 2 ft. 1.23 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of the Commercial Area. • Refer to the zone district regulations to determine the maximum height on the subject property. • Aminimum 9ft. floor to ceiling height is to be maintained on second stories and higher. • Additional height, as permitted in the zone district, maybe added for one or more of the following reasons: - In order to achieve at least a two -foot variation in height with an adjacent 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 day - lighting. Height varied between two and three stories, with the three story portion at the front of the lot. page 24 RUIM Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines 0 City of Aspen 1.24 Height variation should be achieved using one or more of the following: • Vary the building height in accordance with traditional lot width. • Set back the upper floor to vary the building fagade profile(s) and the roof forms across the width and the depth of the building. • Vary the fagade (or parapet) heights at the front. • Step down the rear of the building towards the alley, in conjunction with other design standards and guidelines. Height Variation for Larger Sites Buildings within the commercial center and historic core of Aspen represent the traditional lot widths of the city (30 ft.), either in building width or the horizontal and vertical design articulation of the street fagade. This pattern should be expressed in the Commercial Area. New development occupying a site of more than one traditional lot width should be designed to integrate with the scale created by narrower existing buildings. The architectural rhythm of earlier street fagades should also be reflected in new development to retain and enhance the human scale and character of the center of the city. 1.25 On sites comprising more than two traditional lot widths, the fagade height shall be varied to reflect traditional lot width. • The fagade height shall be varied to reflect traditional lot width. • Height should be varied every 60 ft. minimum and preferably every 30 ft. of linear frontage in keeping with traditional lot widths and development patterns. • No more than two consecutive 30 ft. facade 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 fagade. (e.g. at a minimum, the front 40 feet may be no more than two stories in height.) Commercial Character Area Buildings on sites larger than two traditional lot widths should be designed to reflect the traditional scale of development. Height varied between one and two stories, in the center of a three -lot building. Height varied between two and three stories. Commercial, Lodging and Historic District o'' page 25 Design Objectives and Guidelines ft • CJ Commercial Character Area i Historic One Story Commercial Type Building Building fagade height shall be a maximum of one floor higher within 30 ft. of an adjacent single story historic building. Historic One Story Residential type Building New infill adjacent to historic miners cottages shall not exceed 28 ft. in height within 30 ft. of the property line adjacent to the historic structure. Locate amenity space adjacent to a historic residential type site or structure where feasible. City of Aspen 1.26 Buildings on sites comprising more than two traditional lot widths shall achieve a minimum of two of the following: • Variation in height of building modules across the site • Variation in massing achieved through upper floor setbacks, the roofscape form and variation in upper floor heights • Variation in building fagade heights or cornice line Height Adjacent to Historic Structures Designing a building within the immediate setting of a historic building demands a sensitivity in design analysis and approach which is exacting and which will vary with each situation. The intent is that a new building or addition to an existing building should be designed to respect the height and scale of historic buildings within the Commercial Area. 1.27 Anew building should step down in scale to respect the height, form and scale of a historic building within its immediate setting. 1.28 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. page 26 a�� Commercial, Lodging and Historic District a Design Objectives and Guidelines 0 0 INTEGRITY SCORING If a statement is true, circle the number of points associated with that true statement. LOCATION OF ON • The building is in its original location. 2 points The building has been shifted on the original parcel, but maintains its original alignment and/or proximity to the street. 1 point The property is located within the geographical area surrounded by Castle Creek, the Roaring Fork River and Aspen Mountain. 1 point The property is outside of the geographical area surround by Castle Creek, the 1/2 point Raoring Fork River and Aspen Mountain. The form of the building (footprint, roof and wall planes) are unaltered from 3 points the original design. a.) The form of the building has been altered but less than 25% of the original walls have been removed, OR b.) The alterations to the form all occur at the rear of the subject building, OR 2 points c.) The form of the building has been altered but the addition is less than 50% of the size of the original building, OR d.) There is a roof top addition that is less than 50% of the footprint of the roof. MATERIALS Exterior materials The original exterior materials of the building are still in place, with the 2 points exception of normal maintenance and repairs. 50% of the exterior materials have been replaced, but the replacements 1 point match the original condition. Windowsdoors The original windows and doors of the building are still in place, with the exception of normal maintenance and repairs. 2 points 50% of the original windows and doors have been replaced, but the replacements match the original condition. 1 point Integrity Score (this page) maximum of 10 points Character Defining Features Score (first page) maxi- mum of 10 points: HISTORIC ASSESSMENT SCORE: 0 s FXI R �0 C) C6 ca CO co 0 M � 000 a) N -0 C° a i_ p C C: a) cn0 O � � C-C O N -C In L X (n >` m o C 0 o d a) O 5 �_ N O En N O ca c >. o co 0 0 a) cz cu E L � � � O t� 0 U 0 � � � > � C0 -0 � — -a �a)� o�co0 00 > O� c� C O O Nam, N vi O _ a) aa) a) 0 o co a. , O U i O i C L " i0 N N — a) M 0 C E CD 0 -Fu0 C -p 0 0- N C C m (n O >' (6 N a C L O C C" o (� N Q N Q. O +a O Z3 a) cn > N i C i O C O U _C C N N t- O 0 rL ' o a) N E O U C C COU- ' ,0 - (� + +' a) (n L6 a) a ° C UFa LLJ L)) 0 m a) X m c o Q U Q ° 0 a) a0) a) c M OJ m co 0 • Fxl Fxl F1 [I Fx] Fxl H 1 W a 11J 0 0 ` �a a) 0 — .1_ O a .0 a) C y_ C m o C _ ca L � 0 C 0 m E 0 O C cy O o E a) U Fa a) M 0 a) �- II �■' .O a 0 o O O 0 U> N E cn 0) . 1 a) o C ` •� O O ` ' C 0 0) 0) c � >,: a) — 0 ^O^`` W -0-0 � (n E W a) - co -0 / E � V i a) N U D 4) p C O_ 4) (n a) 3 - Q r--. 0) cn "O Q) .�_ a) O a c � L E 0 Q E 0 0 CL -0 co (B (B C a) �= E0 0-E >C_aa, cB� 00 .s �� Cn j LL a.O Q > .� .N E i! a) CV M m (n O) CO a) ti to C +a X C) ° ° _ L E '}' V U) s ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8 2010 Sarah said in the drawings the breezeway is lower. Chris said the breezeway is about 15 inches lower so we don't have a lot of play. We would like to get as high as we can. Jamie said per the two drawings the ridge is exactly the same and we need to make sure the breezeway is lower and that condition should be in the resolution. Ann said regarding the light well, it would go to the project monitor first and if they are uncomfortable it would then go to the board. Jay said he recommends that the public come and address the commission at the time that it is offered. MOTION: Ann moved to approve resolution #I5 as proposed. Sarah amended condition #I. The reconfigured breezeway is approved to be below the ridge and eave of the garage. Motion second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried 6-0. 610 E. Hyman Ave. — Landmark Designation, Major Development and Commercial Design Review, Ordinance #48 negotiation, Public Hearing Public notice - Exhibit I Photo of bldg. — Exhibit II Drawing of the building — Exhibit III Amy said 610 E. Hyman was built for Patricia Moore and her well known Aspen Gallery in 1963 and it was designed by Ellie Brickham, Aspen's first woman architect. She attended the University of Colorado and worked with Herbert Bayer before opening her own firm. Charles Cunniffe is the owner of the building. He is here to discuss voluntary designation and an addition to the back of the house that adds a penthouse element. Staff finds that the landmark criteria are met, particularly criteria C. This 1960 building relates to new formalism. As part of the designation we need to look at the integrity scoring process. Staff scored 75 and the assessment was due to the alternations in the front of the building. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2010 There is a removable canopy at the top of the building that has created a cover that was previously opened to the sky. It has a barrel vault shape to it and it changes the light in the space and affects the way the space looks. It is reversible but scoring points were removed due to the change. The ground level previously had arched openings similar to the top level and they have been changed to a more of a squared off transom. The entry doors were originally centered in the building and now moved to the outer edges. The garden level did not exist historically. In the integrity score we brought points down because the stucco appears to be originally white. Staff feels this building is worth saving because we don't have very many examples of Ellie Brickham's work. Amy said in terms of the HPC guidelines the addition is sympathetic and not visible from the street. Some of the incentives are standard and some are new ideas that can be brought up for voluntary designation of a modern building. 1. 500 square foot FAR bonus is being requested. Staff feels some of the previous alterations should be considered to be taken back to the original Ellie Brickham design. Staff is not suggesting changing the floor plan of the building. 2. A parking waiver is being requested. A site visit occurred today and there doesn't seem like there is any additional space for parking. As a landmark incentive we are suggesting that the requirement be waived. They should not have to provide anything on -site and they should also have the waiver of the cash -in -lieu fee which has the value of about $28,000. Landmark buildings are exempt from affordable housing mitigation. The two new offices would generate around $250,000. I hey do not have on -site trash storage right now and they share with the building next door. This might be concerning if there is an addition being made and we don't want to end up with a dumpster in the alley in the future which is not an acceptable solution. On a free market residential unit in the downtown there is a cap of 2,000 square feet and they would like to exceed that. Typically the only way to do that is purchase a TDR, transfer development right and they do not want to do that. TDR's are worth around $250,000. and they would like to have the development right without having to pay that. There is a request to not provide an elevator in the building. This would cause a significant challenge in accessibility. In talking to the Building Dept. this would probably not be waived. The applicant is requesting rights for 12 years. This gives the applicant the time to decide 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2010 when to build. At the final review we should discuss restoration efforts. They are also asking for a one foot in height increase for the addition which is allowable for any building historic or not. The standard is no more than 36 feet tall and they are asking for 40 feet on the elevator. On the addition we are requesting that it be set in a foot or so, so the facade isn't just up three stories. Mitch Haas, Haas planning. Mitch said we are land marking the building in exchange for incentives. It is not our intent to landmark and undo changes that were done for very good reasons in the first place. All the changes proposed are on non -historic portions of the property and they are fully set back from the property some 40 feet from the street facade. Asking for the height is allowed through the Commercial Design review. There is an existing free market studio in the building and the allowable FAR is 13 square feet more than what is already there. The building has a lot of common space due to the split levels so a good chunk gets pro -rated into the free market floor area. The only way to expand the apartment is through the Ordinance #48 negotiations and we feel we have done that where it is in the back on the non -historic part of the building. Charles has off -site offices which are being rented. The proposal is to ad a bedroom. We feel it is not much to ask in exchange for forever having this property designated and HPC will have purview over the property. Charles Cunniffe, owner On the trash service needs I have an agreement with the neighbor that has a dumpster that we use and their recycling needs come to our building. In the covered back we can always add a trash can. Council approved the addition with the recycled cans as being adequate for our building. Almost everything we do is recyclable materials, glass, newspaper and magazines. Regarding the minor setback from the alley we can explore that but it does cut into the bedroom space. Regarding the restoration the awning serves as a valuable purpose. It serves as a snow removal area. There is no place to throw the snow that collects there and having the awning allows the snow to roll back to the roof and then melts and goes down the roof drains. I can control snow management by virtue of the awning. The facade location has not changed and the window line has always been there. Splitting the entries allows the downstairs to be open when the upstairs isn't. Adding the light well allowed light to the lower level and ventilation. This is an improvement that doesn't detract from the history or look of the building. 0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2010 The monochromatic look makes the building hold together. The columns by themselves look like sticks. The white stucco with brick columns doesn't hold well together. Questions: Jamie asked about the height. Charles said there is a slight slope from sidewalk to alley. On the street side the height would comply but on the back there is a one foot height difference request. Nora asked Charles to explain the evolution of the changes of the building by date. Charles said he bought the building in 1989. The first change was a tenant request which was moving the door from the center to the two sides. It was important to not alter the columns and we stayed with non-structural changes. The light well was done in 1991. When I moved in the space in the late 90's is when the windows were changed. The awning windows now double the view and light coming in. The existing stucco was painted at that time. In 2002 the garage and lower level were added. Chairperson, Sarah Broughton opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Land marking: Jay said the changes to the door specifically affect the landmark. The addition of the awning is not in the spirit of the original design. If we vote for land marking I would prefer to have input on color to preserve the original intent. Charles added that this building is a good example of a single occupant and business residence and there aren't many of those left. It is a mixed us building that was designed as a residence and a gallery. Ann said she feels the building is modified way beyond land marking it. You have lost the essence of the design. There is real lightness with the arches on either story and the transparency of the top. The original was a very graceful looking building. If you had the open roof top garden that would be fabulous. Changing the arches and moving the entrance I couldn't support designation of this building the way it is right now. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8 2010 Nora said if this building is landmarked how far back could the changed be removed. Charles said except for the door being moved it is not that much different. The door has been pushed to the side but it is still within the arched definitions. I don't feel that is a negative at all. The atrium inside was totally dysfunctional and a waste of space. Nora said land marking is because it is a building that has historic value. Charles said he thought the changes were in the spirit of the Ellie Brickham building. I tried to do nothing evasive structurally. The taking of the lower arches does not denigrate the building. Jason said Ellie Brickham was trying to duplicate aqueducts and show the verticality of a downtown building with brick columns with the lightness and transparence of an aqueduct. She had a one-story building on the ground with a transparent light structure above. She was taking a one-story building and making it look like a two-story structure. The lightness of the upper piece makes the building special. When you cap it and get the light out that transparency is lost. I need to see an effort to make this a great project. A light weight solar panel collecting PV roof that is semi -transparent like the one in Wagner Park so you get light and see through the entire thing is a suggestion. You need to get back to the original reading of the building. Jamie said she is in agreement with the rest of the board members in getting the fagade back to the original state. For designation it is getting the arches back and the light and dark coming back instead of monolithically. Sarah said in order to recommend historic designation under criteria C you need to do significant restorations of the building in order to get it back to the period of significance. I would be curious to see how the bringing the door back would work. Charles said the door is in the middle of the conference room and can't be changed. Sarah also commented that the arches are significant. The proposed back is incongruent to the original design. 8 • ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2010 Jay said it also needs to be mentioned if we designate we would be preserving mass and scale of the building. With the new land use code height can go to 46 feet. The idea of restoration is good but by preserving what is left is preserving mass and scale in town. Mitch said a good portion of this commission is taking the approach of all or nothing. Unless you restore it back we aren't working with you. Jay said we have the opportunity to preserve and work with these people. This is not an exceptional piece of property that would warrant all the requests and incentives. I don't want to see this die immediately and would like to see what can be done. Maybe there is a medium that we all can work with. Charles said with the appraisal etc. he is giving up a lot if this is designated and he is willing to do it. A bedroom is needed for his family. The doors are just window infill's between columns. The architecture is the form of the building which within are infill's. Amy said this is the first time the HPC is dealing with a Post War designation application in which the building is somewhat altered. This building has gone through changes. Charles came here tonight to designate the building as is and the HPC is on the opposite of the spectrum where you want to see the building as it was. The applicant needs to determine if he has any flexibility and the HPC needs to think about flexibility. Charles said he is the second owner of this building since 1962. The building is relatively unaltered. The alterations I made are non-invasive and non-structural. I understand the merit of what this board does and as an applicant it is painful to weight what you are giving up and I am asking for flexibility. The awning is a removable device. Jamie said she is fine where the doors are because I agree that it is more of an infill. The lower arches and upper awning should be gone in order to make that an airy two building approach and to restore it back in order to do the designation. Charles said Jason mentioned the roof and translucent solar panels. You would get the best of both worlds, the light coming through plus the solar energy. 0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2010 Jamie said she would be willing to look at that. With the stairway going up to the next level what would the head clearance be and would it be fully covered or not. Charles said it could probably be done with a hatch. Jason said there would be a flat panel over the entire thing like what they are doing for the art museum. Ann pointed out that the building in its current condition doesn't qualify for designation and it doesn't meet any of the three criteria. Ordinance #48 is a whole different program. With the task force they would not have considered this building because it has been so modified. Ann said the building is fine but it is not an example of Ellie Brickham's work. Jay said possibly we should recommend to council to take this property off the Ordinance #48 list. Sarah said in the current state it doesn't fit the criteria for designation. That doesn't mean that there isn't a middle ground. I would be willing to see a solution keeping the doors where they are. We need to see something come back so that we feel we are meeting the criteria. Mitch said it is about the opportunity of keeping this building and work with doing some preservation. Sarah said she is willing to look at a middle ground. The middle course of arched is critically important to the historic significance of the building. Charles suggested the doors stay where they are and the translucent awning/solar panels add light and put the arches back above the awning window so that it is in a panel. You would still get the arch but the transom window would stay and the arch appears. Nora said if we are designating an Ellie Brickham building it needs to look like an Ellie Brickham building. You need the light coming into the building. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2010 Charles said emotionally he doesn't agree that it has been transformed because he tried very hard to do things in keeping with the architecture and not alter the building to where it is unrecognizable. I made it more livable in the spirit of her work. I was trying to improve her building to make it more functional. Jason said he is willing to look at options in order to make this an exceptional project. Jason said he is flexible on the door but likes the exhibit that was presented. The transparent view up through the roof is good and the color is important, the vertical columns are one color and the white infill for the arches. Back of the building comments: Jason said he would like a response to the rhythm of the columns. Sarah said she would like to see original drawings of the back of the building before the alterations occurred. Jay said the translucent roof would lessen the mass of the building from the front view. Jamie suggested a little more relief on the back due to the vertical wall. MOTION.- Jay moved to continue 610 E. Hyman to 112612011; second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk e-4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 26, 2011 Motion: Jason moved to create an alternate vice -chair position, second by Brian. All in favor, motion carried. Jim said that position is in the event that the chair or vice -chair aren't present. Motion: Sarah moved to nominate Jay as alternate vice -chair; second by Jason. All in favor, motion carried. 610 E. Hyman — Landmark Designation — Major Development — Public Hearing — Ord. #48 negotiation- Commercial Design Review Amy said staff is interested and supportive of this building being a landmark and we find that it meets the criteria and the negotiated benefits are appropriate except for the request to waive the accessibility requirements. At the last meeting it was clear that more restoration of this building is necessary to truly convey what its original character was. We did get some information in the packet about restoration on the front facade about recreating the arches over the ground floor windows and putting in a translucent canopy for the upper floor courtyard. Right now there is a vinyl vaulted piece that is up off and on which is distracting from the original architecture. The submitted materials did not give us enough information to say that it was adequate. Exhibit I — New photographs Staff does not have any particular concerns about the addition and we are recommending continuation. Mitch Haas and Janver Darrington presented for the owner Charles Cunniffe Mitch said Charles is unavailable and we cannot make decisions but can explain the rationale around our presentation. Janver said the photograph handed out is of the city shops anodized material above the windows and it shows the infill panel. Amy suggested spandrel glass but we haven't received the samples yet. The second photograph is of the canopy we are suggesting. Regarding the trash that was mentioned in the memo we have an agreement with the neighbor to put our trash in their container and they put their recycling in our recycling bins. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 26, 2011 Janver said regarding the materials on the alley side we favor a single material rather than a two tiered material. We are going to a lighter color and the only view is from the alley. The samples of the photovoltaic canopy material have not arrived . Clarification: Sarah asked when the horizontal band was added to the window because it was not there originally. Nora agreed that the brow was never there originally. Janver said on top of the parapet is just a metal cap. That metal piece could be part of the canopy attachment. Sarah said if the canopy goes away will that horizontal banding go away. Janver said they have not figured out how the photovoltaic system is attached. Sarah clarified that the rendering is overplayed a little. Sarah asked if there is any way to do the arched windows within the height of the historic proportion of the windows on the first level. Mitch said the arches shown are more of a fagade than a window. Sarah asked why the decision was made to make the arches higher than they were historically. Janver said Charles wants to keep the awning windows as they are and add the arched element above to simulate the original arched windows. The windows are all fixed. We are trying to keep the same curved radius as above. Nora said she has been struggling with this building for two months. How far are you willing to go back to the original design. The operative word is restoration. Or do we start at a different place and say this is a compromised building and there is a compromised discussion. Mitch said it is his understanding that Charles is not willing to back 100% on restoration. The points he is unwilling to budge on are putting the doors back in the center and getting rid of the garden level and taking out his operable glass window. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 26,201 Mitch said the arched topped windows at the base of the building have been changed. At the garden level there are offices with a conference room above it. That part has not been real flexible. The stucco color has been changed. We are trying to figure out the canopy. The roof, canopy opening, and the lower arch openings we are trying to work with. Nora asked if they would consider re -working the proportion of the arches. Mitch said you can't without replacing the operable windows. Janver said if you had operable windows below the arched tops the bottom of the arched windows would be at eye level which would be impractical. Jason asked if there was discussion about reworking the south facade. At the last meeting we talked about the rhythm and the proportions of the brick columns on the south facade. Janver said it is set back so far we didn't think there was a relationship. Jason said on the west fagade we need to talk about the windows and why there isn't fenestration to break down the mass and height. Janver said that level is new office space and those windows would have to be fire resistance because it is a party wall. Chairperson, Sarah Broughton opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Preservation: Ann commented that she is not sure this property should be landmarked. It has changed so far from the original with simulations. Simulations are not restorations. The arches are in a different place and economically it is not feasible to take it back to the original. The entrance and light are all important parts of this building and they are all gone. Brian said he does not have enough information to make a decision one way or the other. MOTION: Ann moved to not designate 610 E. Hyman; second by Nora. Discussion: 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 26, 2011 Jason said he is not willing to give up on this and we are not done negotiating and we need to get a compromise. I can bend on the door and keep it where it is presently. If we had the transparent roof that would be a compromise. The arches in the original location is the key and I would be willing to have a metal panel so you can have a functioning window which is a compromise. The brick columns need to read like they are going into space which was the intent of Ellie Brickam. We can accomplish designation on this building. Sarah said she has similar views as Ann. There have been so many alterations. Is this a new use and a new life of this building. Sarah commended the applicant for voluntarily coming in for designation. The facade needs to get back to the original configuration. I am flexible on the door location and understand why they have moved. I would also like to see the arches brought down for the mass proportions that were there historically. Ann said it is a building that has evolved and has been changed out for the users. It has changed too far from the Ellie Brickham building. This building should not be part of Ord. #48 negotiations and should go through a normal process. Brian said he likes the building and it has evolved but it does contribute to the downtown area and the streetscape. It is a trade off as they are requesting the 500 square foot FAR and no parking mitigations. This building has parking issues but I am willing to have the applicant come back. Sarah said she is also willing to continue the application because the owner is not present. Jason said this needs to be an exemplary project and we are basically talking about the south facade. Sarah said the beauty in this building is it's simplicity. The proportions are everything. Mitch pointed out that structurally the doors moved out of the center. The columns have not changed and the brick work has not changed. The upper 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 26, 2011 windows and openings haven't been changed. Not everything has changed on this building. Vote on Ann's motion: Ann,yes; Nora, yes; Jason, no; Brian, no; Sarah, no. Motion denied 3-2. Mitch said we need to look at the restoration and incentive package. MOTION: Brian moved to continue 610 E. Hyman to February 23rd second by Jason. Ann, no; Nora, no; Jason, yes; Brian, yes; Sarah, yes. Motion carried 3-2. Incentives: Brian said he is willing to entertain incentives but not the package that is presented. Amy pointed out that the dollar value is over a million dollars. Can't you have an operable window that is an arch shape? Amy said it is the windows and bringing back the white color and roof solutions. Jason said the FAR bonus is for exemplary projects above and beyond and that would mean if the window went back to the original location. Mitch said the parking waiver is less than one space. Jason mentioned the affordable housing. Mitch said if it is designated the affordable housing is not an incentive anymore. Jason mentioned that in the current configuration it is not worth a million in trade off's. Sarah said you can't put a price tag on a great building. The long term benefit is worth more than the short term dollar value. Nora said as a tax payer the amount of these waivers is staggering especially with the Given. If the tax payer is taking on the burden then the project needs to be a community asset in its historic value. Sarah mentioned that she doesn't see any clients talking about TDR's. We built 100 projects and had one TDR. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 26, 2011 Jason also mentioned the addition and the loft on the south side should reflect the rhythm of the historic fagade. There needs to be more detail on the west which is the alley side. Sarah echoed Jason's concerns. Referral comments on Historic Landmark Lot Split Code Amendments No minutes MOTION: Sarah moved to adjourn; second by Jason. A11 in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 7 • ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2012 610 E. Hyman — Aspen Modern Negotiation for Voluntary Landmark Designation, Conceptual Major Development Public notice - Exhibit I Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney indicated that the public notices were in order and the public hearing can go forward. Amy said in early 2011 an application was submitted for designation. It was under the previous ordinance 448 negotiations and the application decided to stop the application. It was resubmitted in April and a very similar proposal. Right now it is net leasable space for the architectural firm and there is an existing free market unit on the upper floor. The building was built in 1963 and designed by Ellie Brickham who was Aspen's first woman architect that we know of. It was designed for Pat Moore as a gallery. The proposal entails voluntary landmark designation and it meets criteria a and c. It also has architectural integrity enough to be designated historic. There are a few things being requested as a benefit in exchange for designation. Two are existing benefits that we already have in the program which are some waiver of affordable housing for new net leasable space that is generated by the rear addition in the building. They are also asking for a parking request. They only generate a fraction of a new parking space through the commercial development so they are asking for a waiver of the cash -in -lieu program valued at $28,000. In terms of AspeModem designation`they are asking for three things: The property is already at the limit for what a free market unit can be on the site and they are asking to increase that to a little less than 1,200 square feet. With circulation for a free market unit staircases etc. are wrapped into the calculation and can strain how much it can be expanded. We need clarification whether the proposal goes over the maximum unit size of 2,000 square feet of net livable space. They are also asking for an extension of vested rights to ten feet. This project also involves conceptual design review which is a two step process. There is an- addition proposed for the alley and the roof top. Staff doesn't have concerns about the location, size or placement of the addition. HPC can address material selection at final. Staff s issue is the lack of restoration of the historic resource. There are a few things that we feel are important in terms of restoration. It is a negotiation and HPC and Council could choose not to designate the building. The ground floor store front has been changed. It used to be a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2012 centered entry and now the entries are on either end of the building and there is a large light well in the middle that doesn't meet to the ground like it used to. The arched openings are very important to the concept and they have been changed from the ground floor. The upper floor courtyard has a temporary canopy roof over it which is a change. We feel some of the changes need reversed in order to really make the building worth landmark designation and the benefits they are asking for. That is what HPC had said at both of the previous hearings. At the least the stucco should be painted white. Removing the canopy entirely would reinforce the open area courtyard at the top. There should be some effort to genuinely restore some of the arches. There may have been some interior changes that would not make that easy but a 1200 square foot bonus and around $300,000 worth of waivers is being proposed. There is also no on -site trash and they share with the Golfco bldg. next door but HPC needs to be aware this entire block is being redeveloped including the Golfco bldg. and they might not want to continue to share a trash area. Staff is not recommending that the project go to council at this point. Charles Cunniffe, applicant Mitch Haas, Haas Planning Charles said when he originally came to HPC four years ago under Ordinance #48 it was because the art museum was taking our view and light away. That .building is higher than what you can do today. Had Council not done the forced march for development with a threat of a moratorium which has scared everyone into action you wouldn't see all this development. You will see 15 years of development happening within the next two years. I am looking to make this an attractive building and preserve it. This building and the Crandall are the only two from the 60's on that block. When I remodeled the building I didn't deteriorate the building from its actual state. The only thing significant I did was relocate the doors for better access to the building and I added ventilation to the building. Ellie Brickham came by this building and told me I did a nice job. In the scoring there.are some errors. Mitch Haas said staff has already done a new scoring. It rates as a better AspenModern property. In the old score we disputed it. The old score of 75 should have been more like 87 or 89. There was no part credit for things that were partly changed. Either way we are a better example of AspenModern. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2012 Amy pointed out that the new scoring is not as detailed. It scored 15 out of 20. Charles said the building has continued to maintain its original integrity. In hind site with the Aspen Art Museum I wish 1 had -made the building taller to preserve the light and view. I would like to achieve designation and do it without losing my ventilation and light. The brick was left natural and when you paint it, it accelerates the deterioration of the brick. The canopy was done in order to have covered outdoor space and it is light and airy. I have not done too much to it to denigrate the building. Mitch said if you have a 3 year vesting the entire block will be under construction at the same time. None of the other buildings are under AspenModern and cannot ask for more vesting periods. We are basically talking about development on the alley side and the rooftop is pushed back. The building is already an AspenModern and designating it is worth incentives. The additional commercial space is needed for Charles's office. Charles said on the trash we have the recycling bins for the neighborhood and they in turn have the bulk trash containers. Nora asked what is different from this proposal than the previous one. Charles said previously the review was not in the right light due to the scoring. We started out with mistakes in the scoring which developed into some people feeling the restoration should occur to the entire building. I don't believe that it is required to do 100% restoration to qualify as a worthy example of AspenModern. The building is compromised because it is a split level. To do the elevator is very expensive because the building has multiple levels. It is a masonry building and well built. I only made some improvements to the building. Mitch said Charles said he is willing to change the stucco if necessary and is willing to consider the canopy removal. Amy said in the overall FAR in this project they are fine. It is the thresholds on residential and how much commercial FAR that they have a problem on the residential. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2012 Charles said the additional FAR is to make a one bedroom. Because of the split level the stairs take away from the usable square footage. Amy said you can only have 1500 square feet of residential FAR on this site and they already have that and they want to make the unit bigger. Amy pointed that the application said they were going over the unit size cap and then there was an amendment said they weren't. Mitch said the C 1 unit size cap is 2,000 square feet and our proposed net livable is 1,814 square feet; however the free market FAR is a little over 2,100 square feet. We would like to do that without buying a TDR. Amy said there are conflicting numbers and that is one of the reasons we are recommending continuation. Willis inquired about the ten year vested rights requested. Mitch said you don't go to city council and ask for vested rights extension without being in a negotiation process. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Commissioner comments: Jay said he is in support of the designation and the plans presented. Essentially the building and scale of the building'will remain as it is. I would like to see the awning as a clear awning. The historic integrity of this building will stand out even more after the development of the neighborhood. We are preserving the scale and a lot of Ellie Brickham's design. I don't support ten years of vested rights. Ann said she is not addressing any of the negotiation items because she is not supporting designation. The building has been dramatically altered taking' out the arches and changing the entry and landscape in front. Most. importantly the transparency of the second floor has been changed. I can't see designating this building unless you show a restoration at a minimum of the fagade. Charles said the awning is like an umbrella and is not part of the building. Charles also reiterated that Ellie Brick -ham applauded the changes to the U • ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2012 building that he made. The use of the building changed. Charles said the scoring was based on the wrong facts. The building would qualify as better without doing anything retroactive.' The assumption was that the front windows weren't there and it was an open atrium but that was never the case. It was based on a wrong "fact. Amy said at the last scoring and the new scoring it meets the thresholds. If it meets the criteria HPC really doesn't have justification for denying the designation. The problem is if you don't think the building is in good condition you may not want to support all the benefits that they are negotiating. It might be hard to argue that it doesn't meet the criteria as I feel it does meet that criteria. Whether or not you want Council to support an FAR bonus and net livable and extended rights is a different question. Ann said she is saying it doesn't have the degree of integrity to be designated. Nora said she supports the project and the addition but does not support the designation. There is no integrity. I feel I am being asked to compromise my integrity in historic preservation on something that has been really altered. Charles said if he removes the awning that would restore the openness to the sky and the roof line would be exactly the way it was. Willis said he feels the project is worthy of historic designation. I would argue for certain terms to bring this project back further than it is now. The way it is now is not worthy of designation. I would require the awning to go away. The experience when you walk by is that it is closed in so the awning should be removed. There are certain things we can talk about to bring the building back so that everyone is happy. As a board we have the sense as to what is authentic and what is not. We need more dialogue about the details in order to make this work. Jamie said she feels the application needs to be clearer as to what the applicant is giving to HPC for the designation and with the benefits that are being asked for. We need to know what you are look at with regard to restoring the building. • `� ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2012 MOTION: Ann moved to continue the public hearing on 610 E. Hyman to June 131h second by Jamie. All in favor, motion carried 5-0. MOTION: Ann moved to adjourn, second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clark 12 HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLD October 17, 2012 Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 610 East Hyman Avenue Aspen Modern Application Dear Amy: The proposed floor plans for the subject property were redrawn using CAD and the associated floor area and net leasable/net livable areas were then recalculated. These updated plans and calculations have been provided for your review. Your review of the calculations resulted in a slightly different set of Floor Area figures for the free-market residential and commercial components of the project than had resulted from the applicant's calculations. As such, the applicant is relying on your findings. Consequently, please consider the numbers summarized below to represent the proposed project's totals: • Proposed Commercial FAR = 3,644sf of total commercial Floor Area (1.215:1 Commercial FAR), of which 2,879sf are within unit space, and 765sf are in non - unit space (note that gross commercial area is actually some 5,003sf but subgrade exemptions result in a lower Floor Area figure; total commercial net leasable space is approximately 3,875sf). Allowable Commercial FAR is 1.5:1 (4,500sf). • Proposed Free -Market Residential FAR = 3,053sf of total Free -Market Residential Floor Area (1.01:1 Residential FAR), of which 2,195sf count as unit - space, 473sf are in non -unit space, and another 385sf are part of non-exempt outdoor deck areas (note that the net livable area of the free-market residence is just 1,909sf and that wall thicknesses account for some 286sf of the associated Floor Area). Allowable Free -Market Residential FAR is 0.5:1 (1,500sf). • Total/Cumulative Proposed FAR = 6,692sf (2.231:1), where 1,529sf (23%) is non - unit space. Allowable cumulative FAR is 2.5:1 (7,500sf). • Total Proposed Free -Market Net Livable = 1,909sf (0.64:1), while the Total Proposed Commercial Net Leasable = 3,876sf (1.292:1). • Completely above grade Commercial Floor Area is approximately 2,810sf, which is greater than the free-market net livable area, as required. • 201 N. MILL STREET, SUITE 108 • ASPEN. COLORADO • 8161 1 • PHONE: (970) 925.7819 • FAX: (970) 925-7395 610 East .H. yman Avenue, -1 ddendum Page 2 In the end, the total list of "incentives" the applicant seeks includes only an increase in the allowable residential multi -family Floor Area, an extended vested property rights period, and possibly the waiver of a requirement for paying cash -in -lieu of less than one parking space (this "incentive" is needed only if the HPC does not grant the requested fee waiver as benefit available to historically designated properties). Other requests associated with the voluntary landmark designation include Conceptual HPC approval; an administrative GMQS approval for enlargement of a historic landmark; and Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval including the associated height increase and special review for variation of the utility/trash/recycle area requirements. We would also like to clarify that the applicant is willing to both remove the existing canopy from above the second floor deck and paint the stucco a monochromatic color as per the guidelines. However, the arched windows that originally existed on the main level will not be replaced. Staff has scored the existing structure with 15 out of 20 possible points, finding that it represents a "Better" example of AspenModem (on a scale of good, better and best). Not every property designated as historic in the City of Aspen is nor needs to be a "Best" example of its time. With the restoration efforts the applicant has agreed to, the scoring should increase and result in a "Better -to -Best" example of AspenModern, which more than qualifies it for designation and the award of the modest benefits sought by the applicant for agreeing to such designation in perpetuity. The current AspenModern negotiation should not be viewed by the City with an approach of "we want it all and we want it all now." Instead, this "Better" example of an AspenModern building's form remains sufficiently intact to warrant continued monitoring by the HPC to preserve what remains, avoid additional inappropriate additions and modifications, and to guide any further restoration that may be undertaken - -- this potential will forever be lost unless the subject property is designated as part of this AspenModern negotiation. Given the exceedingly fast -changing character of the subject block, the importance of this opportunity is particularly magnified and should not be at all discounted. Very truly yours, Haas Land Planning, LLC i Mitch Haas Owner/Manager • d Floor Area FI oor Area G ross Basement Lower Level Main Level Upper Level Roof Level Total Allocated Non -Unit Space MAIN LEVEL PLAN I/811 = 1'-011 LOWER LEVEL PLAN 2 1/8" = 1' - 0 " 0 40 BASEMENT LEVEL PLAN Y81' = 1'-011 FAR Area Commercial Free Market %Exposed Total 838.9 10.3 1.230°/o 10.3 1,152.8 622.5 54.00% 622.5 1,222.5 0 1,222.5 (1194.3 - 250) 1,023.6 1,101.6 0 2,125.2 0.011 1,093.0 0 1,093.0 2,878.9 2,194.6 5,073.5 LEGEND Non -Unit Space Gross Commercial Free Market %Exposed Total FARTotals Deck 93.4 0.7 0.5 442.0 135.4 103.2 944.3 535.8 408.5 48.9 27.7 21.2 0.01 o.01 0.0 1.230% 1.1 54.000/. 238.7 944.3 48.9 0.0 1,528.6 699.0 532.9 1,233.0 56.74% 43.26% 11.5 861.2 2,166.8 2,174.1 1,093.0 6,306.6 NEW DECK GROSS AREA 69.6 Additional FAR Deck Area Total Floor Area Allowable Deck Additional FAR Free Market Floor Area Total Floor Area (Less exempt space) 259.7 Allowable Floor Area (0.5:1) Commerical Floor Area Total Floor Area (Less exempt Bsm't &Garage) 2,878.9 699.0 � 3,577.9 Allowable Floor Area (1.5:1) 1 4,500.0 Total Building FAR Building Area Sum Carport / Garage Total Building FAR ROOF / SITE PLAN - LOT M Y8'1 - 1'-0„ ROOF LEVEL PLAN is 5 /8�' = V-0.' 4 UPPIER LEVEL PLAN /8 225.0 225.0 385.0 2,194.E 532.9 Deck area 1 385.01 1,500.0 ,500. LJ IR 5,073.5 1,233.0 6,306.6 385.0 5,691.G-F.A.R. 7,500.0 225.0 RECENT M OCT 19 2012 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT www.cunniffe.com r- Lo Lo cD 0 o U W O rn U Lq Lq �, "' (V 07 O W W H LL LL Z 00 Z D z Z U w a W a w J Ld > a z Q Q 2E tz U W w O cp J LU D z p Z Q � :E O > U Z ~ LLl U) W W Co Q �./ J O Q r DATE: FDRAWING:ATION5 10-16-�2 SHEET NO. A2.1 Allowable Total FAR Floor Area (2.5:1) Site Allowable Deck Area (1,500 x 15%) 00PYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS_ 0 MAIN LEVEL PLAN Y811 c 11-D" • LOWER LEVEL PLAN BASEMENT LEVEL PLAN Y811 a 11-011 LEGEND MEN R ROOF / SITE PLAN - LOT M Y81' _ 11_OII 5 ROOF LEVEL PLAN _ � Ppnpc)gFn NFT I FA.qARI F A WART F ARFA Commerical Free Market -_ement 800.0 j 0.91 Lo we-! Level 1,002.1 �� -.0 11246 _ I Ai. ill 1via3n ieeYa_i ,. -- == I evel =;,pr, - 949.1 1 958.3 Roof Level 0.0 950.2 Total 3,975.8 1,908.5 UPPER LEVEL PLAN %8i, = 11-011 Commercial a �- Market Net Livabli 222.5+535.8+1023.6+27.7= 2,809.7 1,908.5 ',4�'8.5 [No www.cunniffe.com CD Z 0 J_ D m Z Q 2 Q w O Ir- co 1 0 V z w cl- a z w 0 w z 0 wo Q z QO 0 U = Z ~ W U a Q IVE DRAWING: NET LEASABLE / NET LIVABLE ISSUE I DATE: HPG REVIEW 1 10-16-12 JOB NO. XXXX SHEET N0. A2.2 46 0 Amv Guthrie From: Mitch Haas <mitch@hlpaspen.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 2:49 PM To: Amy Guthrie Cc: 'Janver Derrington'; 'Kyle Sheredy'; 'Charles Cunniffe' Subject: 610 E Hyman Ave Attachments: Calcs & Measurements Plan Sheetl_10-16-12.pdf; Calcs & Measurements Plan Sheet2_ 10-16-12.pdf Importance: High Hi Amy. I have reviewed all of the most current and up-to-date plans and area calculations. To summarize, we comply with the majority of C-1 dimensional limitations and our list of requested incentives remains quite small. • We remain below the allowable cumulative FAR of 2.5:1 as the project includes 6,692sf of FAR, which is a ratio of 2.231:1. • We remain below the allowable Commercial FAR of 1.5:1 (4,500sf) as the proposal includes 3,578sf of commercial Floor Area (1.193:1). • Our proposed free market residential unit includes 1,909sf of net livable area, which is below the 2,000sf maximum multi -family residential dwelling unit size. • Our above grade (main and upper levels only) commercial FAR of 2,810sf exceeds our free market residential net livable area of 1,909sf. • We have a proposed maximum building height of 40' which is allowed through Commercial Design Review. • We are making no changes to the building footprint and, therefore, having no impact on pedestrian amenity space. • The existing recycling area will remain and measures approximately 27sf. This recycling area is shared with the Gulfco Building located next door at 616 E Hyman, and the trash dumpster at 616 E Hyman is shared with the subject property. It is proposed that this arrangement, which has worked out very well for several years, be maintained. As such, an "incentive" is requested to waive the minimum utility/trash/recycle area requirement in favor of this successful shared arrangement. The minimal increase in commercial space and the small increase in net livable area within the existing residence will not sufficiently impact the existing utility/trash/recycle needs to require any upgrading in the facilities. • Our Free -Market Residential Floor Area is 3,113sf (FAR of 1.04:1), which exceeds the 1,500sf (0.5:1) limitation and, therefore, requires the granting of an "incentive." Note that, of the 3113sf of free market residential Floor Area, only 1,909sf are net livable while some 286sf are in wall thicknesses, 533sf are in non -unit spaces (shared circulation, etc.), and another 385sf are in exterior deck spaces in excess of the 15% exemption. The existing free-market residence includes 930sf of net livable area. Next, the net total increase in FTE generation for the project is just 3.84 FTE, which is below the 4 FTE threshold for historically designated properties before any mitigation requirements would be triggered. In other words, per the Code and once historically designated, this project does not generate an employee housing mitigation requirement. This finding is determined as follows: EXISTING NET LEASABLE SPACE (has been re -calculated per correct methodologies): Basement 800sf • Lower 1002sf Main 1125sf FTE GENERATION: 1802sf @ 3.075 FTE/1000sf = 1125sf @ 4.100 FTE/1000sf = TOTAL = PROPOSED NET LEASABLE SPACE. - Basement 800sf Lower 1002sf Main 1125sf Upper 949sf FTE GENERATION: 2751 sf @ 3.075 FTE/1000sf = 1125sf @ 4.100 FTE/1000sf = TOTAL = • 5.54 FTE 4.61 FTE 10.15 FTE 8.46 FTE 4.61 FTE 13.07 FTE NET TOTAL FTE GENERATION = 13.07 minus 10.15 = 2.92 FTE First four (4) FTE generated requires no mitigation per Code Section 26.470.070.1.a. Finally, we continue to request 10 years of vested property rights as an additional "incentive" for designating and restoring the historic resource on this property. The property's integrity assessment scoring will increase from a "good" to a "better" example of Aspen Modern architecture with implementation of the proposed efforts. If you need a more "formal" written explanation of the above, please let me know. Best regards, Mitch Mitch Haas Haas Land Planning, LLC 201 N. Mill Street, Suite 108 Aspen, CO 81611 Phone: (970) 925-7819 Fax: (970) 925-7395 Email: mitch@hlpaspen.com `,� Please consider the environment before printing this email Conti,lcntialm. note Hw aPt)ti.:,m;al , nd 1!,% att.n hrteras .ort..un trtfo,ni..i :,n tlsr m i I , ., rtiu_ x :u .d ,. , r ht, L rJ he inr m:.u,m. irn the u ; „1 th; in I .I ua ,, ar!:,ir1a11K intended it cou !ir, not thr mt.ne'eJ u,, it crt. ,m disclosiiW.. op� lilt', di•.t ihr:; 100 �:r u,e It ::r, ,n.rnnatnm iti t+ onih;t ,' h i n ,r•.rc. W.;;u n t) r ;.. ncd n , 11,11 Iva,,; trnrtwd,a0.:h roi;h the �cndcr,md delct, dn:, rt,ssa(*a and it-, A ;,cttm•-�nr; d ,;W 2 • 1] HAAS LAND September 18, 2012 PLANNING, L.,LG Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 610 East Hyman Avenue Aspen Modern Application Dear Amy: In a letter dated April 6, 2012, your office deemed the 610 East Hyman Avenue Historic Preservation Application complete, but requested that additional information be provided. On May 71b, the applicant submitted the additional information that was requested including a table that summarized floor area calculations by use. These numbers have slightly changed since that date and are now as follows: • Proposed Commercial FAR = 2,878sf of unit space, plus 618sf of non -unit space, and 163sf of non-exempt garage space for a total of 3,659sf (1.22:1) of Commercial Floor Area; • Proposed Free -Market Residential FAR = 2,104sf of unit space, plus 521 sf of non -unit space for a total of 2,625sf (0.88:1) of Free -Market Residential Floor Area. • Total/Cumulative Proposed FAR = 6,284sf (2.095:1), where 1,139sf (18%) is non - unit space. • Total Proposed Free -Market Net Livable = 1,905sf (0.64:1), while the Total Proposed Commercial Net Leasable = 3,633sf (1.21:1). We would also like to clarify that the applicant is willing to both remove the existing canopy from above the second floor deck and paint the stucco a monochromatic color as per the guidelines. However, the arched windows that originally existed on the main level will not be replaced. Very truly yours, Haas Land Planning, LLC Mitch Haas Owner/Manager • 201 N. MILL STREET, SUITE 108 ASPEN. COLORADO • 8161 1 • PHONE: (970) 925-7819 FAX: (970) 925-7395 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director C.tM FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 610 E. Hyman Avenue- Resolution #0 Series of' 2012, Extending an AspenModernNegotiation DATE: May 29, 2012 SUMMARY: 610 E. Hyman Avenue is a Modernist, Ellie Brickham designed building that was constructed in 1963 for well known local art gallery owner, Patricia Moore. Today the building is home to Charles Cunniffe Architects. Charles \ ` Cunniffe/610 E. Hyman LLC, submitted an application for voluntary landmark designation in 2011, but did not complete the review process. The same application was resubmitted and received by the Planning Office on March 28, 2012, prior to the effective date of the new downtown height limits. HPC will hold their first hearing on the 2012 application on May 23`d. Staff has recommended that HPC continue the project for restudy for the same reasons it did not progress last year; there are alterations on the front of the building that should be restored as part of the award of preservation benefits. Because the HPC's schedule is full through September, further evaluation of the project if it is continued on May 23`d will be delayed. Staff and the applicant request that the AspenModern process be extended for 180 days until December 23, 2012 to allow additional time to discuss options. Staff appreciates the owners' efforts to consider preservation alternatives and we support taking additional time to work through the issue. At the same time, if staff cannot report to Council that a plan for restoration has been provided to HPC on May 23`d and at least gained their initial support, we would recommend against an extension of this negotiation. A resolution to extend the negation period is attached. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council approve an extension of the time period to discuss voluntary historic designation and incentives with the owner of 610 E. Hyman Avenue to December 23, 2012, if HPC has received and initially supported a restoration plan for the building. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Resolution # 54 Series of 2012." 0 • CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Exhibit: Resolution 63 Series of 2012 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL EXTENDING THE ASPEN MODERN 90 DAY NEGOTIATION PERIOD FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION AND BENEFITS RELATED TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 610 E. HYMAN AVENUE, LOT M, BLOCK 99, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO Res6lution No. S, Series of 2012 WHEREAS, 610 E. Hyman LLC, represented by Haas Land Planning, submitted an application pursuant to Section 26.415.025.C, AspenModern Properties, of the Aspen Municipal Code, to voluntarily participate in a ninety -day negotiation period for historic preservation of 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot M, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.415.025.C.1, the ninety -day AspenModern negotiation commenced on March 28, 2012 and will expire on June 26, 2012; and WHEREAS, the project is under review by the Historic Preservation Commission and it is unlikely that a public hearing can be scheduled before City Council prior to the expiration of the negotiation period, therefore staff and the property owner are in agreement that a 180 day extension of the negotiation to December 23, 2012 is appropriate to allow additional time to discuss options for the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: The 610 E. Hyman Avenue negotiation period established by Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.025.0 is hereby extended to December 23, 2012. APPROVED by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting on May 29, 2012. Approved as to form: �ames True, 7tyAttorney Attest: 1 Kathryn Ko , City Clerk Mayor: Michael C. Ireland, Mayo 0 L� MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 610 E. Hyman Avenue— AspenModern negotiation for Landmark Designation, Conceptual Major Development and Commercial Design Review, Public Hearing DATE: May 23, 2012 SUMMARY: 610 E. Hyman Avenue was constructed for well known gallery owner Patricia Moore in 1963. It was designed by Ellie Brickham, who in 1951 was the first female architect to arrive in Aspen. Today, the offices of Charles Cunniffe Architects are located in the building. Charles Cunniffe proposed voluntary designation and a building expansion through the Ordinance #48 landmark negotiation process. HPC reviewed the project twice before the application was suspended. In April 2012, the application was re -submitted in advance of reduced height limits going into effect in the downtown. The process for review now falls under the AspenModern ordinance (largely similar to Ordinance #48) within which the applicant can request special benefits as an incentive for preservation. Patricia Moore Inc. occupies the first floor of this building designed by Miss F.rickham. Etiss Moore occupies the second floor apartment. The applicant proposes to expand the existing office space on the second floor, on top of a garage that was added in 2003. The applicant also proposes to enlarge the existing upper floor apartment by constructing a rooftop addition. HPC is asked to make a recommendation to City Council regarding the historic significance of 610 East Hyman and the appropriateness of the incentives that are requested. HPC is asked to make a determination regarding Conceptual review of the exterior changes. HPC Review 5.23.2012 616 E. Hyman — Charles Cunniffe Architects Page 1 of 13 Li • APPLICANT: 610 E. Hyman LLC, Charles Cunniffe, represented by Haas Land Planning. PARCEL ID: 2737-182-12-004. ADDRESS: 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot M, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: C-1, Commercial. §26.415. 030. C AspenModern 1. Criteria. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures as an example of AspenModern, an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. The quality of significance of properties shall be evaluated according to criteria described below. When designating a historic district, the majority of the contributing resources in the district must meet at least two of the criteria a-d, and criterion a described below: a. The property is related to an event, pattern, or trend that has made a contribution to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific event, pattern or trend is identified and documented in an adopted context paper; b. The property is related to people who have made a contribution to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific people are identified and documented in an adopted context paper; c. The property represents a physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman, or design philosophy that is deemed important and the specific physical design, designer, or philosophy is documented in an adopted context paper; d. The property possesses such singular significance to the City, as documented by the opinions of persons educated or experienced in the fields of history, architecture, landscape architecture, archaeology or a related field, that the property's potential demolition or major alteration would substantially diminish the character and sense of place in the city as perceived by members of the community, and HPC Review 5.23.2012 616 E. Hyman — Charles Cunniffe Architects Page 2 of 13 e. The property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association, given its age. The City Council shall adopt and make available to the public score sheets and other devices which shall be used by the Council and Historic Preservation Commission to apply this criterion. STAFF FINDINGS: 610 E. Hyman Avenue was built in 1963 for owner Patricia Moore. The Patricia Moore Gallery was a respected business in town for many years, and displayed the work of many important artists on the main floor of the building. An upper floor residential studio unit was part of the original design. Ms. Moore sold the property in 1988. It is now the office of Charles Cunniffe architects. 610 E. Hyman was constructed for a woman who played an important role in the local arts community, and it was designed by Aspen's first woman architect. This is one of the few Ellie Brickham buildings that remains in Aspen. Ellie Brickham (1923-2008) moved to Aspen in 1951 after attending the University of Colorado's School of Architecture from 1941-1944. Construction was a family business, and her motivation to become a designer began as a child. According to the research paper, "Aspen's Twentieth -Century Architecture: Modernism 1945-1975:" "Early in her career, Brickham worked in Fritz Benedict's office and collaborated on projects with both Benedict and Bayer, participating in work going on at the Aspen Institute. Like Benedict, she had a strong interest in passive solar techniques. During her time in that office and, later, in her own practice out of her home, she designed a number of residences and commercial buildings in town, including houses for several Music Festival artists in Aspen Grove, the elegantly simple brick Strandberg Residence (1973, 433 Bleeker Street -demolished) and the Patricia Moore Building (1962, 610 E. Hyman Avenue). In Pitkin County, she designed numerous homes in Pitkin Green and Starwood, on Red Mountain, including her own house (1955), with south and west walls made completely of glass. Her works, which total at least sixty in the Aspen area, are generally characterized by spare, simple forms and minimal detailing. Brickham's projects focus on an "impeccable sense of proportion and feeling of lightness," according to a 1977 Aspen Times article." The building that Ellie Brickham designed for Patricia Moore appears to have been influenced by "New Formalism," an architectural approach of the early 1960s which emphasized symmetrical, smooth -skinned, flat roofed buildings with screens and grilles. The facade of 610 E. Hyman has six attenuated brick piers that extend from the base to the eaves and stucco arched spandrels for a more "decorated" look that reflected the 1960s evolution of modernist design, as in Phillip Johnson's 1962 Lincoln Center in New York, on the next page. HPC Review 5.23.2012 616 E. Hyman — Charles Cunniffe Architects Page 3 of 13 • • HPC presented an Honor Award to Ellie Brickham in 2001, in recognition of her influence on the built environment in Aspen. The neighborhood where this structure was built includes several other AspenModern related properties. Relatively few of the noted postwar properties are commercial structures. It is important to carefully consider preservation opportunities for this small collection of highly visible downtown structures. The second component of designation is scoring the physical integrity of the building. Staff's score sheet is attached as Exhibit B. Please note that the scoring system was revised with the adoption of AspenModern and is no longer based on a 100 point scale. Several elements of this building were altered through previous remodels. The front entry door was originally centered on the fagade. Now there are entries on both ends of the storefront level. Originally all of the street -facing opening were arched, but the ground floor windows have been changed to have square transom windows. A lightwell has been added to the front fagade so the building no longer meets the sidewalk in the center, the basement office level is exposed to view, and there are no kickplates below the windows. The stucco color has been changed from white to a masonry color. A seasonal canopy has been added to enclose the rooftop courtyard. These alterations have affected the integrity score for the building and need to be taken into account when determining the appropriate package of preservation incentives to approve for the project. Staff scored the building as a "Better" example of AspenModern, with 15 out of 20 points. Staff finds that criteria a, c, and a are met. §26.415.025.C.1.b. The Community Development Director shall confer with the Historic Preservation Commission, at a public meeting, regarding the proposed land use application or building permit and the nature of the property. The property owner shall be provided notice of this meeting. The Historic Preservation Commission, using context papers and integrity scoring sheets for the property under consideration, shall provide Council with an HPC Review 5.23.2012 616 E. Hyman — Charles Cunniffe Architects Page 4 of 13 assessment of the property's conformance with the designation criteria of Section 26.415.030.C.1. When any benefits that are not included in Section 26.415.110 are requested by the property owner, HPC shall also evaluate how the designation, and any development that is concurrently proposed, meets the policy objectives for the historic preservation program, as stated at Section 26.415.010, Purpose and Intent. As an additional measure of the appropriateness of designation and benefits, HPC shall determine whether the subject property is a "good, better, or best" example of Aspen's 20`h century historic resources, referencing the scoring sheets and matrix adopted by City Council. Staff Response: The applicant requests the following incentives through AspenModern negotiation in exchange for landmark designation. (The applicant also requests a parking reduction and affordable housing mitigation, which are standard benefits offered to landmarked properties. These benefits are discussed later in the memo.) 1) The existing residential unit is currently just below the 1,500 square feet maximum floor area allowed for free market apartments on this property. The applicant wishes to enlarge the unit. As a preservation benefit, a floor area increase of 1,197 square feet is requested. (The application addresses this issue through a request for a 500 square foot FAR bonus. The FAR bonus which HPC may offer as an incentive can only be used to increase the total floor area allowed on a site, not the limitations for specific use categories on a mixed use property.) A portion of the FAR assigned to the residential use is actually common area, open courtyards, stairs, garage, etc. 2) Along with a floor area limit for free market uses on the site, no individual unit can be larger than 2,000 square feet of net livable area, unless a TDR is purchased and landed. TDRs have an approximate cost of $200,000 and can increase unit size to 2,500 square feet of net livable space. As a preservation benefit, the application mentions a bonus of 249 square feet of net livable area is requested instead of the purchase of a TDR. A later addendum eliminates this request, so clarification is needed. 3) The applicant requests extended vested rights. All projects receive an automatic three years of vested rights, or protection from changes to Land Use regulation. The applicant requests 10 years to allow for the start date of the project to be more flexible. The Land Use Code states that, as a further measure of the value of negotiation, Staff and HPC should evaluate whether the proposal meets the Purpose and Intent Statements of the Historic Preservation program, which are: HPC Review 5.23.2012 616 E. Hyman — Charles Cunniffe Architects Page 5 of 13 • §26.415.010. Purpose and intent. The purpose of this Chapter is to promote the public health, safety and welfare through the protection, enhancement and preservation of those properties, areas and sites, which represent the distinctive elements of Aspen's cultural, educational, social, economic, political and architectural history. Under the authority provided by the Home Rule Charter of the City and Section 29-20- 104(c), C.R.S., to regulate land use and preserve areas of historical, architectural, archaeological, engineering and cultural importance, this Chapter sets forth the procedures to: A. Recognize, protect and promote the retention and continued utility of the historic buildings and districts in the City; B. Promote awareness and appreciation of Aspen's unique heritage; C. Ensure the preservation of Aspen's character as an historic mining town, early ski resort and cultural center; D. Retain the historic, architectural and cultural resource attractions that support tourism and the economic welfare of the community; and E. Encourage sustainable reuse of historic structures. F. Encourage voluntary efforts to increase public information, interaction or access to historic building interiors. The City does not intend by the historic preservation program to preserve every old building, but instead to draw a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest in preserving the City's cultural, historic, and architectural heritage. This should be accomplished by ensuring that demolition of buildings and structures important to that heritage are carefully weighed with other alternatives. Alterations to historically significant buildings and new construction in historic areas shall respect the character of each such setting, not by imitating surrounding structures, but by being compatible with them as defined in historic preservation guidelines. STAFF RESPONSE: The negotiated benefits are policy matters for Council to decide. HPC is asked to use the designation criteria, adopted context papers, and scoring sheets to forward a recommendation to City Council regarding the importance of the building. HPC may choose to comment on the specific incentive requests. OTIIER BENEFITS 616 E. Hyman — Charles Cunniffe Architects Page 6 of 13 0 • Affordable housing The new office space triggers affordable housing mitigation, however the applicant will take advantage of a preservation benefit which is already in place. The Community Development Director can grant an exemption to affordable housing requirements for up to 4 employees as part of the expansion of a mixed use, landmarked building. If the property is not landmark designated, and mitigation were required for this development, it would be for the equivalent of 1.725 employees, or $242,000 if paid as cash -in -lieu. Parking The expansion of the free market residential unit does not trigger additional parking requirements, but the new office space does generate the need for a fraction of one space. A full space could theoretically be provided on -site to meet the requirement (although it is apparently not physically possible), or the owner could pay cash -in -lieu. Parking waivers are one of the standard benefits that HPC can review and approve. HPC must find that the review standards of Section 26.415.110.0 of the Municipal Code are met. They require that: 1. The parking reduction and waiver of payment -in -lieu fees may be approved upon a finding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance or architectural character of a designated historic property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district. STAFF RESPONSE: The parking requirement generated by the new construction requires a fraction of one space to be provided. Normally a property owner would handle this as a cash -in -lieu payment, which in this case would be $28,050. The applicant is requesting a waiver of the fee as a preservation incentive. When paid, the cash in lieu fee is used for parking and transportation related construction or improvements. 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 HPC Review 5.23.2012 616 E. Hyman — Charles Cunniffe Architects Page 7 of 13 • 0 application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. STAFF RESPONSE: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit A." The existing building contains office space on the garden level and main floor, and a residential unit and courtyard on the upper floor. The commercial space amounts to approximately 2,850 square feet of FAR. The residential unit is currently 1,450 square feet of FAR, for a total of 4,300 square feet. The property is within floor area limitations. The proposal is to create an addition at the back of the site, sitting on top of a garage/carport constructed in 2003. Immediately above the carport will be two new office spaces. On top of that will be a master bedroom expansion that will change the existing studio unit into a 1 bedroom. Because the proposed new construction is located at the rear of the property, visibility of the addition from the street will be very limited, in staff's assessment. Only a small portion of the proposed third floor encroaches onto the 1962 structure at all. Staff finds that the HPC guidelines for Conceptual approval are met. During the 2011 discussions of this project (minutes attached), HPC was more focused on the importance of restoring the front fagade of the building as much as possible, given the requested preservation incentives. No significant progress was made towards an approvable plan at the time. The proposal currently before HPC does not address this issue. The canopy over the original upper floor deck is to be removed and replaced with a photovoltaic canopy, the details of with are not fully described. The application mentions options for reinstating the arched openings on the front, however an amendment submitted on May 71h drops this part of the proposal. Staff assumes that HPC's commitment to restoration of this building is the same as it was last year. Community Development does not support the award of the benefits that are requested without the effort to return some of the character defining features of the building. This includes re -instating the arches and the white stucco at the least. We are interested in the proposed translucent canopy on the upper courtyard, but need more information to evaluate. It may or may not create the openness that the area originally had. Historic and current images of the building are depicted below. HPC Review 5.23.2012 616 E. Hyman — Charles Cunniffe Architects Page 8 of 13 \. � ���� \\ � - � }� c � � � � � � � � � ��, . / . � �± ` � �\/\ ���\.! �\«- �/���. /��<��.� -- .« % � 444� n <t,�. : !� \y� .. . » \k.� a«� � ;!; < . � � ��� 7�:� «��_�,z � \ i y . : �k � »� < � �.� © � k �� \��\\' � ~ \> � � �\.°� �;���v «:�©~ ��� �� COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW The City has an adopted set of guidelines, "Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives" which are in addition to the HPC design guidelines. Development on this site is affected by the chapter that addresses what is known as the "Commercial Character Area." All of the Conceptual level guidelines address setback and height issues that are not generally applicable to a remodel, rather than all new construction. Staff finds that no additional review is needed, except for discussion of the applicants request to exceed the 36' height threshold for three story buildings, discussed below. Any additional design guidelines that are applicable to Final will be presented to HPC at that time. An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the standards. B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the fagade of the building may be required to comply with this Section. C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means. STAFF RESPONSE: The application does request to exceed the 36' height limit for third story elements. When measured from the alley grade, which is lower than the elevation at the front of the building, the addition is 38' 11" tall. The elevator overrun is 43', which would be allowable. The Commercial guidelines state: 6.25 Maintain the average perceived scale of two-story buildings at the sidewalk. • Establish a two-story height at the sidewalk edge, or provide a horizontal design element at this level. A change in materials, or a molding at this level are examples. HPC Review 5.23.2012 616 E. Hyman — Charles Cunniffe Architects Page 10 of 13 0 • Staff finds that the goal of keeping the building scale low along the streetscape is achieved. UTILITY. DELIVERY AND TRASH SERVICE PROVISION Along with architectural design concerns, the Commercial Design Standards address location of utility, delivery and trash service. Staff understands that when the garage/carport was built in 2003, trash was relocated off of this property to a shared location with the adjacent building. This is somewhat concerning in terms of a long term solution, and the proposed addition will generate additional service needs. The adjacent building has submitted an application for redevelopment, threatening this trash area sharing agreement for the long-term. 610 E. Hyman cannot be further expanded without providing for these functions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is supportive of the proposal for voluntary landmark designation. The 610 E. Hyman building represents Ellie Brickham as an architect and is indicative of post-war commercial development in Aspen in the 1970s. We are generally supportive of the proposed addition. Tthe applicant must provide additional information about how utilities and trash will be handled in the long term. The extent of the requested benefits are similar to recent AspenModem projects, but Mason and Morse and Aspen Core, for example, proposed major renovation to restore the affected historic resource. Staff recommends this project be continued for restudy, including clarification of floor area calculations that are contradictory in the application. If restudy is not possible, HPC should not support the designation request and negotiated benefits. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A. Design Guidelines Exhibit B: Integrity Score Sheet Exhibit C: Previous HPC minutes Exhibit D: Application "Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Design Guidelines for 610 E. Hyman, Conceptual Review" HPC Review 5.23.2012 616 E. Hyman — Charles Cunniffe Architects Page 11 of 13 3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. ❑ Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntins/mullions, sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operation and groupings of windows. ❑ Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them, whenever conditions permit. ❑ Preserve the original glass, when feasible. 3.2 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. ❑ Enclosing a historic window opening in a key character -defining facade is inappropriate, as is adding a new window opening. This is especially important on primary facades where the historic ratio of solid -to -void is a character -defining feature. ❑ Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear walls. ❑ Do not reduce an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or door or increase it to receive a larger window on primary facades. 7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices. o Flat skylights that are flush with the roof plane may be considered only in an obscure location on a historic structure. Locating a skylight or a solar panel on a front roof plane is not allowed. ❑ A skylight or solar panel should not interrupt the plane of a historic roof. It should be positioned below the ridgeline. 7.6 When planning a rooftop addition, preserve the overall appearance of the original roof. ❑ An addition should not interrupt the original ridgeline. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. ❑ A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. ❑ An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. ❑ An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. ❑ An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. ❑ An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. ❑ A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. ❑ An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic building. ❑ A 1-story connector is preferred. HPC Review 5.23.2012 616 E. Hyman — Charles Cunniffe Architects Page 12 of 13 Ll 6 ❑ The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. ❑ The connector also should be proportional to the primary building. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. ❑ Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. ❑ Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. ❑ Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is recommended. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. ❑ Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate. ❑ Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. ❑ For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. 10.12 When constructing a rooftop addition, keep the mass and scale subordinate to that of a historic building. ❑ An addition should not overhang the lower floors of a historic building in the front or on the side. ❑ Dormers should be subordinate to the overall roof mass and should be in scale with historic ones on similar historic structures. ❑ Dormers should be located below the primary structure's ridgeline, usually by at least one foot. 10.13 Set a rooftop addition back from the front of the building. ❑ This will help preserve the original profile of the historically significant building as seen from the street.' 10.14 The roof form and slope of a new addition should be in character with the historic building. ❑ If the roof of the historic building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition should be similar. ❑ Eave lines on the addition should be similar to those of the historic building or structure. HPC Review 5.23.2012 616 E. Hyman — Charles Cunniffe Architects Page 13 of 13 N as �' O O (DCO m c m o m m O CT> Cp N O T o o L U U +r N �--+ (D o as M O o o � (D O �� N� N N (n C)� oU (6 � Q 0 U L O L Y N O U (O >' I o L L (� 0 E p a � C) L N O0 /L/ >, T E � L O C N N 4-0 to U cLi L O O M >j Q O Q O C p O .�� as O C O. Q .. � w0 -O O O � cn " � C= C LJ o Q U) c cB O L n L E oQ - _ m M N� �L +p p U U m a)> U CL U� c O Q L O X C O O U CO M M U Iv --l' �©© ■co �© W ^, VJ L O U tm o 4— c O 2 O O 4-- E O O O QON C E a).� U U O d ' ^ C O Z (6 _� O a)U Q (6 W L T O O O O N — M E O(D p 4) p "O C co N coL O m O U L (n cz Q ^, L C:_ Ui N W 1 1 L.L U N L C N (0 N O E m 0 m "_ O (DL tLn N O a) 73 "O O as . o .N� � _� O) O O O N use Q � N� N_ (� O O O N C (n L O E >� U� E 72 -O O _ C) O Qa) N m m T LO N 07 (D O ti in C L U p -1.- X O co U X L' E U O O U u F L ni�r y qlt 0 • INTEGRITY SCORING If a statement is true, circle the number of points associated with that true statement. LOCATION OF ON • The building is in its original location. 2 points The building has been shifted on the original parcel, but maintains its original 1 point alignment and/or proximity to the street. The property is located within the geographical area surrounded by Castle 1 point Creek, the Roaring Fork River and Aspen Mountain. The property is outside of the geographical area surround by Castle Creek, the 1/2 point Raoring Fork River and Aspen Mountain. The form of the building (footprint, roof and wall planes) are unaltered from 3 points the original design. a.) The form of the building has been altered but less than 25% of the original walls have been removed, OR b.) The alterations to the form all occur at the rear of the subject building, OR 2 points c.) The form of the building has been altered but the addition is less than 50% of the size of the original building, OR d.) There is a roof top addition that is less than 50% of the footprint of the roof. MATERIALS Exterior materials The original exterior materials of the building are still in place, with the 2 points exception of normal maintenance and repairs. 50% of the exterior materials have been replaced, but the replacements 1 point match the original condition. '!Windows and... The original windows and doors of the building are still in place, with the 2 points exception of normal maintenance and repairs. 50% of the original windows and doors have been replaced, but the 1 point replacements match the original condition. Integrity Score (this page) maximum of 10 points Character Defining Features Score (first page) maxi- mum of 10 points: HISTORIC ASSESSMENT SCORE: s 7 y -> -40 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8 2010 Sarah said in the drawings the breezeway is lower. Chris said the breezeway is about 15 inches lower so we don't have a lot of play. We would like to get as high as we can. Jamie said per the two drawings the ridge is exactly the same and we need to make sure the breezeway is lower and that condition should be in the resolution. Ann said regarding the light well, it would go to the project monitor first and if they are uncomfortable it would then go to the board. Jay said he recommends that the public come and address the commission at the time that it is offered. MOTION: Ann moved to approve resolution #15 as proposed. Sarah amended condition #1: The reconfigured breezeway is approved to be below the ridge and eave of the garage. Motion second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried 6-0. 610 E. Hyman Ave. — Landmark Designation, Major Development and Commercial Design Review, Ordinance #48 negotiation, Public Hearing Public notice - Exhibit I Photo of bldg. — Exhibit II Drawing of the building — Exhibit III Amy said 610 E. Hyman was built for Patricia Moore and her well known Aspen Gallery in 1963 and it was designed by Ellie Brickham, Aspen's first woman architect. She attended the University of Colorado and worked with Herbert Bayer before opening her own firm. Charles Cunniffe is the owner of the building. He is here to discuss voluntary designation and an addition to the back of the house that adds a penthouse element. Staff finds that the landmark criteria are met, particularly criteria C. This 1960 building relates to new formalism. As part of the designation we need to look at the integrity scoring process. Staff scored 75 and the assessment was due to the alternations in the front of the building. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2010 There is a removable canopy at the top of the building that has created a cover that was previously opened to the sky. It has a barrel vault shape to it and it changes the light in the space and affects the way the space looks. It is reversible but scoring points were removed due to the change. The ground level previously had arched openings similar to the top level and they have been changed to a more of a squared off transom. The entry doors were originally centered in the building and now moved to the outer edges. The garden level did not exist historically. In the integrity score we brought points down because the stucco appears to be originally white. Staff feels this building is worth saving because we don't have very many examples of Ellie Brickham's work. Amy said in terms of the HPC guidelines the addition is sympathetic and not visible from the street. Some of the incentives are standard and some are new ideas that can be brought up for voluntary designation of a modern building. 1. 500 square foot FAR bonus is being requested. Staff feels some of the previous alterations should be considered to be taken back to the original Ellie Brickham design. Staff is not suggesting changing the floor plan of the building. 2. A parking waiver is being requested. A site visit occurred today and there doesn't seem like there is any additional space for parking. As a landmark incentive we are suggesting that the requirement be waived. They should not have to provide anything on -site and they should also have the waiver of the cash -in -lieu fee which has the value of about $28,000. Landmark buildings are exempt from affordable housing mitigation. The two new offices would generate around $250,000. Ir hey do not have on -site trash storage right now and they share with the building next door. This might be concerning if there is an addition being made and we don't want to end up with a dumpster in the alley in the future which is not an acceptable solution. On a free market residential unit in the downtown there is a cap of 2,000 square feet and they would like to exceed that. Typically the only way to do that is purchase a TDR, transfer development right and they do not want to do that. TDR's are worth around $250,000. and they would like to have the development right without having to pay that. There is a request to not provide an elevator in the building. This would cause a significant challenge in accessibility. In talking to the Building Dept. this would probably not be waived. The applicant is requesting rights for 12 years. This gives the applicant the time to decide P •• - 0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2010 when to build. At the final review we should discuss restoration efforts. They are also asking for a one foot in height increase for the addition which is allowable for any building historic or not. The standard is no more than 36 feet tall and they are asking for 40 feet on the elevator. On the addition we are requesting that it be set in a foot or so, so the faVade isn't just up three stories. Mitch Haas, Haas planning. Mitch said we are land marking the building in exchange for incentives. It is not our intent to landmark and undo changes that were done for very good reasons in the first place. All the changes proposed are on non -historic portions of the property and they are fully set back from the property some 40 feet from the street fagade. Asking for the height is allowed through the Commercial Design review. There is an existing free market studio in the building and the allowable FAR is 13 square feet more than what is already there. The building has a lot of common space due to the split levels so a good chunk gets pro -rated into the free market floor area. The only way to expand the apartment is through the Ordinance #48 negotiations and we feel we have done that where it is in the back on the non -historic part of the building. Charles has off -site offices which are being rented. The proposal is to ad a bedroom. We feel it is not much to ask in exchange for forever having this property designated and HPC will have purview over the property. Charles Cunniffe, owner On the trash service needs I have an agreement with the neighbor that has a dumpster that we use and their recycling needs come to our building. In the covered back we can always add a trash can. Council approved the addition with the recycled cans as being adequate for our building. Almost everything we do is recyclable materials, glass, newspaper and magazines. Regarding the minor setback from the alley we can explore that but it does cut into the bedroom space. Regarding the restoration the awning serves as a valuable purpose. It serves as a snow removal area. There is no place to throw the snow that collects there and having the awning allows the snow to roll back to the roof and then melts and goes down the roof drains. I can control snow management by virtue of the awning. The fagade location has not changed and the window line has always been there. Splitting the entries allows the downstairs to be open when the upstairs isn't. Adding the light well allowed light to the lower level and ventilation. This is an improvement that doesn't detract from the history or look of the building. 0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2010 The monochromatic look makes the building hold together. The columns by themselves look like sticks. The white stucco with brick columns doesn't hold well together. Questions: Jamie asked about the height. Charles said there is a slight slope from sidewalk to alley. On the street side the height would comply but on the back there is a one foot height difference request. Nora asked Charles to explain the evolution of the changes of the building by date. Charles said he bought the building in 1989. The first change was a tenant request which was moving the door from the center to the two sides. It was important to not alter the columns and we stayed with non-structural changes. The light well was done in 1991. When I moved in the space in the late 90's is when the windows were changed. The awning windows now double the view and light coming in. The existing stucco was painted at that time. In 2002 the garage and Iower level were added. Chairperson, Sarah Broughton opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Land marking: Jay said the changes to the door specifically affect the landmark. The addition of the awning is not in the spirit of the original design. If we vote for land marking I would prefer to have input on color to preserve the original intent. Charles added that this building is a good example of a single occupant and business residence and there aren't many of those left. It is a mixed us building that was designed as a residence and a gallery. Ann said she feels the building is modified way beyond land marking it. You have lost the essence of the design. There is real lightness with the arches on either story and the transparency of the top. The original was a very graceful looking building. If you had the open roof top garden that would be fabulous. Changing the arches and moving the entrance I couldn't support designation of this building the way it is right now. i7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8 2010 Nora said if this building is landmarked how far back could the changed be removed. Charles said except for the door being moved it is not that much different. The door has been pushed to the side but it is still within the arched definitions. I don't feel that is a negative at all. The atrium inside was totally dysfunctional and a waste of space. Nora said land marking is because it is a building that has historic value. Charles said he thought the changes were in the spirit of the Ellie Brickham building. I tried to do nothing evasive structurally. The taking of the lower arches does not denigrate the building. Jason said Ellie Brickham was trying to duplicate aqueducts and show the verticality of a downtown building with brick columns with the lightness and transparence of an aqueduct. She had a one-story building on the ground with a transparent light structure above. She was taking a one-story building and making it look like a two-story structure. The lightness of the upper piece makes the building special. When you cap it and get the light out that transparency is lost. I need to see an effort to make this a great project. A light weight solar panel collecting PV roof that is semi -transparent like the one in Wagner Park so you get light and see through the entire thing is a suggestion. You need to get back to the original reading of the building. Jamie said she is in agreement with the rest of the board members in getting the fagade back to the original state. For designation it is getting the arches back and the light and dark coming back instead of monolithically. Sarah said in order to recommend historic designation under criteria C you need to do significant restorations of the building in order to get it back to the period of significance. I would be curious to see how the bringing the door back would work. Charles said the door is in the middle of the conference room and can't be changed. Sarah also commented that the arches are significant. The proposed back is incongruent to the original design. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2010 Jay said it also needs to be mentioned if we designate we would be preserving mass and scale of the building. With the new land use code height can go to 46 feet. The idea of restoration is good but by preserving what is left is preserving mass and scale in town. Mitch said a good portion of this commission is taking the approach of all or nothing. Unless you restore it back we aren't working with you. Jay said we have the opportunity to preserve and work with these people. This is not an exceptional piece of property that would warrant all the requests and incentives. I don't want to see this die immediately and would like to see what can be done. Maybe there is a medium that we all can work with. Charles said with the appraisal etc. he is giving up a lot if this is designated and he is willing to do it. A bedroom is needed for his family. The doors are just window infill's between columns. The architecture is the form of the building which within are infill's. Amy said this is the first time the HPC is dealing with a Post War designation application in which the building is somewhat altered. This building has gone through changes. Charles came here tonight to designate the building as is and the HPC is on the opposite of the spectrum where you want to see the building as it was. The applicant needs to determine if he has any flexibility and the HPC needs to think about flexibility. Charles said he is the second owner of this building since 1962. The building is relatively unaltered. The alterations I made are non-invasive and non-structural. I understand the merit of what this board does and as an applicant it is painful to weight what you are giving up and I am asking for flexibility. The awning is a removable device. Jamie said she is fine where the doors are because I agree that it is more of an infill. The lower arches and upper awning should be gone in order to make that an airy two building approach and to restore it back in order to do the designation. Charles said Jason mentioned the roof and translucent solar panels. You would get the best of both worlds, the light coming through plus the solar energy. 0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2010 Jamie said she would be willing to look at that. With the stairway going up to the next level what would the head clearance be and would it be fully covered or not. Charles said it could probably be done with a hatch. Jason said there would be a flat panel over the entire thing like what they are doing for the art museum. Ann pointed out that the building in its current condition doesn't qualify for designation and it doesn't meet any of the three criteria. Ordinance #48 is a whole different program. With the task force they would not have considered this building because it has been so modified. Ann said the building is fine but it is not an example of Ellie Brickham's work. Jay said possibly we should recommend to council to take this property off the Ordinance #48 list. Sarah said in the current state it doesn't fit the criteria for designation. That doesn't mean that there isn't a middle ground. I would be willing to see a solution keeping the doors where they are. We need to see something come back so that we feel we are meeting the criteria. Mitch said it is about the opportunity of keeping this building and work with doing some preservation. Sarah said she is willing to look at a middle ground. The middle course of arched is critically important to the historic significance of the building. Charles suggested the doors stay where they are and the translucent awning/solar panels add light and put the arches back above the awning window so that it is in a panel. You would still get the arch but the transom window would stay and the arch appears. Nora said if we are designating an Ellie Brickham building it needs to look like an Ellie Brickham building. You need the light coming into the building. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2010 Charles said emotionally he doesn't agree that it has been transformed because he tried very hard to do things in keeping with the architecture and not alter the building to where it is unrecognizable. I made it more livable in the spirit of her work. I was trying to improve her building to make it more functional. Jason said he is willing to look at options in order to make this an exceptional project. Jason said he is flexible on the door but likes the exhibit that was presented. The transparent view up through the roof is good and the color is important, the vertical columns are one color and the white infill for the arches. Back of the building comments: Jason said he would like a response to the rhythm of the columns. Sarah said she would like to see original drawings of the back of the building before the alterations occurred. Jay said the translucent roof would lessen the mass of the building from the front view. Jamie suggested a little more relief on the back due to the vertical wall. MOTION: Jay moved to continue 610 E. Hyman to 112612011; second by Ann. A11 in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn; second by Sarah. A11 in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 26, 2011 Chairperson, Sarah Broughton called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Ann Mullins, Nora Berko, Jason Lasser and Brian McNellis. Excused were Jamie McLeod and Jay Maytin. Staff present: Jim True, Special Counsel Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Nora announced that Ann was awarded a National Parks Grant for Historic American landscape surveys in Colorado. Congratulations Ann. Election of officers Sarah commented that she is happy to serve as the chair on HPC. Ann said she became interested in preservation ten years ago and has gained a lot of knowledge and with the grant an incredible amount of knowledge will be available. For the next few years this board will be focusing on Ordinance #48. I am starting to see how we can make it work. Having the extra experience being on the task force has helped. Thirdly, I have very few conflicts on the board. Sarah said she has been on the board for seven years and she feels she brings an understanding of not only the preservation guidelines but also the multitude of other codes that this city looks at when reviewing development. I am also an architect which is very important for this board and passionate about preservation. Brian said Jay has also put a lot of tenure on this board and would be interested in being vice -chair. Brian nominated Jay as vice -chair and Jason second the nomination. Ann nominated herself as vice -chair and Sarah second the nomination. Vote 4-1 for Ann. Sarah nominated herself as chair. Jim said someone could move to accept Sarah by acclamation, which is a unanimous vote 5-0. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 26, 2011 Motion: Jason moved to create an alternate vice -chair position, second by Brian. All in favor, motion carried. Jim said that position is in the event that the chair or vice -chair aren't present. Motion: Sarah moved to nominate Jay as alternate vice -chair; second by Jason. All in favor, motion carried. 610 E. Hyman — Landmark Designation — Major Development — Public Hearing — Ord. #48 negotiation- Commercial Design Review Amy said staff is interested and supportive of this building being a landmark and we find that it meets the criteria and the negotiated benefits are appropriate except for the request to waive the accessibility requirements. At the last meeting it was clear that more restoration of this building is necessary to truly convey what its original character was. We did get some information in the packet about restoration on the front fagade about recreating the arches over the ground floor windows and putting in a translucent canopy for the upper floor courtyard. Right now there is a vinyl vaulted piece that is up off and on which is distracting from the original architecture. The submitted materials did not give us enough information to say that it was adequate. Exhibit I — New photographs Staff does not have any particular concerns about the addition and we are recommending continuation. Mitch Haas and Janver Darrington presented for the owner Charles Cunniffe Mitch said Charles is unavailable and we cannot make decisions but can explain the rationale around our presentation. Janver said the photograph handed out is of the city shops anodized material above the windows and it shows the infill panel. Amy suggested spandrel glass but we haven't received the samples yet. The second photograph is of the canopy we are suggesting. Regarding the trash that was mentioned in the memo we have an agreement with the neighbor to put our trash in their container and they put their recycling in our recycling bins. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 26, 2011 Janver said regarding the materials on the alley side we favor a single material rather than a two tiered material. We are going to a lighter color and the only view is from the alley. The samples of the photovoltaic canopy material have not arrived. Clarification: Sarah asked when the horizontal band was added to the window because it was not there originally. Nora agreed that the brow was never there originally. Janver said on top of the parapet is just a metal cap. That metal piece could be part of the canopy attachment. Sarah said if the canopy goes away will that horizontal banding go away. Janver said they have not figured out how the photovoltaic system is attached. Sarah clarified that the rendering is overplayed a little. Sarah asked if there is any way to do the arched windows within the height of the historic proportion of the windows on the first level. Mitch said the arches shown are more of a fagade than a window. Sarah asked why the decision was made to make the arches higher than they were historically. Janver said Charles wants to keep the awning windows as they are and add the arched element above to simulate the original arched windows. The windows are all fixed. We are trying to keep the same curved radius as above. Nora said she has been struggling with this building for two months. How far are you willing to go back to the original design. The operative word is restoration. Or do we start at a different place and say this is a compromised building and there is a compromised discussion. Mitch said it is his understanding that Charles is not willing to back 100% on restoration. The points he is unwilling to budge on are putting the doors back in the center and getting rid of the garden level and taking out his operable glass window. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 26, 2011 Mitch said the arched topped windows at the base of the building have been changed. At the garden level there are offices with a conference room above it. That part has not been real flexible. The stucco color has been changed. We are trying to figure out the canopy. The roof, canopy opening, and the lower arch openings we are trying to work with. Nora asked if they would consider re -working the proportion of the arches. Mitch said you can't without replacing the operable windows. Janver said if you had operable windows below the arched tops the bottom of the arched windows would be at eye level which would be impractical. Jason asked if there was discussion about reworking the south fagade. At the last meeting we talked about the rhythm and the proportions of the brick columns on the south fagade. Janver said it is set back so far we didn't think there was a relationship. Jason said on the west fagade we need to talk about the windows and why there isn't fenestration to break down the mass and height. Janver said that level is new office space and those windows would have to be fire resistance because it is a party wall. Chairperson, Sarah Broughton opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Preservation: Ann commented that she is not sure this property should be landmarked. It has changed so far from the original with simulations. Simulations are not restorations. The arches are in a different place and economically it is not feasible to take it back to the original. The entrance and light are all important parts of this building and they are all gone. Brian said he does not have enough information to make a decision one way or the other. MOTION: Ann moved to not designate 610 E. Hyman; second by Nora. Discussion: 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 26, 2011 Jason said he is not willing to give up on this and we are not done negotiating and we need to get a compromise. I can bend on the door and keep it where it is presently. If we had the transparent roof that would be a compromise. The arches in the original location is the key and I would be willing to have a metal panel so you can have a functioning window which is a compromise. The brick columns need to read like they are going into space which was the intent of Ellie Brickam. We can accomplish designation on this building. Sarah said she has similar views as Ann. There have been so many alterations. Is this a new use and a new life of this building. Sarah commended the applicant for voluntarily coming in for designation. The fagade needs to get back to the original configuration. I am flexible on the door location and understand why they have moved. I would also like to see the arches brought down for the mass proportions that were there historically. Ann said it is a building that has evolved and has been changed out for the users. It has changed too far from the Ellie Brickham building. This building should not be part of Ord. #48 negotiations and should go through a normal process. Brian said he likes the building and it has evolved but it does contribute to the downtown area and the streetscape. It is a trade off as they are requesting the 500 square foot FAR and no parking mitigations. This building has parking issues but I am willing to have the applicant come back. Sarah said she is also willing to continue the application because the owner is not present. Jason said this needs to be an exemplary project and we are basically talking about the south fagade. Sarah said the beauty in this building is it's simplicity. The proportions are everything. Mitch pointed out that structurally the doors moved out of the center. The columns have not changed and the brick work has not changed. The upper 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 26, 2011 windows and openings haven't been changed. Not everything has changed on this building. Vote on Ann's motion: Ann,yes; Nora, yes; Jason, no; Brian, no; Sarah, no. Motion denied 3-2. Mitch said we need to look at the restoration and incentive package. MOTION: Brian moved to continue 610 E Hyman to February 23'd second by Jason. Ann, no; Nora, no; Jason, yes; Brian, yes; Sarah, yes. Motion carried 3-2. Incentives: Brian said he is willing to entertain incentives but not the package that is presented. Amy pointed out that the dollar value is over a million dollars. Can't you have an operable window that is an arch shape? Amy said it is the windows and bringing back the white color and roof solutions. Jason said the FAR bonus is for exemplary projects above and beyond and that would mean if the window went back to the original location. Mitch said the parking waiver is less than one space. Jason mentioned the affordable housing. Mitch said if it is designated the affordable housing is not an incentive anymore. Jason mentioned that in the current configuration it is not worth a million in trade oft's. Sarah said you can't put a price tag on a great building. The long term benefit is worth more than the short term dollar value. Nora said as a tax payer the amount of these waivers is staggering especially with the Given. If the tax payer is taking on the burden then the project needs to be a community asset in its historic value. Sarah mentioned that she doesn't see any clients talking about TDR's. We built 100 projects and had one TDR. G ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 26, 2011 Jason also mentioned the addition and the loft on the south side should reflect the rhythm of the historic facade. There needs to be more detail on the west which is the alley side. Sarah echoed Jason's concerns. Referral comments on Historic Landmark Lot Split Code Amendments No minutes MOTION: Sarah moved to adjourn; second by Jason. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 7 • 0 HAAS LAND PLANNIN t LLCM May 7, 2012 " C' Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer O i.'WIT`f UEVELOPMER1. City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Addendum to the 610 East Hyman Avenue Aspen Modern Application Dear Amy: Please consider this letter and the attached plans as an addendum to the recently submitted 610 East Hyman Avenue Historic Preservation Application. This application was submitted on March 28, 2012, and deemed complete by your office in a letter dated April 6, 2012. The letter deeming the application complete also requested that the following additional information be provided/addressed, as applicable: 1. The front facade elevation does not include the arches indicated in the perspective drawings; 2. A streetscape elevation showing the proposal in the surrounding context is needed; 3. The application includes a gross floor area calculation, but please provide a table that also summarizes floor area calculations by use (commercial, free market and affordable). Include allocation of non -unit space; and, 4. The application requires a letter from the applicant indicating an understanding that a 90-day negotiation period has been initiated. In response to 1 and 2 above, please see the new perspective drawings and street elevation attached to this addendum. Please note that the perspective drawings no longer include the arches. These faux arches have been removed from the proposal so as to avoid any further obscuring or altering of historic elements and architectural detailing. In response to item 3 above, the floor area calculations by use are as follows: • 201 N. MILL STREET, SUITE 108 ASPEN, COLORADO • 8161 1 • PHONE: (970) 925-781 9 FAX: (970) 925-7395 0 610 East Hyman Avenue Addendum Page 2 • Existing Commercial FAR = 2,037sf of unit space, plus 649sf of non -unit space, and 163sf of non-exempt garage space for a total of 2,849sf (0.95:1) of Commercial Floor Area; • Proposed Commercial FAR = 2,878sf of unit space, plus 546sf of non -unit space, and 163sf of non-exempt garage space for a total of 3,587sf (1.2:1) of Commercial Floor Area; • Existing Free -Market Residential FAR=1,099sf of unit space, plus 350sf of non -unit space for a total of 1,449sf (0.483:1) of Free -Market Residential Floor Area; and • Proposed Free -Market Residential FAR = 2,104sf of unit space, plus 593sf of non -unit space for a total of 2,697sf (0.9:1) of Free -Market Residential Floor Area. • Total/Cumulative Proposed FAR = 6,284sf (2.095:1), where 1,302sf (20.7%) is non -unit space. • Total Proposed Free -Market Net Livable = 1,814sf (0.605:1), while the Total Proposed Commercial Net Leasable = 2,686sf (0.895:1). With regard to 4 above, although the application did mentioned the 90-day negotiation period on Page 5, we would like to reiterate that it is understood by the applicant that a 90-day negotiation period has been initiated by this application. It is further understood by and acceptable to the applicant that this may be extended to accommodate the planning staff schedule. As the authorized representative for the applicant, Haas Land Planning, LLC, can convey this understanding on the applicant's behalf. Additionally, during the prior HPC review of this application, in 2010, staff gave this building an Integrity Assessment Score of only 75 (the minimum threshold for designation). We believe that some of the scoring was erroneous and that the building should be given a score of at least 87 for the following reasons: • The structure is in its original location (5/ 5 points); • The original plan form is intact (10/10 points, subtotal 15 points); • The original roof is unaltered (10/10 points, subtotal 25 points). Staff gave this a score of 6 because of the removable awning on the second level. It was stated in the assessment that this awning changes the appearance of the building from the street. Whether or not this is true, the 610 East Hyman Avenue Addendum Page 3 original roof form is still unaltered, therefore the building should receive 10 points; • The original scale and proportions of the building are intact (5/5 points, subtotal 30 points); • The original pattern of glazing and exterior materials has been altered, but in a manner consistent with the original design intent and would meet the design guidelines; (6/10 points, subtotal 36 points). Staff gave the building a score of 0 on this criterion and stated that the exterior wall was originally a screen, with the enclosed spaces recessed some distance behind them. This is not correct and can even be seen in the photo of the building that staff provided. This area has always been enclosed and, therefore, the awarding of 6 points is more appropriate;. • There are minor alterations to the horizontal or geometric form, minimalist detailing and features that relate the building to its environment. (6-8/10 points, subtotal 42-44 points): We scored this as an eight (8) because we are of the belief that a number between 6 and 10 should be assessed. If that is not the case, we agree with staff's scoring of six (6). However, it should be noted that in the staff scoring it was stated that open air spaces have been enclosed; as previously mentioned, this is not a correct statement; • The physical surroundings are similar to that found when the structure was originally constructed (5/5 points, subtotal 47-49 points); • The original material palette, brick and stucco, is intact (15/15 points, subtotal 62-64 points); • Some of the original door and window units have been replaced but the new units are consistent with the design guidelines (5/10 points, subtotal 67-69 points). The original front doors have been moved from the center to the sides and some windows were added/altered; • The structural composition that distinguishes the stylistic category of Modernism is intact. No decorative materials are used. Design is focused on rationality, reduction, and composition. Materials are generally manufactured and standardized (15/15 points, subtotal 82-84 points); • 0 610 East Hyman Avenue Addendum Page 4 • The neutral or monochromatic color scheme and finishes that define Modernism remain intact (5/5 points, total 87-89 points): Staff only gave this building 3 points for this category and stated that it appears from photos that the stucco on the exterior was originally white. That is not how it appears to the applicant and even if that were true, in order to receive 5 points for this standard the neutral or monochromatic color scheme and finishes that define the stylistic category of Modernism must be intact; it does not say that the color must be the same as the original. The current building maintains neutral and monochromatic color schemes and finishes consistent with its Modernism character. As noted above, the applicant believes that this building achieves a score of at least 87-89 points, making this a "better" example of an Aspen Modern property, with regard to its contribution to and significance in Aspen's 20th century history. In addition to the foregoing, the applicant has corrected the building elevations and section drawings to depict the proposed building height of 40 feet at the alley, which will make it 38 feet and 11 inches above the Hyman Avenue sidewalk. Finally, the applicant is withdrawing the request made in the application to waive the elevator and/or access requirements that are triggered by the proposed development. The proposed development will comply with all ADA requirements. If you require any additional information, please contact me at (970) 925-7819 or by email at mitch@hlpaspen.com. Vern truly yours, Haas Land Planning, LLC - b Mitc Haas cc: Charles Cunniffe, Applicant/ Architect 0 RECEIVED 0 KIAR 2 8 2012 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DWELOPMENT HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC 201 N. MILL STREET, SUITE 108 - ASPEN, CO 81 6 1 1 - (970) 925-781 9 - MITCH@HLPASPEN.COM To: Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) Thru: Amy Guthrie Date: March 28, 2012 Subject: 610 East Hyman Avenue AspenModern Landmark Designation and Negotiation Introduction• The building at 610 East Hyman Avenue was built in 1962 and designed by Eleanor "Ellie' Brickham, who is an important architect relative to Aspen's 20th century Modernist Movement. This application volunteers Landmark Designation for 610 East Hyman Avenue and assurances to its preservation in exchange for the granting of incentives available through AspenModern negotiation. AspenModern is a program adopted by the City of Aspen to address, through negotiation of incentives for designation, the negative impacts that the loss of landmark eligible buildings would have on the health, peace, safety, and general well being of the residents and visitors of Aspen, and the diminishment of Aspens unique architectural character, livability, and attractiveness as a destination. The applicant previously entered into an Ordinance #48 negotiation process in 2010 but for various reasons withdrew the application before completing the Historic Preservation Commission meetings portion of the process. The applicant intends to complete a remodel that will include a two -level addition to the alley side of the building. The first level of this addition is proposed above the existing garage/carport and contains two new office spaces. The upper level will be an expansion of the already existing free-market residential unit. This application is seeking Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval from the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) as permitted by Section 26.412.030 of the Code, which states that, "when development or a portion thereof is located ... on a property that is or is under consideration ... to be listed on the Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, the commercial design review shall be subject to review by the HPC." Therefore, even if not landmark designated at the end of the negotiation period, Conceptual Commercial Design Review shall still be carried out by and under the purview of the HPC. The applicant is interested in having the building at 610 East Hyman Avenue added to the Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures provided that the HPC finds the submitted plans for the remodel of the building consistent with such status. Therefore, if 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 1 • 0 f • r i the applicant is permitted to proceed with the proposed plans, this application also seeks Landmark Designation with HPC Conceptual Commercial Design Review and Major Development approvals. This application is submitted pursuant to the following sections of the Aspen Land Use Code (the Code): 26.304, Common Development Review Procedures, including 26.304.060(B)(1), Combined Reviews; 26.415.025(C), AspenModern Properties; 26.415.030(C), Designation of Historic Properties - AspenModern; 26.415.070(D), Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development; 26.470.060(4), Minor Enlargement of an Historic Landmark; and 26.710.150, Commercial Zone District (C-1). The application is divided into five sections. Section I provides a brief introduction to the application, while Section II describes the existing conditions of the project site and environs. Section III outlines the applicant's proposed development, and Section IV addresses the proposed development's compliance with the applicable review criteria of the Code. A short summary is provided in Section V. For the reviewer's convenience, all pertinent supporting documents relating to the project are provided in the various exhibits to the application, as follows: • Exhibit 1: Land Use Application and Dimensional Requirements Forms; • Exhibit 2: Proof of the Applicant's Ownership; • Exhibit 3: Pre -Application Conference Summary prepared by Amy Guthrie; • Exhibit 4: Authorization for Haas Land Planning, LLC (HLP) to represent the applicant; • Exhibit 5: An executed application fee agreement; and, • Exhibit 6: Mailing addresses of record for all property owners located within three - hundred feet of the subject property. In addition, architectural plans prepared by Charles Cunniffe Architects accompany this application. While the applicant has attempted to address all relevant provisions of the Code, and to provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of the application, questions may arise which require further information and/or clarification. Upon request, the applicant's representative will provide such additional information as may be required in the course of the review. Existing Conditions: The building at 610 East Hyman Avenue was built in 1962 and was designed by Eleanor "Ellie" Brickham, an architect whose work is considered to be representative of the Modernist Movement of 20th century architecture in Aspen. It is a 2 1/2-story, mixed -use building on a 3,000 square foot lot, situated on East Hyman Avenue between Hunter and Spring Streets. The subject property is legally described as Lot M, Block 99, City and 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application Z W uw w Z ALLEY BLOCK 1�iq E. HYMAN AVENUE PRO.L NORTH NORTH i-',, EXISTING SITE PLAN %' r-o- I- 3 U g° $$ W U � aP C � ZC � C a m V zo< ZZ� _ U 1 w _O a 0 N Q 151 DRAWING: ISSUE: DATE: 9-15-10 JOB NO. 0832 SHEET NO. A0.1 W Townsite of Aspen, and it is owned by 610 East Hyman LLC (the applicant). The Vicinity Map below shows the property's general location relative to the surrounding area. _MAPOK I ��sm. T l,y� f Main �'9t�� ^ (j 1 61 !fie 11 raimNALTEA Vicinity Map - 610 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen The existing brick building features arched openings on the upper floor and a vertical orientation accentuated by columns that help to define and elongate the arched openings. The building is set back approximately ten (10) feet from the front property line on Hyman Avenue, and the front portion of the second floor is merely a fagade in front of outdoor living space. The remainder of the second floor is a residential apartment. The basement level, lower (garden) level and the first (main) level contain the offices of Charles Cunniffe Architects. The front of the building features doors at either end. The door on the west accesses stairs going up to the main level reception area, while the door on the east accesses stairs going down to the garden level offices. Between these two street - level entries, the front setback area features a large, semi -circle planter bordered by an arched wrought iron fence which complements the dominant architectural feature of the building (the upper level's arched openings). The roof is flat and features a parapet wall capped with a simple rectangular cornice line, typical of Modernist architecture. On the alley side of the property the original building is substantially set back from the rear property line (approximately 35-45 feet). Between the original building and the alley there is also a carport and a detached garage that were built in 2003. The addition proposed in this application would sit atop the garage and carport (which are not original or historically 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application Ij significant). Although the existing balconies on the alley side are original to the building, they are not visible from any public ways except the alley. Even from the alley the balconies are already obscured by the garage and carport. In order to accommodate the proposed addition, these balconies will need to be removed. Even if it were possible to retain the balconies, they would no longer have any visibility. Since its original construction, there have been some minor modifications made to the front facade of the building. For instance, in 1994 the doors were moved from the center of the building to their current locations and the arches/transom windows on the first level were replaced with operable transom windows. These changes greatly improved the functionality of the building without significantly affecting its architectural integrity or character. As mentioned above, the building is home to the offices of Charles Cunniffe Architects on the sub -grade, street, and first (main) levels. The current commercial net leasable area is approximately 650sf on the basement level, 955sf on the garden level, and 1,110sf on the main level, for a total of approximately 2,715sf. The total commercial Floor Area is approximately 2,685sf (0.895:1), while current codes establish an allowable commercial floor area limit of 4,500sf (1.5:1). The residential unit on the upper level of the building has a net livable area of approximately 930sf, while the residential Floor Area is approximately 1,485sf (clearly, a larger than normal percentage of the residential FAR in this building is consumed by non -unit space). The allowable residential Floor Area is 1,500sf (0.5:1). There is no affordable housing on the property. Project DescriptionfThe Proposal: In exchange for Landmark Designation and the preservation of this Ellie Brickham designed building in Asper s downtown, the applicant is seeking the entitlements requested herein. However, if Landmark Designation would preclude approval of the proposed addition, then the applicant prefers to not so designate the property/structure. The proposal envisions maintaining the overall appearance of the existing building, while placing a two-story addition over the non -historic garage and carport along the alley/rear side of the property. The upper level of the building currently contains one free-market residential unit that will be expanded with the addition; however, no new residential units will be created as a result. The addition will have minimal visual impact as it will be set back more than forty feet from the front facade, maintaining the building's overall appearance from Hyman Avenue. The proposed addition sits almost completely over the stairs, and the garage/carport, none of which were part of the original 1962 building. As such, the new addition will, for the most part, only be visible from the alley side, and will only obscure non -historic portions of the building. The new construction will have a more contemporary loft style that is clearly a product of its own time, while complementing the historic portion of the building. 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 4 At the front of the building, there is an existing second floor deck (the previously described outdoor living space behind the arched openings) from which there is already access to the rooftop. The proposed addition will be located behind this deck and will add only eight (8) or so feet of height to the building. However, since this addition will take place on the alley side, the measured height of the building will be 37, one foot over the 36' height limit for three-story elements. The ground elevation at the alley is more than a foot lower than that of the sidewalk at the front of this property, and this directly increases the height measurement. As perceived from Hyman Avenue, however, the addition will be at the height limit of thirty-six feet (36'). As part of Commercial Design Review, the height for three-story elements can be increased to forty feet (40') to accommodate this proposal. The aforementioned deck off the apartment, on the street -facing fagade, has a "temporary' canvas canopy to provide shade and protection from snow. The applicant envisions replacing this with a photovoltaic canopy that will help with energy efficiencies while allowing light to penetrate and pass through to the arched openings on the building fagade. The proposal also involves reinstating Brickham-designed arched elements above the existing awning windows through the installation of metal applications cut into the stucco spandrels to simulate the original arched windows and create shadow lines. One of the incentives sought in this AspenModern negotiation requests a waiver of any potentially applicable elevator and/or ADA accessibility requirements. As can be seen on the attached plans, installation of an elevator adds height to the building (to 40' on the alley side and approximately 39' on the Hyman Avenue side). Stairs are currently required to get into and access all levels of the building. If accessibility requirements cannot be met by changes to the rear entrance of the building, the front entrance may have to be modified. However, it is the applicant's hope that this building, which is seeking Landmark designation (and has never been accessible) will be allowed to find an alternative way to provide for accessibility. Please refer to the submitted plan sets for details and renderings of the proposed designs. Section 26.415.025(C) of the Code explains that sites associated with Aspen's 20+h century history, such as 610 East Hyman Avenue, are called AspenModern properties. This property made the cut to be specifically identified on the AspenModern Map and list of potentially historic sites. Restoration of the Ellie Brickham design and addition of this property to the AspenModern program is appropriate. Pursuant to Code Section 26.415.025(C)(1), the submittal of this application initiates a negotiation period of up to ninety days, which may be extended an additional thirty days upon resolution adopted by City Council, or longer if mutually acceptable to both the Council and the applicant. The City Council or the applicant may choose to terminate the negotiations at any time. 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 5 The goal of the negotiation period is to reach a mutually acceptable agreement for the landmark designation of the property. As part of the mutually acceptable agreement, the City Council may, at its sole discretion, approve any land use entitlements or fee waiver permitted by the Municipal Code and may award any approval that is normally assigned to another Board or Commission, including variations. Council's charge includes seeking compatibility with the neighborhood surrounding the subject property and weighing the benefits in light of whether the property is identified by the HPC as a "good, better, or best" example of Aspens 20th century history. It is felt that the requested incentives are fully appropriate and warranted in exchange for providing a substantial community benefit and valuable community asset by landmark designating a building whose integrity assessment achieves a score of 84, is representative of Aspens rise as a hub for intellectual and cultural endeavors in a pristine and natural environment, and embodies the aesthetic achievements of Ellie Brickham, an important architect of Modern Era Aspen architecture. Preservation of this building will provide a great complement to this block, which is the future home of the Aspen Art Museum and the current home to the restored AspenModern Crandall Building. As such, it is earnestly hoped that the requested incentives will be granted and the subject property will be added to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. In exchange for the voluntary historic preservation of this property, the benefits that the applicant is seeking from City Council include the following: • A modest code variation to accommodate the proposed free-market residential net livable area and Floor Area; • Waiver of any potentially applicable elevator and/or access requirements; and • Ten (10) years of vested property rights. 610 E. Hunan AspenModern Application 6 r�L LJ Review Requirements In light of the foregoing, this application is submitted pursuant to the following sections of the Aspen Land Use Code (the Code): 26.304, Common Development Review Procedures, including 26.304.060(B)(1), Combined Reviews; 26.310.040, Standards for Review - Rezoning; 26.415.025(C), AspenModern Properties; 26.415.030(C), Designation of Historic Properties - AspenModern; 26.415.070(D), Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development; and 26.710.150, Commercial (C-1) Zone District. The applicable provisions are addressed below. L HPC Review Requirements A. Designation of AspenModern Properties The designation of AspenModern properties to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures (the Inventory) is governed by Section 26.415.030(C) of the Code. In order to be eligible for designation, an individual building, site, structure, or object, or a collection of buildings, sites, structures, or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. Furthermore, to be worthy of preservation incentives and to evaluate the equitability of such incentives, an AspenModern property must be rated on a good, better or best" scale with regard to its contribution to and significance in Aspen's 20th century history. Section 26.415.030(C)(1) of the Code states that, The quality of significance of properties shall be evaluated according to the criteria below: a. The property is related to an event, pattern or trend that has made a contribution to local, state, regional, or national history that is deemed important, and the specific event, pattern or trend is identified and documented in an adopted context paper; b. The property is related to people who have made a contribution to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific people are identified and documented in an adopted context paper; c. The property represents a physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsmen, or design philosophy that is deemed important and the specific physical design, designed, or philosophy is documented in an adopted context paper; d. The property possesses such singular significance to the City, as documented by the opinions or persons educated or experienced in the fields of history, architecture, landscape architecture, archaeology or a related field, that the property's potential demolition or major alteration would substantially diminish the character and sense of place in the city as perceived by members of the community; and e. The property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association, given its age. The City Council shall adopt and make available to the public score sheets and other devices which shall be used by the Council and Historic Preservation Commission to apply this criteria. 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application The City of Aspen's historic preservation program includes official context papers about the Post WWII architectural styles that have influenced the City, including Modernism. The context paper describes Modernism as a style of architecture that began in the 20th century as a result of a clear philosophical shift in design practices and attitudes, and incredible changes in building technology. Eleanor "Ellie' Brickham, the architect of the building at 610 East Hyman Avenue, is listed as an "Architect of Note" who completed significant works in Aspen and is considered to have left an imprint of the philosophies of the modernist period on the town. The following information on Ellie Brickham is found in the City's official context paper. Eleanor 'Ellie' Brickham graduated from the University of Colorado's School of Architecture. Construction was a family business, so Brickham's motivation to be a designer began as a child. She moved to Aspen in 1951, attracted by the skiing, but once there, found herself the only female architect in town. Early in her career, Brickham worked in Fritz Benedict's office and collaborated on projects with both Benedict and [Herbert]Bayer, participating in the work going on at the Aspen Institute. During her time in that office, and later with her own firm, she designed a number of residences and commercial structures in town, including houses for several Music Festival artists in Aspen Grove, the Strandberg Residence (1973,433 W. Bleeker Street), and the Patricia Moore Building (1969, 610 E. Hyman Avenue.) Within Pitkin County, Brickham designed numerous homes in Starwood, on Red Mountain, and in Pitkin Green. Her works total at least 50 buildings in the Aspen area. Brickham's designs have been characterized by spare, simple forms and detailing, and she has an interest in passive solar techniques. Still practicing today, Brickham's projects focus on an "impeccable sense ofproportion and feeling of lightness. " The Aspen Times stated at her death, `She was Aspen's first woman architect, working with Herbert Bayer and Fritz Benedict in the early days on numerous notable and historically significant projects, including the Aspen Institute campus, and later she designed more than 60 residential and commercial buildings locally. She served on the board of and was honored by the Aspen Historical Preservation Committee, and she was presented with a Preservation Honor Award in 2001... As stated in a proclamation by Aspen's Mayor Klanderud in 2003, `Ellie is one of the post- Paepcke pioneers, and is, without question, one of Aspen's treasured characters'. Clearly, Ellie Brickham made important contributions to local history and the Aspen Modernist Architectural Movement, as identified by the City's official context papers, and as documented in both the Aspen Times and a 2003 City of Aspen Proclamation. Further, the subject building maintains a physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of the local Modernist design philosophy. 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 8 The City's Historic Preservation Program utilizes Integrity Assessments in order to score a property's ability to convey its historic significance. A total of 100 points is the most a Modernist property can score between the categories of location, design, setting, materials, and workmanship. A score of 75 points is considerate adequate for Landmark designation. The building at 610 East Hyman Avenue has not yet been officially scored but a review of the criteria reveals that it is worthy of a score of 84 points for the following reasons: • The structure is in its original location (5/5 points); • The original plan form has been slightly altered, but the addition would meet the design guidelines; there have been some changes to the back side of the building and to the fenestration on the front facade, but otherwise the original plan form is intact (8/10 points, subtotal 13 points); • The original roof is unaltered (10/10 points, subtotal 23 points); • The original scale and proportions of the building are intact (5/5 points, subtotal 28 points); • The original pattern of glazing and exterior materials has been altered, but in a manner consistent with the original design intent and that would meet the design guidelines; the proposal involves reinstating the arched elements above the existing awning windows through the installation of metal applications cut into the stucco spandrels to simulate the original arched windows and create shadow lines. (6/10 points, subtotal 34 points); • There are minor alterations to the horizontal or geometric form, minimalist detailing and features that relate the building to its environment. The original arched openings on the street level were replaced with operable transom windows but the proposal involves reinstating the arched elements above the existing awning windows through the installation of metal applications cut into the stucco spandrels to simulate the original arched windows and create shadow lines. (8/10 points, subtotal 42 points); • The physical surroundings are similar to that found when the structure was originally constructed (5/5 points, subtotal 47 points); • There have been minor alterations to the original exterior wall materials and glazing but these were done in a manner that conforms to the design guidelines (10/15 points, subtotal 57 points); • Some of the original door and window units have been replaced but the new units are consistent with the design guidelines. The original front doors have been moved from the center to the sides and some windows were added/ altered (7/ 10 points, subtotal 64 points); • The structural composition that distinguishes the stylistic category of Modernism is intact. No decorative materials are used. Design is focused on rationality, reduction, and composition. Materials are generally manufactured and standardized (15/15 points subtotal 79 points); • The neutral or monochromatic color scheme and finishes that define Modernism remain intact (5/5 points, total 84 points). 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 9 • N Conservatively calculated, the subject building's integrity assessment therefore achieves an approximate score of 84 points, which is well in excess of the minimum threshold for designation. This building was constructed more than thirty (30) years ago, and it is representative of Aspens Post WWII renaissance as a hub for intellectual and cultural endeavors in a pristine and natural environment. The building embodies the aesthetic achievements of Ellie Brickham, a notable architect of Modernism in Aspen. As such, this structure satisfies every facet of the standards for landmark designation, where only one of three standards need be satisfied before a building can be so designated. This property is clearly more than worthy of Historic Landmark Designation. The applicant appreciates the importance of preserving historic properties in Aspen and as such seeks to have the Ellie Brickham designed Modernist building at 610 East Hyman Avenue granted landmark status. B. Conceptual Approval of a Major Development All applications for Conceptual approval of a Major Development project must receive a determination of consistency with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines (the "HP Guidelines') to be approved. If the subject property is granted Landmark Designation, the proposed addition must, in turn, receive Conceptual Major Development approval. Since this property is seeking Landmark status, Conceptual approval of the proposed design requires a finding of consistency with Chapters 1-10 of the HP Guidelines, as well as the General Design Guidelines of Chapter 14. More specifically, Chapters 1 through 10 of the HP Guidelines refer to renovations of and additions to Historic Structures. Chapters 11, 12, and 13 are not applicable since they provide guidelines for new buildings and additions on residential Landmark Properties, design in the Main Street Historic District; and design in the Commercial Core Historic District, respectively. The project has been designed to be generally consistent with the guidelines of Chapter 14, but specific consistency with these requirements will be demonstrated as part of the HPC Final review. The HP Guidelines state that not every guideline will apply to each project and that some balancing of the guidelines must occur on a case -by -case basis. Accordingly, the HPC must find only that a sufficient number of the relevant guidelines have been adequately met in order to approve the proposal. Conceptual Review focuses on height, scale, massing, and proportions of a proposal. The guidelines addressing treatment and preservation of materials, lighting, fenestration, fences, and the like will be more specifically addressed during Final HPC Review. Chapter One of the HP Guidelines relates to streetscapes and lot features and is largely inapplicable to this proposed development. Sections 1.1 through 1.8 concern fences and 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application lU W retaining walls and Sections 1.10 through 1.14 relate to private yards. None of these sections are applicable as no retaining walls or private yards exist on this property, and the lone existing fence will not be altered. Likewise, Sections 1.16 and 1.17 are not applicable as no historically significant landscape designs or irrigation ditches exist on the property. The only applicable guidelines from Chapter One (1.9 Walkways and 1.15 Site Lighting) are addressed below. Walkways 1.9 Maintain the established progression of public -to -private spaces when considering a rehabilitation project. - This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the 'public" sidewalk, proceeding along a "semi-public " walkway, to a "semi -private " porch or entry feature and ending in the 'private" spaces beyond. - Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry. Meandering walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree. - Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style. Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles. The established progression of public to private space will be maintained. The existing straight walkways to the front entries will not be changed, nor will the semi-public spaces. Site Lighting 1.15 Minimize the visual impacts of site lighting. - Site lighting should be shielded to avoid glare onto adjacent properties. Focus lighting on walks and entries, rather than up into trees and onto facade planes. This standard is understood by the applicant and will be addressed at Final HPC Review. No new exterior lighting is proposed at this time. The relevant guidelines from Chapters 2 through 10, as well as those from Chapter 14, are outlined below in italicized text and each is followed by a response demonstrating compliance and/or consistency therewith, as applicable. 2.1 Preserve original building materials. 2.2 Protect wood features from deterioration. 2.3 Plan repainting carefully. 2.4 Brick or stone that was not painted historically should not be painted 2.5 Repair deteriorated primary building materials by patching, piecing -in, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing the material. 2.6 Maintain masonry walls in good condition. 2.7 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary surfaces. 2.8 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for primary building materials. 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 11 IM Original building materials will be preserved. There are no changes proposed to the original materials that currently exist. As appropriate, this standard will be more fully addressed at Final HPC Review. 2.9 Covering original building materials with new materials is inappropriate. - Regardless of their character, new materials obscure the original, historically significant material. For example, vinyl siding, aluminum siding and new stucco are inappropriate on historic buildings. Other imitation materials that are designed to look like wood or masonry siding, but that are fabricated from other materials, are also inappropriate. - If a property already has a non -historic building material covering the original, it is not appropriate to add another layer of new material, which would further obscure the original. - Any material that covers historic materials will also trap moisture between the two layers. This may cause accelerated deterioration to the historic material which will go unnoticed. No original building materials will be covered. There will not be any vinyl siding, aluminum siding, or stucco. The Brickham-designed arched elements over the existing awning windows will be reinstated through metal applications cut into to stucco spandrels to simulate the arched forms and create shadow lines. 2.10 Consider removing later covering materials that have not achieved historic significance. - Once the non -historic siding is removed, repair the original, underlying material. All historic siding will remain intact. The proposed addition will only obscure a non - historic portion on the alley side of the building. 3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. 3.2 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. 3.3 Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a facade. 3.4 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. 3.5 In a replacement window, use materials that appear similar to the original. 3.6 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. 3.7 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the original window. 3.8 Use a storm window to enhance energy conservation rather than to replace a historic window. Although this standard will be more specifically addressed at the time of Final HPC Review, all remaining historic windows will be retained. 4.1 Preserve historically significant doors. 4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening. 4.3 When a historic door is damaged, repair it and maintain its general historic appearance. 4.4 If a new screen door is used, it should be in character with the primary door. 4.5 When replacing a door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original door or a door associated with the style of the house. 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 12 0 • 4.6 If energy conservation and heat loss are concerns, consider using a storm door instead of replacing a historic entry door. Although this standard will be more specifically addressed at the time of Final HPC Review, it is the applicant's intention to preserve all historically significant doors. Treatment of Porches 5.1 Preserve an original porch. 5.2 Avoid removing or covering historic materials and details on a porch. 5.3 Avoid enclosing a historic front porch. 5.4 The use of a porch on a residential building in a single-family context is strongly encouraged Porch Replacement 5.5 If porch replacement is necessary, reconstruct it to match the original inform and detail. There are no ground level porches on the existing building and none are proposed for the addition. The second floor residential unit does have some outdoor living space located on the Hyman Avenue side of the building and this space will be retained. This space fits the City of Aspen Land Use Code definition of a loggia ("a deck or porch attached to a living space and open on at least one side developed under a roof as an integral part of the building's mass rather than as an appended element"). Whether one calls this space a porch or a loggia, the proposed renovation retains this space in its current form. Treatment of Architectural Features 6.1 Preserve significant architectural features. 6.2 When disassembly of a historic element is necessary for its restoration, use methods that minimize damage to the original material. 6.3 Remove only the portion of the detail that is deteriorated and must be replaced 6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features should be based on original designs. 6.5 Do not guess at "historic" designs for replacement parts. 6.6 Replacement of missing elements may be included in repair activities. As previously mentioned, the applicant intends to preserve all of the significant architectural features of this building, although the existing balconies on the alley side of the building will need to be removed. Again, the Brickham-designed arched elements over the existing awning windows will be reinstated through metal applications cut into to stucco spandrels to simulate the arched forms and create shadow lines. This renovation/addition will not obscure any significant architectural features of the building. Treatment of Roofs 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. • Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Instead, maintain the perceived line and orientation of the roof as seen from the street. • Retain and repair roof detailing. 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 13 The original form of the roof is flat and will be maintained. The third floor addition, which will not obscure the original building, will also have a low -profile, flat roof. 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. • The shadows created by traditional overhangs contribute to one's perception of the building's historic scale and therefore, these overhangs should be preserved. As previously mentioned, the entire front fagade will be retained in the renovation. As such, the original eave depth will be preserved. 7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices. • Flat skylights that are flush with the roof plane may be considered only in an obscure location on a historic structure. Locating a skylight or a solar panel on a front roofplane is not allowed. • A skylight or solar panel should not interrupt the plane of a historic roof. It should be positioned below the ridgeline. No skylights are proposed for this development. 7.4 A new chimney should be the same scale as those used historically. 7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they are made non-functional. The existing building does not have a chimney and no new chimneys are proposed. 7.6 When planning a rooftop addition, preserve the overall appearance of the original roof. • An addition should not interrupt the original ridgeline. • See also: Chapter 10, Guidelines for Building Additions. Although a third floor addition is proposed, it is set back more than 40 feet from the front of the building. Therefore, the original roof will remain and a portion of the roof will become a deck for the residential unit. The existing deck off the apartment and on the street -facing fagade has a "temporary" canvas canopy to provide shade and protection from snow; the applicant envisions replacing this with a photovoltaic canopy that will help with energy efficiencies while allowing light to pass through to the arched openings on the building facade. The overall appearance and lines of the original roof will be preserved. Both the original roof and the proposed third floor roof are flat. 7.7A 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. There are no dormers on the existing building and none are proposed. 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 14 7.8 Preserve original roof materials. • Avoid removing historic roofing material that is in good condition. When replacement is necessary, use a material that is similar to the original in both style as well as physical qualities and use a color that is similar to that seen historically. • Specialty materials such as tile, slate or concrete should be replaced with a matching material. The existing roofing material is not historically significant. 7.9 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to those used traditionally. • Replacement materials should be similar to those used historically on comparably styled buildings. • If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and have a matte, non -reflective finish. • Flashing should be in scale with the roof material. • If copper flashing is to be used, it should be treated to establish a matte, non -reflective finish. The roof material for the addition will have a matte, non -reflective finish and be, clearly, a product of its own time. The flat roof is not visible from any public vantage points. 7.10 If it is to be used, a metal roof should be applied and detailed in a manner that is compatible and does not detract from the historic appearance of the building. • A metal roof material should have an earth tone and have a matte, non -reflective finish. • A metal roof with a lead -like patina also is an acceptable alternative. • Seams should be of a low profile. • A roof assembly with a high profile seam or thick edge is inappropriate. The new low -profile roof over the addition is proposed to have a matte, non -reflective finish. It will not be visible from any publicly accessible vantage points 7.11 Avoid using conjectural features on a roof. • Adding ornamental cresting, for example, where there is no evidence that it existed creates a false impression of the building's original appearance, and is inappropriate. There will be no conjectural features on or added to the roof. Chapter 8 of the HP Guidelines involves preserving historically significant secondary structures. Although there is a separate garage on the property, it is not historically significant as it was built in 2003. The proposed addition maintains this garage, and will be built above it. Chapter 9 discusses building relocation and new foundations; this building is not being relocated and the original foundation is being preserved. 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. 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 15 • The only existing addition on the property is on the alley side and consists of the garage and carport area. This addition is not historically significant. The new addition is proposed to be built above this non -historic element. 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. The third floor addition to this building, which is set back more than 40 feet from the front of the building has been designed to complement the historic character of the primary building, but is clearly a product of its own time. As previously mentioned, no historically significant features will be covered up by this addition. 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. The proposed addition is clearly distinguishable from the historic building, but is visually compatible with the earlier design. The addition will be constructed on the alley side and use different materials than those found on the historic portion of the building. The addition's modern loft -style design will complement, yet be subordinate to the historic building. The addition will be clearly recognizable as a product of its own time. 10.5 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic alignments that may exist on the street. • Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings in the area may align at approximately the same height. An addition should not be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured. This building is not in a historic district. 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. 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 16 • 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. The proposed addition simply adds onto the garage/carport area on the back side of the building. The addition is compatible with the resource in size and scale as it is smaller, subservient, and substantially set back from the significant facades. 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. As previously mentioned, the proposed addition is on the alley side of the building and is set back more than forty (40) feet from the front facade, significantly reducing any visual impact and allowing the original proportions and character to remain prominent. 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. The existing building has a flat roof. The proposed addition will maintain this roofline as it features a similar flat roof that is set back more than forty feet (40') from the front facade. 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. No architectural details will be lost, altered or obscured by the proposed addition to this building. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. • The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials. The additions exterior materials will be compatible with the historic materials, and will be discussed further during Final HPC Review. 10.12 When constructing a rooftop addition, keep the mass and scale subordinate to that of a historic building. 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 17 FM • An addition should not overhang the lower floors of a historic building in the front or on the side. • Dormers should be subordinate to the overall roof mass and should be in scale with historic ones on similar historic structures. • Dormers should be located below the primary structure's ridgeline, usually by at least one foot. The proposed alley -side addition is subordinate in mass and scale to the historic building and is set back more than 40 feet from the front of the building. The addition will not overhang lower floors on any side, and no dormers are proposed. 10.13 Set a rooftop addition back from the front of the building. • This will help preserve the original profile of the historically significant building as seen from the street. As mentioned above, the addition will be constructed on the alley side of the building and set back from the front facade by more than forty (40) feet. The original profile of the building as seen from the street will be preserved. 10.14 The roofform and slope of a new addition should be in character with the historic building. • If the roof of the historic building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition should be similar. • Eave lines on the addition should be similar to those of the historic building or structure. The proposed addition envisions a flat roofline similar to the existing roofline. 14.1 These standards should not prevent or inhibit compliance with accessibility laws. • All new construction should comply completely with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Owners of historic properties should comply to the fullest extent possible, while also preserving the integrity of the character -defining features of their buildings. Special provisions for historic buildings exist in the law that allow some alternatives in meeting the ADA standards. 14.2 Generally, a solution that is independent from the historic building and does not alter its historic characteristics is encouraged. The existing building does not comply with ADA requirements. One of the incentives sought in this AspenModern negotiation requests a waiver of any potentially applicable elevator and/or accessibility requirements. As can be seen on the attached plans, installation of an elevator adds height to the building (to 40' on the alley side and approximately 39' on the Hyman Avenue side). The elevator is shown on the plans to illustrate a "worst case' scenario in the event that the Ordinance 48 negotiation does not result in the requested waiver. Stairs are currently required to access all levels of the building as the split-level layout does not contain a true street -level floor. If accessibility requirements are not waived and compliance cannot be met by changes to the rear of the building, the front entrance may 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 18 need to be modified. However, it is the applicant's hope that the front facade of this building which is seeking Landmark designation and has never been accessible, will not have to be modified. 14.3 Keep color schemes simple. 14.4 Coordinating the entire building in one color scheme is usually more successful than working with a variety of palettes. 14.5 Develop a color scheme for the entire building front that coordinates all the facade elements. Although the HPC does not review the choice of color, there are guidelines that are provided to encourage similar paint schemes. These guidelines are understood and will be more fully addressed at the time of Final HPC review. 14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that used traditionally. 14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting. 14.8 Minimize the visual impact of light spill from a building. The lighting standards are understood by the applicant and will be further addressed at the time of Final HPC Review. 14.9 Use the gentlest means possible to clean the surface of materials and features. 14.10 Repair deteriorated primary building materials by patching, piecing -in, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing the material. 14.11 Plan repainting carefully. 14.12 Provide a weather protective finish to wood surfaces. 14.13 Leave natural masonry colors unpainted where feasible. If applicable, these standards will be followed by the applicant. However, the proposal does not entail any changes to the historic portion of the building or its exterior surfaces. 14.14 Minimize the visual impacts of service areas as seen from the street. • When it is feasible, screen service areas from view, especially those associated with commercial and multifamily developments. • This includes locations for trash containers and loading docks. • Service areas should be accessed off of the alley, if one exists. The service area will continue to be located off of the alley, thereby minimizing any visual impacts from the street. 14.15 Minimize the visual impacts of mechanical equipment as seen from the public way. • Mechanical equipment may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does not create a negative visual impact. 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application ly • Mechanical equipment or vents on a roof must be grouped together to minimize their visual impact. Where rooftop units are visible, provide screening with materials that are compatible with those of the building itself. • Screen ground -mounted units with fences, stone walls or hedges. • A window air conditioning unit may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does not create a negative visual impact. • Use low profile mechanical units on rooftops so they will not be visible from the street or alley. Also minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Use smaller satellite dishes and mount them low to the ground and away from front yards, significant building facades or highly visible roof planes. • Paint telecommunications and mechanical equipment in muted colors that will minimize their appearance by blending with their backgrounds. Mechanical equipment will not be seen from the public ways and will not create a negative visual impact. 14.16 Locate standpipes, meters and other service equipment such that they will not damage historic facade materials. • Cutting channels into historic facade materials damages the historic building fabric and is inappropriate. Do not locate equipment on the front facade. • If a channel must be cut, either locate it on a secondary facade, or place it low on the wall No service equipment will be located on the front facade and none will damage any historic facade materials. 14.17Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. 14.18 Garages should not dominate the street scene. 14.19 Use a paving material that will distinguish the driveway from the street. 14.20 Off-street driveways should be removed, if feasible. 14.21 For existing driveways that cannot be removed, provide tracks to a parking area rather than paving an entire driveway. 14.22 Driveways leading to parking areas should be located to the side or rear of a primary structure. 14.23 Parking areas should not be visually obtrusive. 14.24 Large parking areas, especially those for commercial and multifamily uses, should not be visually obtrusive. There is an existing garage and carport on the alley side and these will be maintained. Access to the garage and carport is gained via the alley. Signs 14.25 Locate signs to be subordinate to the building design. 14.26 Sign materials should be similar to those used historically. 14.27 Use signs to relate to other buildings on the street and to emphasize architectural features. 14.28 Pictographic symbols are encouraged on signs. 14.29 Illuminate a sign such that it complements the overall composition of thesite. 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 20 0 • These guidelines are understood by the applicant and will be further addressed at the time of Final HPC Review. All signs will be located so as to be subordinate to the building design. C. Conceptual Commercial Design Review Approval The Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines (the "Commercial Guidelines") set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. They are organized to address the different design contexts that exist in the City. These distinct settings, or contexts, are defined as "Character Areas," within which variations exist among the physical features that define each area. The proposed development is located in the "Commercial Character Area," one block east of the Commercial Core. Per the Commercial Guidelines, all development projects should achieve the following design objectives: • Promote an interconnected circulation system that invites pedestrian use, including a continuous street and alley system and a respect for the natural topography; • Promote a system of public places that support activities, including public amenity spaces, compatible landscaping and paving, and unobtrusive off-street parking; and • Assure that buildings fit together to create a vibrant street edge that reinforces a sense of appropriate scale. The Commercial Character Area largely corresponds to the Commercial (C-1) Zone District which forms the immediate fringe of much of the Commercial Core Historic District (CC). Building heights and materials in the C-1 zone vary. Storefront design and display is a less dominant characteristic than in the CC area. The street wall is less defined than in the CC, and building facades are sometimes set back or include front yard space. The purpose of the Commercial (C-1) zone district is stated in Section 26.710.150(A) of the Code as follows: ... to provide for the establishment of mixed -use buildings with commercial uses on the ground floor, opportunities for affordable and free-market residential density. A transition between the CC and surrounding residential neighborhoods has been implemented [emphasis added] through a slight reduction in allowable floor area as compared to the Commercial Core, the ability to occupy the Ground Floor with offices, and a separate Chapter in the Commercial Design Guidelines. Compliance with the zoning, its dimensional requirements and the Commercial Design Guidelines, therefore, ensures provision/ implementation of a successful transition from the CC to the adjacent residential neighborhoods. 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application L1 The key design objectives in the Commercial Character Area are as follows: 1. Strengthen the sense of relatedness with the Commercial Core Historic District. Strengthening the definition of the street edge in a manner similar to the Commercial Core is desired. At the same time, the Commercial Area is a place where more variety in design is encouraged. Imitating historic styles is not an objective, but re-establishing a sense of a stronger fundamental framework will enhance the urban qualities of this area and is a priority. 2. Maintain a retail orientation. Greater retail presence at the street edge should be achieved to ensure an enhanced street vitality and an enriched and more urban definition of the commercial street frontage. 3. Promote creative, contemporary design. Designs should seek creative new solutions that convey the community's continuing interest in exploring innovations. At the same time, the fundamental principles of traditional design must be respected. This means that each project should strike a balance in the design variables that are presented in the following pages. 4. Encourage a well-defined street wall. The intent is to more clearly establish a strongly defined street wall, but with some greater variety than in the Commercial Core Historic District since the historic building edge is not as defined. A stronger street fagade definition should be achieved while at the same time recognizing the value ofpublic dining and landscaped space. S. Reflect the variety in building heights seen traditionally. It is important that a range and variation in building height and scale in the Commercial Area be recognized in future development. Larger buildings should be varied in height and reflect original lot widths. 6. Accommodate outdoor public spaces while establishing a clear definition to the street edge. Providing space in association with individual buildings remains important, but should be balanced with much greater building street presence and corner definition. 7. Promote variety in the street level experience. Display cases, architectural details and landscaping are among the design elements that should be used. The proposed renovation of 610 East Hyman Avenue will maintain the existing setback from the front property line. When viewed from Hyman Avenue, the proposed addition will have a negligible visual impact as compared with the existing condition. Only the alley side view of the building will significantly change as a result of the renovation. The addition is consistent with the stated goal of having varied building heights in the Commercial Area; the upper floor addition will add approximately 8 feet to the current 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 22 structure, and it will be adequately taller than the adjacent building, while remaining sensitive to its context. Outlined below is each of the Commercial Character Area's Conceptual Review Design Guidelines in italicized print, followed by a description of the proposal's compliance and/or consistency therewith, as applicable. 1.1 Orient a primary entrance toward the street. • A building should have a clearly defined primary entrance. • Providing secondary public entrances to commercial spaces is also encouraged on larger buildings. The front side of the building will not change as a result of the proposed renovation. The existing primary entrances will remain in their current locations (unless required to be changed to meet accessibility laws). 1.2 Maintain the established town grid in all projects. • The network of streets and alleys should be retained as public circulation space and for maximum public access. • Streets and alleys should not be enclosed or closed to public access, and should remain open to the sky. All streets and alleys will be retained and will continue to provide maximum public access. No streets or alleys will be enclosed or closed to public access. Internal Walkways 1.3 Public walkways and through courts should be designed to create access to additional commercial space. • These may be shops that face onto walkways or courtyards. • See also: Public Amenity Space design guidelines. This standard is not applicable to the subject property. 1.4 Develop an alley faVade to create visual interest. • Use varied building setbacks and changes in materials to create interest and reduce perceived scale. • Balconies, courtyards and decks are also appropriate. • Providing secondary public entrances is strongly encouraged along alleys. These should be clearly intended for public use, but subordinate in detail to the primary street -side entrance. The proposed addition uses varied building setbacks, as well as a combination of materials and a small deck to create visual interest on the alley fagade. 1.5 The visual impacts of structured parking should be minimized. The access shall be: • Located on an alley when feasible or a secondary street, designed with the same attention to detail and materials as the primary building fagade, and integrated into the building design. 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 23 1.6 Structured parking should be placed within a 'wrap' of commercial and/or residential uses. The visual impacts of structured parking will remain the same and continue to be located off of the alley. Public Amenity Space 1.7A street facing amenity space shall meet all of the following requirements: • Abut the public sidewalk • Be level with the sidewalk • Be open to the sky • Be directly accessible to the public • Be paved or otherwise landscaped 1.8 A street facing public amenity space shall remain subordinate to the line of building fronts in the Commercial Area. • Any public amenity space positioned at the street edge shall respect the character of the streetscape and ensure that street corners are well defined, with buildings placed at the sidewalk edge. • Sunken spaces, which are associated with some past developments, adversely affect the street character. Where feasible, these should be replaced with sidewalk level improvements. 1.9 Street facing amenity space shall contain features to promote and enhance its use. These may include one or more of the following: • Street furniture • Public art • Historical/interpretive marker The front yard setback area and uses located therein (walkways and fenced flower bed), will not be altered or in any way changed as a result of the proposed addition. No other public amenity spaces exist on the subject property. 1.18 Maintain the alignment of facades at the sidewalk's edge. • Place as much of the facade of the building at the property line as possible. • A minimum of 60% of the front facade shall be at the property line. • Locating an entire building front behind the established storefront line is inappropriate. 1.19 A building may be set back from its side lot lines in accordance with design guidelines identified in Street & Alley System and Public Amenity Space guidelines. Since the project proposes only a remodel and addition to the alley side of the building, as opposed to a redevelopment, the existing alignment of facades will continue unchanged. 1.20 Building facades shall be parallel to the facing street(s) and primary entrances shall be oriented toward the street. 1.21 Orient a new building to be parallel to its lot lines, similar to that of traditional building orientations. • The front of a primary structure shall be oriented to the street. 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 24 The existing building and the proposed renovations facades are parallel to the street and primary entrances are oriented toward the street. 1.22 Building facade height shall be varied from the facade height of adjacent buildings of the same number of stories by a minimum of 2 feet. • If an existing structure is three stories and 38 ft. tall for example, then adjacent new infill may be three stories, but must vary in fagade height by a minimum of 2 ft. 1.23 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of the Commercial Area. • Refer to the zone district regulations to determine the maximum height on the subject property. • A minimum 9 ft. floor to ceiling height is to be maintained on second stories and higher. The maximum height in the C-1 zone district is established at twenty-eight feet for two- story elements and thirty-six (36) feet for three-story elements of a building, which may be increased to forty (40) feet through Commercial Design Review. The applicant requests that the height for the proposed third -story elements be established at thirty-seven feet (37), which is still three feet (3') below the forty foot (40') limit that can be approved. The proposed addition will add only approximately eight feet (8') of height to the building. However, since this addition will take place on the alley side of the property, the measured height of the building will be 37', which is one foot over the 36' height limit for three-story elements. The ground elevation along the alley is more than a foot lower than that of the Hyman Avenue sidewalk and this directly increases the height measurement. If the measurement were taken from the Hyman Avenue sidewalk, the addition would be at the height limit of thirty-six feet (36'). If approved, the front portion of the building (the first forty feet in depth from Hyman Avenue) will retain its existing height while only the alley side of the building will get taller. Additionally, the proposed third and second stories both vary from the height of the adjacent buildings by more than the prescribed two (2) feet. In the event that any applicable elevator requirements are not waived as part of the AspenModern negotiation, the allowed height of the building (for the elevator shaft/override) will need to be increased to 40 feet on the alley side of the building and approximately 39' on the Hyman Avenue side. 1.24 Height variation should be achieved using one or more of the following: • Vary the building height in accordance with traditional lot width. • Set back the upper floor to vary the building fagade profile(s) and the roof forms across the width and the depth of the building. • Vary the faVade (or parapet) heights at the front. • Step down the rear of the building towards the alley, in conjunction with other design standards and guidelines. This proposal envisions a second and third floor addition on the alley side of the building. The addition is set back more than forty feet from the front of the building, which reaches a 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 25 height of just two and one-half stories. As such, the building height is varied in accordance with traditional lot width. The upper floors are set back to vary the facade profiles. 1.25 On sites comprising more than two traditional lot widths, the favade height shall be varied to reflect traditional lot width. • The faVade 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. fagade 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 faVade. (e.g. at a minimum, the front 40 feet may be no more than two stories in height.) 1.26 Buildings on sites comprising more than two traditional lot widths shall achieve a minimum of two of the following: • Variation in height of building modules across the site • Variation in massing achieved through upper floor setbacks, the roofscape form and variation in upper floor heights • Variation in building facade heights or cornice line Since this site is comprised of only one traditional lot width these standards are not applicable. 1.27 A new building should step down in scale to respect the height, form and scale of a historic building within its immediate setting. 1.28 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 fr of the side property line adjacent to the historic structure within the same block face. This development does not involve any new buildings and there are no single -story historic buildings adjacent to this property. D. Floor Area (FAR) Bonus Section 26.415.110(E) of the Code allows the HPC to grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet to the 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; and Consistency with the applicable guidelines has been demonstrated above. 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; and/or 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 26 The building will be officially designated as historic, and it will remain the key element of the property. Since the addition is proposed on the alley side of the building and the renovation will not alter the historic part of the building, the visual integrity will be completely maintained. c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; and/or The building will be preserved and its historic appearance will be virtually the same as it is now, with the exception of the following historic restoration efforts. The deck off the apartment, on the street -facing fagade, has a "temporary" canvas canopy to provide shade and protection from snow. The applicant envisions replacing this non -historic element with a photovoltaic canopy that will help with energy efficiencies while allowing light to penetrate and pass through to the arched openings on the building facade, thereby adaptively and creatively simulating the original design intent. The proposal also involves reinstating Brickham-designed arched elements above the existing awning windows through the installation of metal applications cut into the stucco spandrels to simulate the original arched windows and create shadow lines. d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; and/or e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or The addition will use construction materials of the highest quality. The additions 40 foot setback from the front facade, as well as the complementary but different building materials that are proposed for this new portion of the building will ensure an appropriate transition that defines the historic building and the new construction. g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or No historic outbuildings exist on the subject property. h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained. All of the development proposed will take place on the alley side of the building. The historic site and landscape features along Hyman Avenue will be retained. In order to be eligible for a 500 square foot FAR bonus, a project must meet standard "a," above and one or more of standards b-h. The Code provides at Section 26.415.110(E)(2) that projects which demonstrate consistency with multiple elements of standards b-h will have a greater likelihood of being awarded additional floor area. The foregoing has demonstrated complete consistency with standard "a," as required. In addition, 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 27 consistency with standards b, c, d, e, f and h has been assured as a result of this application. (Standard g is not applicable as there are no historic outbuildings on the subject property.) This proposal is clearly more than eligible for the 500 square foot bonus. E. Parking Waiver Section 26.515.030 of the Code establishes the number of off-street parking spaces needed for various types of development, and provides that one space is required for every 1,000 net leasable square feet of commercial space. Alternatively, cash -in -lieu for 100 % of the required commercial spaces is allowed by right. The proposed renovation of this property will create an additional 935 square feet of net leasable area, resulting in the need for less than one parking space (0.935 of a space). Developmental benefits currently available to Landmark designated properties under Section 26.420.020(B)(1)(e) of the Code include a parking waiver and a waiver of cash -in - lieu fees for sites unable to contain the required number of off-street parking spaces. There are already several off-street parking spaces associated with this property, and said parking will remain after the renovation. There is no further opportunity for additional on - site parking, however, there is ample street parking surrounding this property. Any development of additional on -site parking would adversely affect the integrity of the historic resource. As such, the applicant requests a parking waiver from the HPC in association with the Landmark Designation and Conceptual approval requested herein. II. Community Development Director Review Requirements Pursuant to Section 26.470.060 of the Code, the Community Development Director (CDD) has the ability to approve, approve with conditions, or deny certain Growth Management applications. Subsection (4) thereof allows for the approval of a minor enlargement of a Historic Landmark for commercial, lodge or mixed -use development as long as certain criteria are met. The criteria applicable to this development hold that: if the development increases both floor area and net leasable space, up to four (4) employees generated by the additional space shall not require the provision of affordable housing; and no more than one free- market residence may be created. This proposal seeks to increase FAR by approximately 2,260 square feet, and will increase the net leasable area by approximately 935 square feet on an upper floor (generating only 2.88 FTE [935/1000 x 3.075 = 2.875], per the standards of Code Section 26.470.100(A)(1)). No new free-market residences are proposed, rather there will be only an addition to an existing residence. Therefore, this proposal satisfies the criteria for approval as a minor enlargement of a Historic Landmark and should be approved by the CDD concurrent with designation. 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 26 III. City Council Review Requirements In exchange for the voluntary historic preservation of this property, the benefits that the applicant is seeking from City Council include the following: • A modest code variation to accommodate the proposed free-market residential net livable area and Floor Area; • Waiver of any potentially applicable elevator and/or access requirements; and • Ten (10) years of vested property rights. A. Code Variations The allowable free-market residential FAR for this building is 0.5:1 or 1,500 square feet. The existing free-market residential FAR in the building is only thirteen (13) square feet below this limit. After the addition there will be 3,010 square feet of free-market residential FAR (1.003:1), with 511 square feet of that total in non -unit space (prorated circulation and non-exempt garage space). Therefore, of the total free-market residential Floor Area, only 83% (less than 2,500sf) will be part of the apartment itself. The maximum allowable multi -family dwelling unit size is 2,000 square feet of net livable area. The applicant would like to increase the net livable area of the existing residential unit to 2,259 square feet, which remains some 240sf below that allowed in this zone district with the purchase of a TDR. B. Waiver of Any Elevator and/or Access Requirements An elevator will add more height to the building and will take the project all the way to the 40' limit that is allowed only with Commercial Design Review approval. As can be seen on the attached plans, the building will be 40' on the alley side and approximately 39' on the Hyman Avenue side if an elevator is required. The elevator is shown on the plans to illustrate a "worst case" scenario in the event that the AspenModern negotiation does not result in the requested waiver. Stairs are currently required to access all levels of the building as the split-level layout does not contain a true street -level floor. If accessibility requirements are not waived and compliance cannot be met by changes to the rear of the building, the front entrance may need to be modified. However, it is the applicant's hope that the front facade of this building which is seeking Landmark designation and has never been accessible, will not have to be modified. C. Seven (Z7 Additional Years of Vested Property Rights Given the state of current economic times and the possibilty that AspenModern may be repealed, replaced or amended in the coming years, the applicant seeks 10 years of vested 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 29 • 0 property rights associated with the site specific development plan approved pursuant to this application so as to ensure an adequate degree of reliability on such approvals into the future. The community benefit of landmark designation will immediately be realized by the City and will never expire; seven years of additional vested property rights in exchange is reasonable. Further, this will enable phasing of construction related impacts on the neighborhood by allowing the applicant the ability to wait until other projects in the area, including the Aspen Art Museum, have been completed. Section V: Summary It is the applicant's desire to see the building at 610 East Hyman Avenue restored and preserved via historic landmark designation under the AspenModern program. As incentives and in exchange for this restoration and perpetual preservation effort, the applicant seeks benefits that are enumerated in the Code as appropriate for designated landmarks. As stated in Code Section 26.415.110, Benefits to encourage good historic preservation practices by owners of historic properties are an important aspect of Aspen's historic preservation program. Historic resources are a valuable community asset and their continued protection is the basic premise supporting the creation of an innovative package of preservation tools that are unlike any other in the country. AspenModern was adopted to address, through negotiation of incentives for designation, the negative impacts that the loss of landmark eligible buildings would have on the health, peace, safety, and general well being of the residents and visitors of Aspen, and the diminishment of Aspens unique architectural character, livability, and attractiveness as a destination. The applicant is offering assurances for the restoration and perpetual preservation of the building at 610 East Hyman Avenue in association with certain land use entitlements. The proposal outlined herein is fully worthy of City and community support. Furthermore, and in light of recent land use decisions in the nearby vicinity of this property, it is important for the City to support the landmark designation of this building and its continued contribution to the defining character, mass and scale of Aspen. It is felt that the requested incentives are not only modest but fully appropriate and warranted in an equitable exchange for providing the substantial community benefits described hereinabove and a valuable community asset by landmark designating a building that embodies the aesthetic achievements of Ellie Brickham, an internationally known architect who contributed significantly to Modern Era Aspen architecture. It is hoped that the requested approvals will be granted and the property will be added to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application • F.xhihitS: 1. Land Use Application & Dimensional Requirements Forms 2. Proof of Ownership 3. Pre -application Conference Summary 4. Authorization Letter 5. Fee Agreement 6. Mailing Addresses of Record for Property Owners' within a 300' Radius Attachments: • Existing Conditions Survey • Proposed Drawings and Elevations 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 31 0 • EIBIT ATTACHMENT 2 - Historic Preservation Land Use Applicatio PROJECT: Name: lDl V ma Location: C , t) S Lo M 0 C' (Indicate street address, lott7& block umber r metes and bounds description o property) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) PPLICANT: ame: ddress: man Avcco lone Fax#: E-mail: CAadeS CUnhl-(k 4 REPRESENTATIVE: i. / _ Pi ►" LOLA5P • i I YPE UY APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): NHistoric Designation ❑ Relocation (temporary, on ❑ Certificate of No Negative Effect ❑ or off -site) ❑ Certificate of Appropriateness ❑ Demolition (total ❑ -Minor Historic Development demolition) ❑ -Major Historic Development ❑ Historic Landmark Lot Split PQ -Conceptual Historic Development ❑ -Final Historic Development -Substantial Amendment XISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) - m Z V2- s4o m t xe 4- b y /o% n l cv a e a� � on 4 al S1d-e bur �/1 Ll ROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) S Ctd� l hr�, �re -� nab- V� ►,�'�D ri Ca,r 6 _ Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: May 29, 2007 Com • General Information 0 Please check the appropriate boxes below and submit this page along with your application. This information will help us review your plans and, if necessary, coordinate with other agencies that may be involved. YES NO ❑ Does the work you are planning include exterior work; including additions, demolitions, new construction, remodeling, rehabilitation or restoration? ❑ Does the work you are planning include interior work; including remodeling, rehabilitation, or restoration? ❑ X Do you plan other future changes or improvements that could be reviewed at this time? ❑ In addition to City of Aspen approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness or No Negative Effect and a building permit,, are you seeking to meet the Secretary of „; : ';.' • 'i "f 'e rk .', ,''the TnrtWr's Standards for' iRehabilitation or• restoration of a National Register of Historic Places property in order to qualify for state or federal tax credits? ❑ ❑ If yes, are you seeking federal rehabilitation investment tax credits in conjunction with this project? (Only income producing properties listed on the National Register are eligible. Owner -occupied residential properties are not.) ❑ ❑ If yes, are you seeking the Colorado State Income Tax Credit for Historical Preservation? Please check all City of Aspen Historic Preservation Benefits which you plan to use: ❑ Rehabilitation Loan Fund ❑ Conservation Easement Program (Dimensional Variances ❑ Increased Density ❑ Historic Landmark Lot Split X Waiver of Park Dedication Fees ❑ Conditional Uses AExemption from Growth Management Quota System ❑ Tax Credits Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: May 29, 2007 0 • Project: Applicant: Proj ect Location: Zone District: Lot Size: Lot Area: ATTACHMENT 3 - Dimensional Requirements Form (Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.) DC �JU►MArl Cayvoa►esi' hcfirmt MU�orbe�elop—C' `'"'� 616 E --&ma Y) AV-P- , fsoefi � C0 (For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: a, �� Proposed: �J Number of residential units: Existing: _Proposed. Number of bedrooms: Existing:Proposed: Z Proposed % of demolition: DBMNSIONS: (write n/a where no requirement exists in the zone district) Floor Area: Existing: Z• S� --41 g: Proposed: 7/500 S Heisht 3-? nor �,�p d) ,3/7 Principal Bldg.: Existing o�% ��/ ,, Allowable.YD �011hi C P posed. Accessory Bldg.: Existing: 111 6 Allowable: Proposed: On -Site parking: Existing:__,5Required: Proposed: % Site coverage: Existing. ? Required.• A11,A Proposed: Nd c4aR 9gf % Open Space: Existing: � Required.• WA Proposed: N0 C� pngQ Front Setback: Existing: lajf . Required.• /�/ A Proposed: o arl0� L Rear Setback: Existing: Non p Required: N/� Proposed: 0 C Combined Front/Rear: Indicate N. S. E. W Existing: Required: N/A Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: Required.• Proposed. Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: 0 Combined Sides: Existing: Required:Proposed:_ Distance between Existing: _Required: N Proposed. buildings: Existing non -conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued: Variations requested (identify, the exact variances needed): Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: May 29, 2007 E • EXHIBIT Original Note and Deed of Trust Returned to: 610 EAST HYMAN LLC, 610 EAST HYMAN AVE, ASPEN, CO 8I611 WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Customer at aboveaddress Prcpared/Reeeived by. Mary Pith ' REQUEST FOR FULL (X ) /PARTIAL ( ) RELEASE OF DEED OF TRUST AND RELEASE BY OWNER OF INDEBTEDNESS WIT7IOur PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE OF DEBT PURSUANT TO §38419d02 (1) AND (3), COLORADO REVISED STATtfrES) JUNE 30. 2009 Date 670 FAST HYMAN- LLC Original Grantor (Borrower) 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 Clureni Address of Original Grantor, Assuming Party, or CurrentOwner ( ) Check here if wmt address is unknown. NORWEST BANK COLORADO NATIONAL ASSOCIATION Original Beneficiary (Lender) JANUARY 7. 1999 Date of Deed of Trust JANUARY 25. 1999 Date of Recording and/or Re-RecordingorDeed of Truss PITIQN County of Recording 426913 ofRocorded Deed ofTrust Reception No. Andfor Film No, and/or Book NojPage Na. TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF PITKIN County (rhe County of the Public Trustee who is the appropriate grantee to whom the above Dead of Trust should grant and interest in the property described in the Deed of Trust) PLEASE EXECUTE AND RECORD A RELEASE OF THE ABOVE -DESCRIBED DEED OF TRUST. The indebtedness secured by the Deed of Trust has been filly or partially paid and/or the purpose of the Deed of Trust has been fully or partially satisfied in regard to the pmperty encumbered by the Deed of Tr ust as described therein as to a full release or, in the event ofa partial release, only that portion ofthe real property described as: (IF NO LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS LISTED THIS WILL BE DEEMED A FULL RELEASE) Pursuant to §38-39-102 (3), Colorado Revised Statutes, in support orthis Request of Release of Decd or rrmt, the undersigned, as the owmrr ofthe evidence ordebt secured by the Deed of Trust described above, ores Tide Insurance Company authorizedto request the mime ofa Dad of Trust Nisuanl to §38.39.102 (3) ©, Colorado Revised Statutes, in lieu of the production or eabibition ofibe original evidence ofdebt with this Request for Release, certifies as follows: I. The purpose ofthe Deed of Trust has been fully or partially satisfied 2. The original evidence of debt is not being exhibited or produced herewith. 3. It is one ofthe following entities check applicable box): a- (X) The holder of the original evidence of debt that is a qualified holder. Its specified in §na9-102(3) (a), Colorado Revised Sulfites. that agroes that is obligated to indemnify the Public Trustee for any and all damages, casts, tiabillfim and reasonable attorney fees incurred ass result of the 'action of the Public Trustee taken in accordance with this Request for Releases:. b. ( ) The hatderofthe evidence ofdebt rnquesrfng the release ofa Deed ofTrast witbout producing or exhibiting the original evidence ofdebt that delivers to the Public Tnatee a Corporate Surly Bond u specified is §3&39-102 (3) (bl Cotondo Revised Smlw.: or e. ( ) A Title Imuranee Company licensed and qualified in Colorado, as specified in §1839-IO2 (3) 0, Colorado Revised Statutes, that sure= that it is obligated to Ziemnify rho Public Trustee for any and all damages, costs, liabilities, and reasonable attorney fees incurred as a result ofthe action of the Public Trustee oo in accordance wish this Requcn for Release: Wells Fargo Bank. National Association formerly Wells Faro Bank West N.A. formerly Nomcg Bank Colorado N.A. 119 S. Mill St- Asocn. CO $1611 Name and Addr=of the Holder of the Evidence of Debt Secured by Deed of Trust (Lender) Or name and address ofthe Title insurance Company Authorised to Request the Release ofa Deed of Trust Dan . cni rViee .'dent Wells Fame, 1 11 Na a Tide an A errs of Leer, Agent, or Attorney of the Flolderof the Evidence of Debt Secured by Deed of Trust (Lender) State of Colorado, County of fl7/-r6r • t The foregoing Request for Release was acknowledged before me on e June 30 9 (date) by" �� a �''��o Witness my hand and official seal S Op C(ri- O/ Z Date Commission Expires Notary Public RELEASE OF DEED OF TRUST WHEREAS, the above referenced Grantor(s), by Dad of Trust. conveyed certain real property described in said Deed of Trust to the Public Trustee ofthe County referenced above, in the State of Colorado, to be held in trust to secure the paymentofthe indebtedness referred to therein; and WHEREAS, the indebtedness secured by the Dad of Trust has been fully or partially paid and/or the purpose of the Deed of Trust has been fully or partially satisfied according to the written request of the holder of the widener of debt or Tide Insurance Company authorized to request the release of the Deed ofT-sr, NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the payment of the statutory sum, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, 1, as the Public Trustee in the County first referenced above, do hereby fully and absolutely release, canal and forever discharge the Deed of Trust or thprporcion of the real properrj-eesm- ib-d above in the Deed of T:vst, togcdxc with all privileges and appurtenances (hereto belonging. Executed on Q 1 �7J 1 dJ Jl M ByNorma Avila Deputy Public Trustee Pitkin County, Colorado Notarization not required per § 38-35-106 C.R.S Witness my hand and Date N—q Pualic (trapplimbta Nsme and Add— of Perwa C—i'll Ncv t.rrrt orw;Puo •S y'y/�r�3aST`td�t�f Rcv;xd Smimcs) Old Paid loon 2009 CPTA. All Rights reserved -`''J " Rev. 04/08 RECEPTION#: 560371, 06/3012009 at 11:56:46 AM, 1 OF 1, R $6.00 Doc Code RLS DT Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO D D 9 DEED OFTRUST `4� ST (Colorado) /! t. Grareor. 610 cast Ny^ , LLC A/Tic/N c� 1449 610 Eaat nyn Ave. AaP—, CO 81611 �A i 2. BerleffCiafy:NORWEST aANNC COLORAM, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION Ty 119 SOUTH ba= STR88T ASPEN, CO 81621 3. Trustee: The Public Trustee for the County in which the property is located. 4, property The following land inPYTrst1 County. Colorado LOT N6, HLOCK 99, CITY AND TOWNSITE oP ASPEN. CODNT4 OF PITEIt7, STATE OF COLORADO S. Obligations: (a) Ail Indebtedness evidenced and created by the following described promissory note (the 'Note-) payable to the order of Beneficiary and all renewals, exronslons and amendments thereof and substkulions therefor. Date. Jaau9_^y 07. 1999 Amount: $260,000.00 Plva Int.ereat MaturiryDate, Febtvazy 00. 1999 . Maker (if other than Grantor Chariot L. ££- (b) future advances made by Benoffciaryon or before the marurtydate of the Note plus [merest thereon provided arty regelred notice of right to rescind or cancel has been given; (c) all expandituros made or Incurred by benefIcery pusumnt to the provislors nt the Note and this deed of trust together with interest thereorL (d) other. 8: Construcdon Mortgage: H chocked here () this deed of trust secures an indobtedrmss for construction purposes as described In CRS (1973) section 4-9313 THE GRANT. TERMS AND CONDMONS BELOW AND ON THE REVERSE SIDE ARE A PART OF THIS DEED OF TRUST AND ARE HEREBY INCORPORATED INTO rr. Date: Jaanary 07, 1999 610 San Hy>:an, LLC K Char1rta L. Caurt.ffe, kara&ex Adast Co.ovmer, spouse or other claimant of a right wldt respect to thereat property described above Joins In granting the fien and waiver set forth In paragraph 13 of this deed of m,sr, but not assume any robStyfor payment of the Note. Date: Januar,r 07, 1999 � I[IIII 11111 tlllll Illl IIQIiI III IIIIIII )iE NI[I �11 [III 425913 01/25/IM 0$:09P DT DHY1S SILVI STATEOFCOLORADO ) 1 of 2 R 1i.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 [ r=" CoUNT1r Co ss. C O Arrr OF PI-rKl ref ) The foregoing Instrument was aci0wxlLdgerd rbefore me ttilS { _day Of by l �ariC� 1,Ani Ytt_ Witness my hand and ooi Ial My commission expires �� (� �•'��� 9hOF CCA� ,.,,......ueacxw EITIRE4 No'<S. 20= N . d-1 . . ownc wr.w.emm.m.dmnavnw �.mh•••.w.w..,+WPmwMFTNn...pp.awda.u� .ImnamRnm�...�a wom+...r.r. accnwga.udrA7ngtblw Ttomcea,,rp.�rtlRYw�m«weeTmn bnW+•f1w,w.awue.m Tu t+oP.M...nl.al•wn. ur wa wwatl Vv.rorrrwnnndru.rwOy M. W abumWmm Yv.ns rYJ•Ww.a�aa TnN p..r.l brimN nw6n..an w Dey.lra a CrwM1Knrww.Urr.rJ.•wb W.'Y'..<blm egw.ulyJwOeapauw mY..pw Wdar..rr«W'gbwutgnbJ gwouwnN .•e w���•mw.owamKv.Na.rrin.,ym.....l,wn..w,m. aaynalo.s.r.bYJb .mrn+ry d•.dgm.[Matw.rd .dlayMrl wrJ al.Lrauaa w rww ' ••rd [aar.veurJnne...YJrn g4awPmsNw mtb P«n'�Y r rE.r.Matlighn.p+al W Pnb.% rr.«Hnfrrpb..w•aerrn a [n�.[art;lQ m•q.bw n.NaaN galtinr s[rwau. w mf.rb.d ro..wyeNwrma b.n omwf •quV b w Ld bau•Warw•d as mpn+..w.0 WYwpry,w • rbtim+y WYrrWn.JrUauq�pg4yPmuq.w JN wuM1 eemP.'A•.vr JM �peoadM&"d�Y"m'f'^'�"Y Mmv .aYwbdPJY•w Nrgpn rddaTvw pr.:.dNw.r.+te e.n.ael.y. vab ammimr wP«.aaiawrm+m.n.n.. aow.mbwe.,,.n..l.�.mT. cq.....s awae.nw.aurnYdw.RmoN+rRaJw..rD.adw WC➢mare.wnwn•iyvvy.ae.w.mborw.plam.ve. wawMw vybv.orw..W.At r..rdWGrb.wwPmoJYNorAmrmJvl w npdrwame.Jwnm.rro.,w;Maabm.,r.n«wra.anCen «wnvaarrybaw..�r+.-'-rrrdryu.nrenw tbRuyJvad Ta Morw.ann m�Jq IXBYnNrluy,w nab eJpn Or alnmtinon d..Rop+lY.'.wabbMcrsy,Wbr«Mlrlf�•nN-a. w.r.w 0^4Y «aN.bru wJ Ib.a, MV�ov.. NnudrtyWlbsaVwvimn^u•.m^m^ pw.°`WY w Pmpo-yr src Y a.qw Nwarwd ry.Jen « wm.dm[ wuk,rrmbJ.aw a.aP.,y.w wcmh a.J amd «tw�.ara.N[.gF. Wan ww.N wbf.ra wmowr andany a JT.m w baemnp venN+twa4vnw NIN^�ys mnatgM.ua.aba«w«a.0.^G lnl su wp,aw•ea,aw,.ad rn w..m.raw ma..mdbr.« w Yywy«d.o-p.a Ill wro.M'« urowhnw...d a ae d am..rsww•wJ+d+[ a c•a IotNrrvmry w aw s•apl.a ty 2.u[r1.y Ad mom wmmgmm NeutlYp+mw 4m NWbyou,.eclry Now,nnrn.mrwm...d.wwwva.w WnawPq w.a«.Nw d p.^.TdN. vmoN.'dam. omOro.wu..uq�rar w. a e. waaon.cr, R�^�Craw ar a.m w PM^^• ^rea.•.0 w au.6.n,�mNTbanartlTGvawdry bb Vngp�fyvynny,.Isrrw.wroA.•,mb«ur bsmrn osr utr�rRM�srrr /« amLW.bw N6! rNeswsr w.Cawnh tits rq w n.�tarn.ard Mauer.wr..a ww+. ana.am.nr:na.m0 M p.n.1W.yN w..rSea WwdW. bauYnf Jenyi m.., V Wlsmindr Yw,re.wy.w,aq naeww.rdmY M N. w P•Yrera s drone W JW ew MrN q w nhondm l.a. aw ryewrneyruw; W d w r•pnCdbsNLry.abPeri Jn Bo-mu+W r.n norN.numuK.Vsib«baaafR aw.Nn.uad Grow r•d.tlr W...w.��bMw TepaMNwn.rvi gdw.ae.a.nrJ Lrauv P'r'rfr. b[. cgbo b M^nFMasurNmaW.noa r.ouN4.rW Iq m.upY ew.vr.W'Dmiror'wa. rraertw.dnym+b.Aoo-w..1 Nw drdw6 f. tb+tvnagrY Con.m.N Nd.mlmF W Omnarawvwv w aWeaa PYm[ Pnprly h.ol asnP/ w wgo-Y q vyew.M ««parq VJ[mbn Iwpm.eye.r....aa.r.d.aw�oo.p.v.wmdgwoim.m'm+pmwnueo a.w.m.w�..wr i...rr..a T. w..nde,.a<n+.w.4a.4w.. «Ta PnnnryrU mt �[T Cwaumwbn«fu..lnvd WwnNVlx, aM roCM.bMrbndMgr.afa4nJ.Wbn.ebma.11«bpwrvy s w nd..m. P.oP.M uatm,m roam pm owrana«ar m+�pK P.rmfa � r[.t«tlwnarf wm«.emewa�+a�..rP.,....« «.wmwu.mw. w,.piexnw ownnenl-cw Plw croo.NhN.nnd� �.mduNwc+. -- w. Pl mFgp�oo.a adw, banmdrw nogrnaa.. o-werY rec ea,.,ww.Nard., rw..e.... p.addydu,.y.wb.nyw Jd.Ng.mo.u.w+. w.¢noT bnm.... FrsrsanYnwn a..maon.Ran•Yrra w.wr..a..A ma. �v.wnry b.wnq N,e.., wwWno.m. rmrmayu' w ww.na Oypwaaany d .Mr.oy�.mia«dwpwawr.v<npw.�y.mr«.spdw:.eU q.M•mancwFm.. +IN.«+pm.wn T.�r.�u.«.ao.rw f..m•WW.•nlrros orrr WrwRewM.drarrwmtrua. Long N.Le�N:dubnd Medromved /artrq�Idon MweW.e TM Nar.Wy army Na be.[nr.yrerwwx..ryusde[ay.M.rod.... quit e..adwx (a rn•I.ma cb'. 'nAw«^-'•_ti�.quE n..nln• r.a.rwd�w.r.nyae.r>.rd.«by.w....,.w.w.ma«.m..P.r.er.»=•e.«,.pananT..n,�e.«w�a.®mo, Wn , a Trrnna . �.r.r.n.[....... Wt.e.n,.n m..aw eurwN WnW Ja.MwR pine nw.vmm r.. pdo,.ule.n co...+a tNnJavy al�7+m�s o- per[nan..rmPN.ur m w.won aT. e.ndoq YP.we.a W cobada wwln.n in J.e ewRcy�.yi.vd.T.f.w« aouw W oap.�mr.owmmon b u o«..a m w n.nd..w �.Pw..M �w.�naur...-.�«.d nrhr a�...w.w awroN^�Ne.w[nwd N.e to..r eAd+. myn..s.ramr P,oP.rty. IOw.KOd+at Tn.amnvo.d MaMla'wn¢.eW mmauw anwv[daarwYe�va...IV ar.wanN.r.yrv� pJpJww. pJ[.d.•m prdwmwo6a.nr uryom.roa...N wN.n.a TM.r..e.:wavrrvw.carry wnr.V.�'• W n M a..wvrbn.rumYlnaar...aea+.m e..MOJr.ti M vy.mrrry,,om.mtlen «aWarvJdNWw�n W.a..aof hu.l«oTardaamJ•«vwiwamem.Kiryeyw onewvaO�wnya... �. nn.l�.w N ry �vuW zanaavrnnus IXRmWnC IN acsnd,aud Wna d,rnr.rm.d T. �Iwr. K wannNKmM..• 41.. d•aep.l.r..wd..alwb ..ry PJaw pa(+Md, mKrresbwtiVl daeeF[. q.arw wTarrc..�.Aa Mw°«'gnp wbr qy •rnv«cyw:.a+.byi►+yr.pgrd Gndw w.N quvYgq a mr Ohtpgb� w (•1 f aoa sm m.f d by Bga«Lry f ua em On yldon. N u..ayw.y a.wrr « w. w Pm.tw w pqr. m w P.dwra.m.aa,yaT.tmpJwmh mbww. rTNa.wgw.rpn.nae.ew.wobapJe.a «.Pr+aa<wwWn a.�een.axvo1ol.+q«egrJ«d�n. w..n..�w«.�ydw.m...ww�a.wraww.q,rrP.e m.wra�.rP..a,. iP.ar9v VswD-Upon Ta wamar.drry wAgawwa•p.wGf^Naua wloww.prywam.nnwa..nb. an[suNmnreur-0a wy b..rNwaYn«.mnE mow. aM Mi.nrvY br.rdba vprray, bbaPrW.rify«eoncunruy w nu. v.u.arw M bfN«oq� o-+awTwRM to W d�..d rwb, wJM[J.mnpRm �Aa e.iw[cbrybamrs ortdngr.nedr n.rwwr«nNm p.n.ddny,nrynmrw tYw, w WwA �.ovaawv�.iwlnf•.aawide�. «vwr..Yw+wJ«Wry pwwaa' 14 maN.•vyw.a dwObrp.dW V.n.O.mN au. Npy.oYV lol b b..�a+.pea..d�•�.n.T�gwmxpdw Psp.N.sme.Jrw errWnw w.YYw rm..wdOd+r rd rorb..ran.swwan«m � r p.Imwry.wy a.....r.�y r drMaV tU b wra w aer ryrm J �w, car .na waY. f mn Is PeP.b w b qpy Tn w fr Ouvpmw m.rym.nngwmwnµ.«,mbwn...a W Paorry, eleniv MrrMNvmddAV n, wo-+-www. mer..o.. gowr+o.va. mnpomymc.MrwdIw MYI. wvpemYarrq.P.11n.nrl nc.M. b•Ta TosM«dw rrrtahnn•w a..Bn V.n.d.«bar.. W b I.arnul bsb neJr.mwaAGH.eran ^Yr.bw�.w�aydW P�.nru.•e..u.,y dvN..a/vawa.wer «vu+.r[mruuawsW A'mecn ronr•,du. d.d-aNpw pgYpw•vw•adwN.warw.uhalrcWNU.mmN+braMivltlW�cPr .o MfAfY°^^•N .wvMwdw ngwwnK Nlbmnoon wawa asv.rTmupn wTiwwwMpnwmuaruro..M1 .+/oe.m.no ns.e.^�.o�•wum.rrdw PimaNvvrylawbaw.+Yr.[IwWnia'•6avq..wwpnV. inrrw wa.mpn br mums Wewwblry mryeWnrW ab.w�rV..ww�r.rdwRo d.nyb.qwv.a•N:rlondar.nbnr•nuwgnuwTmm•.rurmrbwan" "b.crdua.r Nls mrwrwn.b.agw aadllr q,uaCbiw.owRa d•.n.b GmmrviRMvrMrvpn..a dGWN. Y..Y.rJNws.WC 4awprory Undo- rr.by.alnaJ rgFa Tq LSOMwnVynr N arow rw., ,M v.nwn•vtwwaMlbew.M..bryY.�mrmuur.riy rnMrM •nob SuC.rYnduasan4rvmvybfgor.v wrunar.m rovry.aaanpuw� q rr'wW..rmwf.r..-r..u.a uy rmu.brm•don AVM is YefwRurav: W Tb a..daNv.arrnawo-wem Wls bNmnprpo-. W n.bar.re^d iw�v.a......mwwn mNr.ajis aOnu+or W 4w91w.. ton. uYnrNdnlTn ,TetwNAngY�tawlo.w ww...q�e gTnbs.a wmw rye.rrn..o «.naan.a w.Nsr.n.rn..r+nwl.�.wn. W MMN'«rpJ.lo.-.,,. aamm.nt nwirr. M iY+rr®Vngw,-LWO+y; Thdn; T.rPJV:'0![pmbnt' bMTlaf'maiw Npggvan.I Trwpb S r.waaa.N-gITIwT�w.•.M'.ur.n prGrdand Or ILb,dWya.o.➢Kw aVasiQdJM+vm.agq/G1eNq Irlaw0lYdJdofourrrhnf VAlvgoaNp v msYrsv aw mlpJw+Fl y can n'.non.Nrroc.[ N.am+W m+aw. a[u.Or.f a+.J.mRwWfa•v+dawry W i.+Truo-w mryrarrpw dAw rp..Mae..w0.ndaNd..adewWm•wnyr.ad BwwnywwnYne.wq.ny AabwwWy Mn. J+rymNMbwneWw.rorWR+pM«.pliJ Urrro.W P.vu. o.w Or.dbbyapnm•W IsrvprMw...ddvywwlWYIN[Mee+.EM..rW.d.M�Afi4Nb•.wM1durywlrpud Edw.1 P11MwnwngbrWarw _._� •.-mwYM«m..rnP'tldtym.dwdaNJNtl WbrNnD fNmrb[br0mnmrlqu[E.dswaYM.lrsY.4 n+ww.wN,ran+«.0 a...., e.«e, ..d,...p,r,y.ar:.rwwwwm.r. Rrammm b. ty.tYNAbdrv.a 9bfna✓Y rtuw.y rtM brfrrW Mr.wbw•. w.wfr.n.,.or[fwww.aww.J.rr Iron T.rN isw Trowmrafm.hoprN.I^M prpa^dr[ef..Uwwrory.wmyrmmypr,mtw•d....lJnr+Csapamw,w rol...ri•wesmtl rrVM1.a IMiilmillWill1111Ilion 1111ln1111Im lit lit 2 of 2 R 11.00 00 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN CotKTY CO • EXHIBIT OF ASPEN 3CITY PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Amy Guthrie DATE 03.21.12 PROJECT: 610 E. Hyman Avenue REPRESENTATIVE: Charles Cunniffe Architects; Haas Land Planning TYPE OF APPLICATION: Historic Designation and AspenModern negotiation for preservation incentives DESCRIPTION: The owner of 610 E. Hyman wishes to remodel the building to expand residential living space. In 2010, an application for voluntary designation/AspenModern was initiated, and reviewed by HPC at two hearings before the applicant decided to terminate the effort. A new application may be filed now to renew pursuit of land use approvals and incentives that facilitate the proposed expansion. The project will return to HPC for review of the property's qualifications for landmark designation. UPC will also conduct a Conceptual review of proposed exterior alterations to the building. City Council will make the final determination on designation and incentives. If designation is completed, the applicant will return to UPC for Final design review. Land Use Code Section(s) that may be applicable: 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.412 Commercial Design Review 26.415.030 Designation of historic properties 26.415.070 Development involving designated historic property 26.415.110 Benefits 26.470 Growth Management 26.515 Off-street Parking 26.575 Miscellaneous Supplementary Regulations 26.710.150 C-1 Zone District Review by: Staff for complete application and GMQS exemptions Historic Preservation Commission (Designation, Design Review, Incentives) Council (Designation, Incentives) Public Hearing: Yes at HPC and Council. Planning Fees: $4,410 Deposit for 14 hours of staff time (additional staff time required is billed at $315 per hour) Referral Fees: None. Total Deposit: $4,410 Total Number of Application Copies: HPC: 10 Copies Council: 10 Copies To apply, submit the following information: 1. Total Deposit for review of application. 2. Applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. • 3. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 4. Completed Land Use Application. 5. Signed fee agreement. 6. Pre -application Conference Summary. 7. An 8 1/2" x I I" vicinity map locating the subject parcels within the City of Aspen. 8. Proof of ownership. 9. Existing and proposed site plan, landscaping plan, and parking plan. 10. Existing and proposed floor plans and elevation drawings that include proposed dimensional requirements. 11. A site improvement survey that includes all existing natural and man-made site features. 12. A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how a proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. 13. A written description of proposed construction techniques to be used. 14. All other materials required pursuant to the specific submittal requirements. 15. List of adjacent property owners within 300' for public hearing. The GIS department can provide this list on mailing labels for a small fee. 920.5453 16. Applications shall be provided in paper format (number of copies noted above) as well as the text only on either of the following digital formats. Compact Disk (CD) -preferred, Zip Disk or Floppy Disk. Microsoft Word format is preferred. Text format easily convertible to Word is acceptable. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. City of Aspen Community Development Dept. 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 610 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen (PID# 2737-182-12-004) Historic Designation and AspenModern Negotation To whom it may concern: As owner of the above referenced property, I hereby authorize Haas Land Planning, LLC (HLP) to act as my designated and authorized representative for the preparation, submittal and processing of the application requesting the approvals listed above, as well as, any subsequent applications that may be associated therewith. HLP is also authorized to represent me in meetings with City staff, the Historic Preservation Commission, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Aspen City Council. Should you have any need to contact us during the course of your review, please do so through Haas Land Planning, LLC. Yours truly, GLk-c� 610 E. Hyman LLC by Charles Cunniffe 610 E. Hyman Ave Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 925-5590 EXHIBIT Agreement to Pay Application Fees fin agreement oetween Ine UTV oT Hsoen (laty ) ano Property �i, U C L L.C_ Phone No.: Owner ("I"): - QY t" i Email: CI1G✓�t'S �C,Ui1✓1iE'.• F�)r11 Address of Property: I l�' TTL�i'1�)(.;rlt; e_ Billing Address: 5���� (subject of application) ,�c / ��;� P��� c (send bills here) I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No. , Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications and the payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application. For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are non-refundable. $.0 flat fee for Select Dept $ 0 flat fee for Select Dept $ 0 flat fee for Select Dept $ flat fee for 0 Select Review For deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review, and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services. have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for non-payment. I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not render an application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated. $ 4,410 deposit for 14 hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $315 per hour $ deposit for hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $265 per hour. City of Aspen: Property Owner: Chris Bendon Community Development Director Name: 6tY&F'"73 w►''►��� City Use: 4410 Title: January, 2012 City of Aspen 1 130 S. Galena St. 1 (970) 920-5090 0912/0. ®tiaAV oaAe algl;edwoo ww Lg x ww gZ terwot op a8anblt3 EXHIBIT 8/09 [C@ faaAV ql!m algl}edwoo ,,8/g Z x „ I- azls lage� I 308 HUNTER LLC ; 14 SKIERS LP 517 EAST HOP ,490 WILLIAMS ST 1108 NORFLEET DR 517 E HOPKIN DENVER, CO 80218 NASHVILLE, TN 372201412 ' ASPEN, CO 81 520 EAST COOPER PTNRS LLC i 530 HOPKINS LLC 630 EAST HYMAN LLC 402 MIDLAND PARK 5301/2 E HOPKINS 532 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 �i 633 SPRING II LLC j 635 E HOPKINS LLC ALPINE BANK ASPEN ATTN ERIN WIENCEK 418 E COOPER AVE #207 532 E HOPKINS PO BOX 10000 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 i GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 j I ARCADES ASSOCIATES LTD LLC KRUGER & CO ASPEN ART MUSEUM ASPEN BLOCK 99 LLC C/O 590 N MILL ST 532 E HOPKINS AVE 400 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN CORE VENTURES LLC j ASPEN PLAZA LLC PO BOX 1709 AUSTIN LAWRENCE CONNER LLC 418 E COOPER AVE #207 ; C/O STEVE MARCUS 532 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 I BATTLE GERALD LIVING TRUST AVP PROPERTIES LLC ' BASS CAHN 601 LLC HIXON BURT LIVING TRUST 630 E HYMAN AVE #25 'PO BOX 4060 PO BOX 2847 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 iNEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 BAUM ROBERT E BERN FAMILY ASPEN PROPERTY LLC BG SPRING LLC PO BOX 1518 165 FIRST NECK LN 300 S SPRING ST #202 STOCKBRIDGE, MA 01262 SOUTHAMPTON, NY 11968 ASPEN, CO 81611 i BOOGIES BUILDING OF ASPEN LLC BISCHOFF JOHN C 502 S VIA GOLONDRINA C/O LEONARD WEINGLASS BORGIOTTI CLAUDIO 9610 SYMPHONY MEADOW LN TUCSON, AZ 85716-5843 1534 E COOPER AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 VIENNA, VA 22192 CHATEAU ASPEN CONDO ASSOC CHATEAU ASPEN UNIT 21-A LLC 1421 CICUREL CARY 630 E COOPER AVE ASPEN AIRPORT BUSINESS CTR 2615 N LAKEWOOD ASPEN, CO 81611 STE G I ASPEN, CO 816113551 CHICAGO, IL 60614 COOPER STREET DEVELOPMENT LLC DUNN JUDITH A REV LIV TRUST EDGETTE JAMES J & PATRICIA C/O PYRAMID PROPERTY ADVISORS 8051 LOCKLIN LN 19900 BEACH RD STE 801 418 E COOPER AVE #207 COMMERCE TOWNSHIP, MI 48382 JUPITER ISLAND, FL 33469 ASPEN, CO 81611 label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery 05160/8160 Dinnn*n fin+nrmo+0r, mm v R7 mm nmmno+ihln ommn Aunnt rignipirf) 09 [.Q/091go tiaAV oane aigltedwoo ww Lg x ww gZ aewiot ap aatanbl}] I-8/091g) NaAV qpm algltedwoo „8/g Z x „ G azls logo I( S3��tl1S ERGAS VENESSA BLAIR & CLAUDE EXELCEDAR INC 20% PO BOX 4316 534 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 FITZGERALD FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LTD : , i FURNGULF LTD C/O PITKIN COUNTY DRY GOODS LLC A COLO JOINT VENTURE 520 E COOPER I 1616 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 .:,ASPEN, CO 81611 GOFEN ETHEL CARO TRUSTEE 455 CITY FRONT PLAZA CHICAGO, IL 60611 GREENWAY COMPANY INC 666 TRAVIS ST #100 SHREVEPORT, LA 71101 HOPKINS DEV LLC 345 PARK AVE 33RD FLR NEW YORK, NY 10154 JARDEN CORPORATION 2381 EXECUTIVE CENTER DR BOCA RATON, FL 33431 I JOYCE EDWARD ' 1310 RITCHIE CT CHICAGO, IL 60610 MALLARD ENTERPRISES LP 317 SIDNEY BAKER S #400 KERRVILLE, TX 78028 I MCMURRAY WILLIAM & HELEN 29 MIDDLE HEAD RD MOSMAN NSW 2088 AUSTRALIA, MYSKO BOHDAN D 1615 E HOPKINS ASPEN, CO 81611 GONE WEST LLC 1 401 W CENTER ' SEARCY, AR 721451406 GROSFELD ASPEN PROPERTIES j PARTNERS LLC 10880 WILSHIRE BLVD #2222 LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 HORSEFINS LLC 601 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 JENNE LLP 1510 WINDSOR RD AUSTIN, TX 77402 LCT LP TENNESSEE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP PO BOX 101444 NASHVILLE, TN 37224-1444 MARTELL BARBARA 1702 E HYMAN AVE j ASPEN, CO 81611 i MIAO SANDRA 9610 SYMPHONY MEADOW LN VIENNA, VA 22182 I NATTERER HELEN 67 BAYPOINT CRES OTTAWA ONTARIO CANADA K2G6R1, FERRY JAMES H III BOX 167 GLENCOE, IL 60022-0167 GELD LLC C/O LOWELL MEYER PO BOX 1247 ASPEN, CO 81612-1247 i GOODING SEAN A 80% & RICHARD L 20% C/O PARAGON RANCH INC 620 E HYMAN AVE #1 E 1 ASPEN, CO 81611 HIMAN LLC PO BOX 6159 SWANBOURNE WA 6010 AUSTRALIA, HUNTER PLAZA ASSOCIATES LLP 205 S MILL ST #301A ASPEN, CO 81611 JOSHUA & CO REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS LLC 300 S HUNTER ST ASPEN, CO 81611 LUCKYSTAR LLC PO BOX 7755 ASPEN, CO 81612 MASON & MORSE INC 514 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 MORRIS ROBERT P 600 E HOPKINS AVE STE 304 ASPEN, CO 81611 NIELSON COL STEVE & CAROL D i 501 S FAIRFAX ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery 05160/8160 ` kniw0p. rip. fnrmat 9.9 mm x 67 mm romnatihle avec Avery 05160/8160 0918/0915,@fd@AV aane alglfedwoa ww Lg x ww qZ }ewiof ap affanblfg 9/09 Lgo AMAV qpm alglfedwoo ,,q/q Z x ,, L azls lagel 0 NONNIE LLC I : OLITSKY TAMAR & STEPHEN P & L PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 565 I PO BOX 514 ; 101 S 3RD ST #360 ASPEN, CO 81612 GWYNEDD VALLEY, PA 19437 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501 ,I PITKIN CENTER CONDO OWNERS PITKIN COUNTY BANK 80% REVOLUTION PARTNERS LLC ASSOC 517 W NORTH ST 534 E HYMAN AVE PO BOX 1247 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ROTHBLUM PHILIP & MARCIA RUST TRUST RUTLEDGE REYNIE 40 EAST 80 ST #26A 9401 WILSHIRE BLVD #760 51 COUNTRY CLUB CIR NEW YORK, NY 10075 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 SEARCY, AR 72143 SCHNITZER KENNETH L & LISA L SHUMATE MARK I : SILVER DIP EQUITY VENTURE LLC 2100 MCKINNEY AVE #1760 1695 RIVERSIDE RD 12100 MCKINNEY STE 1760 DALLAS, TX 75201 ROSWELL, GA 30076 : ' DALLAS, TX 75201 SJA ASSOCIATES LLC SNOWMASS CORPORATION I STERLING TRUST COMP 418 E COOPER AVE #207 PO BOX 620 j 2091 MANDEVILLE CYN RD ASPEN, CO 81611 : 'BASALT, CO 81621 LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 STEWART TITLE CO C/O JENNIFER SCHUMACHER 1 l I SWEARINGEN WILLIAM F ! TAYLOR FAMILY INVESTMENTS CO PO BOX 936 i 450 CONWAY MANOR DR NW ATLANTA, GA 303273518 602 E HYMAN #201 ASPEN, CO 81611 TAYLORSVILLE, NC 28681 TENNESSEE THREE SEE THREE RENTALS I THOMPSON ROSS & LYNETTE PO BOX 101444 C/O J H COB LE C/O 1502 GREYSTONE DR NASHVILLE, TN 37224-1444 5033 OLD HICKORY BLVD I CARBONDALE, CO 81623 NASHVILLE, TN 37218-4020 I; ! TOMKINS FAMILY TRUST l�l ! TREUER CHRISTIN L ICI TROUSDALE JEAN VICK 520 E COOPER AVE #209 981 E BRIARWOOD CIR N 611 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 LITTLETON, CO 80122 I.I I ASPEN, CO 81611 •� ' VICTORIAN SQUARE LLC I WAVO PROPERTIES LP WEIDEL LAWRENCE W 418 E COOPER AVE #207 512 1/2 E GRAND AVE #200 PO BOX 1007 ' ASPEN, CO 81611 DES MOINES, IA 50309-1942 MONROE, GA 30655 I WISE JOSEPH WOLF LAWRENCE G TRUSTEE WOODS FRANK J III 11320 HODGES ST 22750 WOODWARD AVE #204 205 S MILL ST #301A RALEIGH, NC 27604-1414 FERNDALE, MI 48220 ASPEN, CO 81611 i 0 label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery 05160/8160 00 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery °5160/8160 0918/09G50,, AJOAV oane alcIgdwoo ww Lg x ww 9Z }ewaol ap 91400113 �9'l8/09 [90 AaaAV ql!m algltedwoo „8/9 Z x „t ozis la . . i WRIGHT CHRISTOPHER N YERAMIAN CHARLES REV TRUST 13 BRAMLEY RD PO BOX 12347 i LONDON W106SP UK, (ASPEN, CO 81612 I' i III� �.i I i it I 1 �I I I i i i go label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery 05160/8160 kiuette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 • h. o. Cg""� PLC REAR ALLEY FERSFEGTI VE STREET FRONT FERSFEGTIVE % STREET FRONT FE-RSFEGTIVE DRAW NQ Issm DATE: W/7 n JOB NO. 0832 SHEET NO. A1.1 1[ OFFµ,H4 . �H Vr �xI�F�R oPercf+ OAW�tR Imm "1"44 a7 ' tjplTtoN � ExfbTfj;14•' ' A STO�UP1•-.. . bAlbEMF- Pl AN N X'*jA4pt4f• DUIL9190i ON LOTS ri+o � _ 1 .. �.. . •\ -•• •: • .tom .� ! ., a ..J-4P6NTo r •I, � � ••�, ^.•j;'; OI.tTt?MRPOrMA • .NKVf.R�OP • �: ••� • � v+6 • � I,wxet,y>�uluwlKG oN LoY� K�I. ,0o,o1�r: �1�{e��•q�Hy��� � i I �ICrYJPt{i �r oPF/61TE ALAN -I-OT N\ N ® TrcP- v t I/ o� LJ4 �tit $ Ll _ NaytvesnwLe MA�tBR MhTlt1 �. W.f.c. _ .. -,Haut r,.eurrrA: ftodP i,¢,v�L PLAN Me 0 - u - • • NaWg EHI7RHE�J ">" SSt1E: _ _DA_iF: ' � exHsnN4 AT•y�.ri�[HS' • � ' A ruyat ,c? - 0 0-f I SHEH W. QW..Eig �vVEL PLAN 11-1\ A N&%y r41.,kZeN4:Q. AWM-WIHC r16.— r;?. org:o urPela LEVGL %-Vr�Ttpri- EL.It NeW. ccvApltiA e.t'4 7ijne aTEct- • Tp.kl.��,.p�i.�'Hyl.{i�E r-F1Ta ap CxIe'rili j-)S411.01NG buTUNa.oF At�JFa'Ftn' I.lLU' r. eKf9Tn+4 ..'r fv.Par I:l. Ih 41 rx'q Roo P+F1cK ,• EL,114 '-b'T _ .eX'G'+ -if; cart w..70� Sf 1p 1 1 ' I �7c'4 4�x.Irr-1 uIr— --- ------ --- -- _—_�� II II I ,#rerse�nl�,el i � - - -- •. . WE57 E4EVAT10N.. 1/6"= I o Y1fy11Nq- - kx�. snrcco I I - kG4E OF KXIbTIt;4 KU('-oj NA ' >1 . 1 =- �X'q.urr LCYGL _ •=i: '' —0Kf4h•!e nf-hW1 DENT bUiLvlri� 1 -- Ptcofr3 LEVCL U 1 • 1 1 � � H6W Lo/AOAKh IZMNTSGf.FRrt a?04MAIHLEVEL • "- -- rorF�xPt�nr1,� . Fac'uµ4/�1�— � � I-- rx'a CtNMA4r- E%'G ER LEVEL I i I .11 it f,I, EAST F-LEVATIQN. I//8 11 •o ------------ 'mm No —NEW PAIWASP COPPER Frenv. =VO rAxl. =NEW PAT1r�Eo t'�PPER PArte!- - - - �•: _ - - PCVFl GVEk. PDO� Lq - - -M 4R[O NHGK L f _-L'7c4i 5T11GL0 LU ( ac -4 _ �} .;�.• _ :GK'G ItpPE(t lCVtl� u A1.a1M. FM+1Y cy- ^' p � � E5t'ci1MIN l8VGL u _ LLI ai - W EICGMNNG� w LL � .- f c U <e SOUTH (HYMAN A.VE.)EL17YP.T10N g (A . LLJ 6 tj SYY tj N� LL S — U eaaroaca 70.r1Iftcv.-4- T-t-r." 1 i ��ttolvbta U AEfL T.Gvet Aop�roN NORT ALLEY ELty"'AtION ; 1/6 -p i o�kh• ;, I�5'�"c DATE: nano. sett SHEET NO. A3.1 �i:lil ML'f lAVR fYKltit 0 L7NCgziY .Trr r-ROPOEED Hr•V�Mnc+i1R GE�s;�M' 'y kOlG56P _NEv/ OFttCC �I�i '. PRP.Y�RP t-t ,rtr.v>Et t. 'hUf<Y P-xl�nrrG.csArn�.�� E.X16FIi{G r>7c'f:l.G- F` • Ncvr •�atJNt:tLK Er119fINQ r-&..4fcR — _ �� PAKIwar i fit. 127r q" `Y iEX�4h il s< -- -- '� - - - - �s)<I4TIIl.i JATYfJZ� elm - Ft.. 114-E�T 'Y tEwS'{llty }jYrdhrt %.� o I I ! _EXIOTIN4 AM.tN L E{_ . '. - • �1NT rCNTRY PL,1OO-O 6XI671Nc, . EA`rd�4•cY�FI�y �xt�71rtA - �S�tFtlr. 6UIi.DING 5CC:7lOP'1 S-E3 oPF.F7Y Iry r/J.6Tr..� T DRcln�ki` H Y/F�JEV. ku'la: ( T%tt.TlNq G/ IUp. i c x'a w ' �XIC-TINc1 sTJf�J-ttG FK13T11(r: ' .Rh:EM6 HT 6-3Fr— ('r4CFI:r:YY sT/.lR.• 'yEYr't5t1rID0cK III�Y.fSTINGT FT-It—�.4 r 6`2`w4 -- cXlrifr _ _ �Y,rYrHt! J F}:I ;*Rttr A Tkf//C7tT' i♦:�!14 1 I Yisnllj -AYMAti e OI`rlct:- V• � e Milt.011-4c; �tei (eat t -q m o. � W LL z Z� s U uia -U W ULU z O zd a z z O Wo 0 CL V^/) a WpJ.� QCD L to W U�o EASi-MI,4N AN-. LEVATiON', ISSUE: - DATE: 130610. 0013 SHEET NO. A4.1 ELKS DJLDIN6 VECTRA BANK LOTS K t L 610 E. HYMM AVE. LOT R t O GRAVDALL EIALMNIS 500 BLOGK 600 BLOCK EAST HYMAN AVE SOUTH ELEVATION V 20, APPROVED ASPEN ACT K*!9k 1 A PROVcD BOLDIU VICTORIA`? 5OJACE AFFROVED BOLDN', CENT 4 LITTLE M%!ES VTE CITY DJLEM, 600 BLOCK 500 BLOCK EAST HYMAN AVE NORTH ELEVATION V . 20• W U� t�Z 0 Oa a z � a Z� mqp w g �°�/"� W E/ / J CL Qo� Coe V EASi"HYNM AVE ELEVATIONS ISSUE: DATE: DES. DEV. 11-12-08 ]08 NO. 0013 Si1EET NO. A5,1 t tm:s.T ttaats a+� uycrzas • • AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: &10 1E-, EJ 11,&AN AV61.1UG , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: MA -It I , 204 Z STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, GH'&Rt-65 Gvt_%" FFG (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the 1 day of AM - , 204:g , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. ✓ Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions that create more than one lot, Planned Unit Developments, Specially Planned Areas, and COWAPs are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before rK this day of MAl , 200J;L, by k..rla-s L.. Cuhntk WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL DRO My commission expires:Notary Public My Cara 4&s n E*es 081261Z015 ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPY OF THE PUBLICATION • 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: 610 E. HYMAN AVENUE- ASPENMODERN NEGOTIATION FOR VOLUNTARY LANDMARK DESIGNATION, CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL REVIEW FOR UTILITY/TRASH/RECYCLING AREA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, May 9, 2012 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by 610 E. Hyman, LLC, c/o Charles Cunniffe, 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO, 81611. The project affects the property located at 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot M, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, PID#2737-182-12-004. The applicant proposes voluntary landmark designation, an addition on top of an existing garage/carport, expansion of an existing residential unit, and alterations to the front fagade of the building. The following variances are requested from HPC; a height increase of 1', a waiver of on -site parking and cash -in -lieu fees for just less than one parking space generated by the new development, waiver of the required on -site utility/trash/recycle area, and a 500 square foot FAR bonus. HPC is asked to make a recommendation to City Council regarding requested preservation incentives related to voluntary landmark designation, including an increase in the maximum residential floor area and residential unit size, the determination as to whether an elevator is required for the development, and the establishment of 10 years vested rights status for the project. For further information, contact Amy Guthrie at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429-2758, amy.guthrie@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Ann Mullins Vice Chair, Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on April 19, 2012 City of Aspen Account 0918/O*NaAV cane a1Q11edwoo ww L9 x ww 93lewaot ap a 13 EXHIBIT /09190 AJaAV ql!m a1411edwoo „8/5 Z x „l azls lagel 308 HUNTER LLC 4 SKIERS LP 517 EAST HOP a 490 WILLIAMS ST 1108 NORFLEET DR 517 E HOPKIN DENVER, CO 80218 NASHVILLE, TN 372201412 ASPEN, CO 81 520 EAST COOPER PTNRS LLC 530 HOPKINS LLC 630 EAST HYMAN LLC 402 MIDLAND PARK 5301/2 E HOPKINS 532 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 633 SPRING II LLC 635 E HOPKINS LLC ALPINE BANK ASPEN 418 E COOPER AVE #207 532 E HOPKINS ATTN ERIN WIENCEK ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 PO BOX 10000 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 ARCADES ASSOCIATES LTD LLC ASPEN ART MUSEUM ASPEN BLOCK 99 LLC C/O KRUGER & CO 590 N MILL ST 532 E HOPKINS AVE 400 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN CORE VENTURES LLC ASPEN PLAZA LLC AUSTIN LAWRENCE CONNER LLC 418 E COOPER AVE #207 PO BOX 1709 532 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 C/O STEVE MARCUS ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 AVP PROPERTIES LLC BASS CAHN 601 LLC BATTLE GERALD LIVING TRUST 630 E HYMAN AVE #25 PO BOX 4060 HIXON BURT LIVING TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 2847 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 BAUM ROBERT E BERN FAMILY ASPEN PROPERTY LLC BG SPRING LLC PO BOX 1518 65 FIRST NECK LN 300 S SPRING ST #202 STOCKBRIDGE, MA 01262 SOUTHAMPTON, NY 11968 ASPEN, CO 81611 BISCHOFF JOHN C BOOGIES BUILDING OF ASPEN LLC BORGIOTTI CLAUDIO 502 S VIA GOLONDRINA C/O LEONARD WEINGLASS 9610 SYMPHONY MEADOW LN TUCSON, AZ 85716-5843 534 E COOPER AVE VIENNA, VA 22192 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHATEAU ASPEN CONDO ASSOC CHATEAU ASPEN UNIT 21-A LLC CICUREL CARY 630 E COOPER AVE 421 ASPEN AIRPORT BUSINESS CTR 2615 N LAKEWOOD ASPEN, CO 81611 STE G CHICAGO, IL 60614 ASPEN, CO 816113551 COOPER STREET DEVELOPMENT LLC DUNN JUDITH A REV LIV TRUST EDGETTE JAMES J & PATRICIA C/O PYRAMID PROPERTY ADVISORS 8051 LOCKLIN LN 19900 BEACH RD STE 801 418 E COOPER AVE #207 COMMERCE TOWNSHIP, MI 48382 JUPITER ISLAND, FL 33469 ASPEN, CO 81611 label size 1 ° x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery �5160/8160 ` ' Ftimipttp rip format 95 mm x R7 mm rmmnatihla avar. AUP.ry @51fi0/R160 0918/ a� M9AV oane olglledwoo ww L9 x ww 5Z lewiol ap allanb113 -8/0919n AjaAV gl!m alglledwoo „g/g Z x,, l azls lagee F S3�dtl1S I ERGAS VENESSA BLAIR & CLAUDE EXELCEDAR INC 20% PO BOX 4316 534 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 FITZGERALD FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LTD FURNGULF LTD C/O PITKIN COUNTY DRY GOODS LLC A COLO JOINT VENTURE 520 E COOPER 616 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 GOFEN ETHEL CARO TRUSTEE 455 CITY FRONT PLAZA CHICAGO, IL 60611 GREENWAY COMPANY INC 666 TRAVIS ST #100 SHREVEPORT, LA 71101 HOPKINS DEV LLC 345 PARK AVE 33RD FLR NEW YORK. NY 10154 JARDEN CORPORATION 2381 EXECUTIVE CENTER DR BOCA RATON, FL 33431 JOYCE EDWARD 1310 RITCHIE CT CHICAGO, IL 60610 MALLARD ENTERPRISES LP 317 SIDNEY BAKER S #400 KERRVILLE, TX 78028 MCMURRAY WILLIAM & HELEN 29 MIDDLE HEAD RD MOSMAN NSW 2088 AUSTRALIA, MYSKO BOHDAN D 615 E HOPKINS ASPEN, CO 81611 GONE WEST LLC 401 W CENTER SEARCY, AR 721451406 GROSFELD ASPEN PROPERTIES PARTNERS LLC 10880 WILSHIRE BLVD #2222 LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 HORSEFINS LLC 601 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 FERRY JAMES H III BOX 167 GLENCOE, IL 60022-0167 GELD LLC C/O LOWELL MEYER PO BOX 1247 ASPEN, CO 81612-1247 GOODING SEAN A 80% & RICHARD L 20% C/O PARAGON RANCH INC 620 E HYMAN AVE #1 E ASPEN, CO 81611 HIMAN LLC PO BOX 6159 SWANBOURNE WA 6010 AUSTRALIA, HUNTER PLAZA ASSOCIATES LLP 205 S MILL ST #301A ASPEN, CO 81611 JENNE LLP JOSHUA & CO REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS 1510 WINDSOR RD LLC AUSTIN, TX 77402 300 S HUNTER ST ASPEN, CO 81611 LCT LP TENNESSEE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP PO BOX 101444 NASHVILLE, TN 37224-1444 MARTELL BARBARA 702 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN. CO 81611 MIAO SANDRA 9610 SYMPHONY MEADOW LN VIENNA, VA 22182 NATTERER HELEN 67 BAYPOINT CRIES OTTAWA ONTARIO CANADA K2G6R1, LUCKYSTAR LLC PO BOX 7755 ASPEN, CO 81612 MASON & MORSE INC 514 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 MORRIS ROBERT P 600 E HOPKINS AVE STE 304 ASPEN, CO 81611 NIELSON COL STEVE & CAROL D 501 S FAIRFAX ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery 5160/8160 ' Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery c5160/8160 0918/0915,@tiaAV oane a1g11edwoo ww Zg x ww gZ teno f ap aka Ili of/0915:�> AJaAV LII!M alglfedwoo ,,8/9 Z x ,j azls lagel NONNIE LLC OLITSKY TAMAR & STEPHEN P & L PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 565 PO BOX 514 101 S 3RD ST #360 ASPEN, CO 81612 GWYNEDD VALLEY, PA 19437 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501 PITKIN CENTER CONDO OWNERS PITKIN COUNTY BANK 80% REVOLUTION PARTNERS LLC ASSOC 534 E HYMAN AVE PO BOX 1247 517 W NORTH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ROTHBLUM PHILIP & MARCIA RUST TRUST RUTLEDGE REYNIE 40 EAST 80 ST #26A 9401 WILSHIRE BLVD #760 51 COUNTRY CLUB CIR NEW YORK, NY 10075 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 SEARCY, AR 72143 SCHNITZER KENNETH L & LISA L SHUMATE MARK SILVER DIP EQUITY VENTURE LLC 2100 MCKINNEY AVE #1760 1695 RIVERSIDE RD 2100 MCKINNEY STE 1760 DALLAS, TX 75201 ROSWELL, GA 30076 DALLAS, TX 75201 SJA ASSOCIATES LLC SNOWMASS CORPORATION STERLING TRUST COMP 418 E COOPER AVE #207 PO BOX 620 2091 MANDEVILLE CYN RD ASPEN, CO 81611 BASALT, CO 81621 LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 STEWART TITLE CO SWEARINGEN WILLIAM F TAYLOR FAMILY INVESTMENTS CO C/O JENNIFER SCHUMACHER 450 CONWAY MANOR DR NW 602 E HYMAN #201 PO BOX 936 ATLANTA, GA 303273518 ASPEN, CO 81611 TAYLORSVILLE, NC 28681 TENNESSEE THREE TENNESSEE THREE RENTALS THOMPSON ROSS & LYNETTE PO BOX 101444 C/O J H COBLE 1502 GREYSTONE DR NASHVILLE, TN 37224-1444 5033 OLD HICKORY BLVD CARBONDALE, CO 81623 NASHVILLE, TN 37218-4020 TOMKINS FAMILY TRUST TREUER CHRISTIN L TROUSDALE JEAN VICK 520 E COOPER AVE #209 981 E BRIARWOOD CIR N 611 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 LITTLETON, CO 80122 ASPEN, CO 81611 VICTORIAN SQUARE LLC WAVO PROPERTIES LP WEIDEL LAWRENCE W 418 E COOPER AVE #207 512 1/2 E GRAND AVE #200 PO BOX 1007 ASPEN, CO 81611 DES MOINES, IA 50309-1942 MONROE, GA 30655 WISE JOSEPH WOLF LAWRENCE G TRUSTEE WOODS FRANK J III 1320 HODGES ST 22750 WOODWARD AVE #204 205 S MILL ST #301A RALEIGH, NC 27604-1414 FERNDALE, MI 48220 ASPEN, CO 81611 label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery'v5160/8160 ' Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 0918*5@ tiany oane alglledwoo ww L9 x ww gZ lewiol ap al o*13 l8/0915® band qj!m alglledwoo „8/g Z x „G azls lag0 FS-3-1 S WRIGHT CHRISTOPHER N YERAMIAN CHARLES REV TRUST 13 BRAMLEY RD PO BOX 12347 LONDON W10 6SP UK, ASPEN, CO 81612 ® label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery 05160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 85160/8160 ! a HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC May 7, 2012 R `' 1, 0 7 CITY G - Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer COMMUNITY DEVELOFIFENT City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Addendum to the 610 East Hyman Avenue Aspen Modern Application Dear Amy: Please consider this letter and the attached plans as an addendum to the recently submitted 610 East Hyman Avenue Historic Preservation Application. This application was submitted on March 28, 2012, and deemed complete by your office in a letter dated April 6, 2012. The letter deeming the application complete also requested that the following additional information be provided/addressed, as applicable: 1. The front fagade elevation does not include the arches indicated in the perspective drawings; 2. A streetscape elevation showing the proposal in the surrounding context is needed; 3. The application includes a gross floor area calculation, but please provide a table that also summarizes floor area calculations by use (commercial, free market and affordable). Include allocation of non -unit space; and, 4. The application requires a letter from the applicant indicating an understanding that a 90-day negotiation period has been initiated. In response to 1 and 2 above, please see the new perspective drawings and street elevation attached to this addendum. Please note that the perspective drawings no longer include the arches. These faux arches have been removed from the proposal so as to avoid any further obscuring or altering of historic elements and architectural detailing. In response to item 3 above, the floor area calculations by use are as follows: • 201 N. MILL STREET, SUITE 108 ASPEN, COLORADO • 81 61 1 • PHONE: (970) 925-781 9 FAX: (970) 925-7395 - 0 0 610 East Hyman Avenue Addendum Page 2 • Existing Commercial FAR = 2,037sf of unit space, plus 649sf of non -unit space, and 163sf of non-exempt garage space for a total of 2,849sf (0.95:1) of Commercial Floor Area; • Proposed Commercial FAR = 2,878sf of unit space, plus 546sf of non -unit space, and 163sf of non-exempt garage space for a total of 3,587sf (1.2:1) of Commercial Floor Area; • Existing Free -Market Residential FAR=1,099sf of unit space, plus 350sf of non -unit space for a total of 1,449sf (0.483:1) of Free -Market Residential Floor Area; and • Proposed Free -Market Residential FAR = 2,104sf of unit space, plus 593sf of non -unit space for a total of 2,697sf (0.9:1) of Free -Market Residential Floor Area. • Total/Cumulative Proposed FAR = 6,284sf (2.095:1), where 1,302sf (20.7%) is non -unit space. • Total Proposed Free -Market Net Livable = 1,814sf (0.605:1), while the Total Proposed Commercial Net Leasable = 2,686sf (0.895:1). With regard to 4 above, although the application did mentioned the 90-day negotiation period on Page 5, we would like to reiterate that it is understood by the applicant that a 90-day negotiation period has been initiated by this application. It is further understood by and acceptable to the applicant that this may be extended to accommodate the planning staff schedule. As the authorized representative for the applicant, Haas Land Planning, LLC, can convey this understanding on the applicant's behalf. Additionally, during the prior HPC review of this application, in 2010, staff gave this building an Integrity Assessment Score of only 75 (the minimum threshold for designation). We believe that some of the scoring was erroneous and that the building should be given a score of at least 87 for the following reasons: • The structure is in its original location (5/5 points); • The original plan form is intact (10/10 points, subtotal 15 points); • The original roof is unaltered (10/10 points, subtotal 25 points). Staff gave this a score of 6 because of the removable awning on the second level. It was stated in the assessment that this awning changes the appearance of the building from the street. Whether or not this is true, the 0 ! 610 East Hyman Avenue Addendum Page 3 original roof form is still unaltered, therefore the building should receive 10 points; • The original scale and proportions of the building are intact (5/5 points, subtotal 30 points); • The original pattern of glazing and exterior materials has been altered, but in a manner consistent with the original design intent and would meet the design guidelines; (6/10 points, subtotal 36 points). Staff gave the building a score of 0 on this criterion and stated that the exterior wall was originally a screen, with the enclosed spaces recessed some distance behind them. This is not correct and can even be seen in the photo of the building that staff provided. This area has always been enclosed and, therefore, the awarding of 6 points is more appropriate;. • There are minor alterations to the horizontal or geometric form, minimalist detailing and features that relate the building to its environment. (6-8/10 points, subtotal 42-44 points): We scored this as an eight (8) because we are of the belief that a number between 6 and 10 should be assessed. If that is not the case, we agree with staff's scoring of six (6). However, it should be noted that in the staff scoring it was stated that open air spaces have been enclosed; as previously mentioned, this is not a correct statement; • The physical surroundings are similar to that found when the structure was originally constructed (5/5 points, subtotal 47-49 points); • The original material palette, brick and stucco, is intact (15/ 15 points, subtotal 62-64 points); • Some of the original door and window units have been replaced but the new units are consistent with the design guidelines (5/10 points, subtotal 67-69 points). The original front doors have been moved from the center to the sides and some windows were added/ altered; • The structural composition that distinguishes the stylistic category of Modernism is intact. No decorative materials are used. Design is focused on rationality, reduction, and composition. Materials are generally manufactured and standardized (15/15 points, subtotal 82-84 points); 0 Ll 610 East Hyman Avenue Addendum Page 4 • The neutral or monochromatic color scheme and finishes that define Modernism remain intact (5/5 points, total 87-89 points): Staff only gave this building 3 points for this category and stated that it appears from photos that the stucco on the exterior was originally white. That is not how it appears to the applicant and even if that were true, in order to receive 5 points for this standard the neutral or monochromatic color scheme and finishes that define the stylistic category of Modernism must be intact; it does not say that the color must be the same as the original. The current building maintains neutral and monochromatic color schemes and finishes consistent with its Modernism character. As noted above, the applicant believes that this building achieves a score of at least 87-89 points, making this a "better" example of an Aspen Modern property, with regard to its contribution to and significance in Aspen's 20th century history. In addition to the foregoing, the applicant has corrected the building elevations and section drawings to depict the proposed building height of 40 feet at the alley, which will make it 38 feet and 11 inches above the Hyman Avenue sidewalk. Finally, the applicant is withdrawing the request made in the application to waive the elevator and/ or access requirements that are triggered by the proposed development. The proposed development will comply with all ADA requirements. If you require any additional information, please contact me at (970) 925-7819 or by email at mitch@hlpaspen.com. Very truly yours, Haas Land Planning, LLC Mitc Haas cc: Charles Cunniffe, Applicant/ Architect I i p J AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: n 1 b � H N � . �"^ � , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: �nfC�ctiT�_ 5 = Do ey1'\_' 20 (Z- STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, �' �GcTl�� (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 and was continuously visible from the _ day of , 20_, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (Continued on next page) 0 • Rezoning or text amendment: Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this ZOday of r, , 20i2, by �,� � PUBLIC N TI RE:610 E. HYMAN AVENUE- ASPENMODERN NEGOTIATION FOR VOLUNTARY LANDMARK DESIGNATION, CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVEL- OPMENT AND rONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DES1rki1EV:'-W, SPECIAL REVIEW FOR UTIL*-y,,AASHIRECYCLING AREA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that aypublic hearing will be held on meeting to begin atd5:00dp.m . before the t Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, City Council Chambers, Chambers, City Hell, 130 S. Galena St., Asper consider an application submitted610 E0Hyman E. Hy- man, LLC, c/o Charles Cunniffe, Avenue, Aspen, CO, 81611. The project affects theBBpproperty located at 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot Colo - ratio, PIDM2737 lock 99, City 821 2-004$I The applicant pro- poses voluntary landmark designation, an addition on top of an existing garage/carport, expansion of an existing residential unit, and alterations to the front facade of the buildingg The following varianc- es are requested from HPC; a height increase of V, jfor ust less than one pa kiniver of on -site g space generated byndl cash -in -lieu sthe new development, waiver of the required on -site FAR bonus Hyycle area, PC is asked todmake a recomment dation to City Council regarding requested preser- vation incentives related to voluntary landmark designation, including an increase in the maximum residential floor area and residential unit size, the determination as to whether an elevator is required for the development, and the establishment of 10 years vested rights status for the project. For y 0 ther information, contact Amy Guthrie at the City of Aspen Community Developments e.pa'Tent 758 S. Galena St., Aspen, Co ( ) amy.guthde o ci.aspen.co.us. a/Ann Mullins Vlos Choir, Aspen Historic aillon commission Published in the Aspen Times Weekly on April 19, 2012. [7801238j WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL C` My co issipn ex ' e . J J Notary Pupil C o,�P ky •?U�p! �: '•.�CI CORY J. GARSKE ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: Ny°•.,•y E PUBLICATION ,H OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) �S Corr. in Ezoires ~14 OWNERS AND GOVERNMENT AGENGIES NYOTIvs :RTICICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 • 0 E3 THE CITY OF ASPEN Land Use Application Determination of Completeness Date: April 6, 2012 Dear City of Aspen Land Use Review Applicant, We have received your land use application for 610 E. Hyman Avenue and reviewed it for completeness. The case number assigned to this property is 0011.2012.ahpc. The planner assigned to this case is Amy Guthrie. Your Land Use Application is complete for HPC review, however we require the following additional information: The front fagade elevation does not include the arches indicated in the perspective drawings. A streetscape elevation showing the proposal in the surrounding context is needed. The application includes a gross floor area calculation, but please provide a table that also summarizes floor area calculations by use (commercial, free market and affordable). Include allocation of non -unit space. The application requires a letter from the applicant indicating an understanding that a 90 day negotiation period has been initiated. Please submit the aforementioned missing submission items so that we may begin reviewing your application. Your first hearing is tentatively scheduled for May 9th. Other submission items may be requested throughout the review process as deemed necessary by the Community Development Department. Please contact me at 429-2758 if you have any questions. Thank You, Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer City of Aspen, Community Development Department 0 RECFIVED 0 MAR 2 8 2012 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY QEVELOPMENI HAAS LAND PLANNINGs LLC 201 N. MILL STREET, SUITE 108 - ASPEN, CO 81 6 1 1 - (970) 925-781 9 - MITCHCaHLPASPEN.COM To: Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) Thru: Amy Guthrie Date: March 28, 2012 Subject: 610 East Hyman Avenue AspenModern Landmark Designation and Negotiation Introduction• The building at 610 East Hyman Avenue was built in 1962 and designed by Eleanor "Ellie' Brickham, who is an important architect relative to Aspen's 20th century Modernist Movement. This application volunteers Landmark Designation for 610 East Hyman Avenue and assurances to its preservation in exchange for the granting of incentives available through AspenModern negotiation. AspenModern is a program adopted by the City of Aspen to address, through negotiation of incentives for designation, the negative impacts that the loss of landmark eligible buildings would have on the health, peace, safety, and general well being of the residents and visitors of Aspen, and the diminishment of Aspens unique architectural character, livability, and attractiveness as a destination. The applicant previously entered into an Ordinance #48 negotiation process in 2010 but for various reasons withdrew the application before completing the Historic Preservation Commission meetings portion of the process. The applicant intends to complete a remodel that will include a two -level addition to the alley side of the building. The first level of this addition is proposed above the existing garage/carport and contains two new office spaces. The upper level will be an expansion of the already existing free-market residential unit. This application is seeking Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval from the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) as permitted by Section 26.412.030 of the Code, which states that, when development or a portion thereof is located ... on a property that is or is under consideration ... to be listed on the Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, the commercial design review shall be subject to review by the HPC." Therefore, even if not landmark designated at the end of the negotiation period, Conceptual Commercial Design Review shall still be carried out by and under the purview of the HPC. The applicant is interested in having the building at 610 East Hyman Avenue added to the Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures provided that the HPC finds the submitted plans for the remodel of the building consistent with such status. Therefore, if 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 1 0 • the applicant is permitted to proceed with the proposed plans, this application also seeks Landmark Designation with HPC Conceptual Commercial Design Review and Major Development approvals. This application is submitted pursuant to the following sections of the Aspen Land Use Code (the Code): 26.304, Common Development Review Procedures, including 26.304.060(B)(1), Combined Reviews; 26.415.025(C), AspenModern Properties; 26.415.030(C), Designation of Historic Properties - AspenModern; 26.415.070(D), Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development; 26.470.060(4), Minor Enlargement of an Historic Landmark; and 26.710.150, Commercial Zone District (C-1). The application is divided into five sections. Section I provides a brief introduction to the application, while Section II describes the existing conditions of the project site and environs. Section III outlines the applicant's proposed development, and Section IV addresses the proposed development's compliance with the applicable review criteria of the Code. A short summary is provided in Section V. For the reviewer's convenience, all pertinent supporting documents relating to the project are provided in the various exhibits to the application, as follows: • Exhibit 1: Land Use Application and Dimensional Requirements Forms; • Exhibit 2: Proof of the Applicant's Ownership; • Exhibit 3: Pre -Application Conference Summary prepared by Amy Guthrie; • Exhibit 4: Authorization for Haas Land Planning, LLC (HLP) to represent the applicant; • Exhibit 5: An executed application fee agreement; and, • Exhibit 6: Mailing addresses of record for all property owners located within three - hundred feet of the subject property. In addition, architectural plans prepared by Charles Cunniffe Architects accompany this application. While the applicant has attempted to address all relevant provisions of the Code, and to provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of the application, questions may arise which require further information and/or clarification. Upon request, the applicant's representative will provide such additional information as may be required in the course of the review. Existing Conditions: The building at 610 East Hyman Avenue was built in 1962 and was designed by Eleanor "Ellie" Brickham, an architect whose work is considered to be representative of the Modernist Movement of 20th century architecture in Aspen. It is a 2 1/2-story, mixed -use building on a 3,000 square foot lot, situated on East Hyman Avenue between Hunter and Spring Streets. The subject property is legally described as Lot M, Block 99, City and 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 2 Townsite of Aspen, and it is owned by 610 East Hyman LLC (the applicant). The Vicinity Map below shows the property's general location relative to the surrounding area. ,r ` 7+r _' 1r� _ J F 82 t 37 r _ �� lrn l -1 tUlf ®2010,MaAQui Portion 20�0 NAyTEQ Vicinity Map - 610 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen The existing brick building features arched openings on the upper floor and a vertical orientation accentuated by columns that help to define and elongate the arched openings. The building is set back approximately ten (10) feet from the front property line on Hyman Avenue, and the front portion of the second floor is merely a fagade in front of outdoor living space. The remainder of the second floor is a residential apartment. The basement level, lower (garden) level and the first (main) level contain the offices of Charles Cunniffe Architects. The front of the building features doors at either end. The door on the west accesses stairs going up to the main level reception area, while the door on the east accesses stairs going down to the garden level offices. Between these two street - level entries, the front setback area features a large, semi -circle planter bordered by an arched wrought iron fence which complements the dominant architectural feature of the building (the upper level's arched openings). The roof is flat and features a parapet wall capped with a simple rectangular cornice line, typical of Modernist architecture. On the alley side of the property the original building is substantially set back from the rear property line (approximately 35-45 feet). Between the original building and the alley there is also a carport and a detached garage that were built in 2003. The addition proposed in this application would sit atop the garage and carport (which are not original or historically 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application significant). Although the existing balconies on the alley side are original to the building, they are not visible from any public ways except the alley. Even from the alley the balconies are already obscured by the garage and carport. In order to accommodate the proposed addition, these balconies will need to be removed. Even if it were possible to retain the balconies, they would no longer have any visibility. Since its original construction, there have been some minor modifications made to the front fagade of the building. For instance, in 1994 the doors were moved from the center of the building to their current locations and the arches/transom windows on the first level were replaced with operable transom windows. These changes greatly improved the functionality of the building without significantly affecting its architectural integrity or character. As mentioned above, the building is home to the offices of Charles Cunniffe Architects on the sub -grade, street, and first (main) levels. The current commercial net leasable area is approximately 650sf on the basement level, 955sf on the garden level, and 1,110sf on the main level, for a total of approximately 2,715sf. The total commercial Floor Area is approximately 2,685sf (0.895:1), while current codes establish an allowable commercial floor area limit of 4,500sf (1.5:1). The residential unit on the upper level of the building has a net livable area of approximately 930sf, while the residential Floor Area is approximately 1,485sf (clearly, a larger than normal percentage of the residential FAR in this building is consumed by non -unit space). The allowable residential Floor Area is 1,500sf (0.5:1). There is no affordable housing on the property. Project Descriptionahe Proposal: In exchange for Landmark Designation and the preservation of this Ellie Brickham designed building in Asperi s downtown, the applicant is seeking the entitlements requested herein. However, if Landmark Designation would preclude approval of the proposed addition, then the applicant prefers to not so designate the property/structure. The proposal envisions maintaining the overall appearance of the existing building, while placing a two-story addition over the non -historic garage and carport along the alley/rear side of the property. The upper level of the building currently contains one free-market residential unit that will be expanded with the addition; however, no new residential units will be created as a result. The addition will have minimal visual impact as it will be set back more than forty feet from the front fagade, maintaining the building's overall appearance from Hyman Avenue. The proposed addition sits almost completely over the stairs, and the garage/carport, none of which were part of the original 1962 building. As such, the new addition will, for the most part, only be visible from the alley side, and will only obscure non -historic portions of the building. The new construction will have a more contemporary loft style that is clearly a product of its own time, while complementing the historic portion of the building. 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 4 At the front of the building, there is an existing second floor deck (the previously described outdoor living space behind the arched openings) from which there is already access to the rooftop. The proposed addition will be located behind this deck and will add only eight (8) or so feet of height to the building. However, since this addition will take place on the alley side, the measured height of the building will be 37, one foot over the 36' height limit for three-story elements. The ground elevation at the alley is more than a foot lower than that of the sidewalk at the front of this property, and this directly increases the height measurement. As perceived from Hyman Avenue, however, the addition will be at the height limit of thirty-six feet (36'). As part of Commercial Design Review, the height for three-story elements can be increased to forty feet (40') to accommodate this proposal. The aforementioned deck off the apartment, on the street -facing fagade, has a "temporary' canvas canopy to provide shade and protection from snow. The applicant envisions replacing this with a photovoltaic canopy that will help with energy efficiencies while allowing light to penetrate and pass through to the arched openings on the building fagade. The proposal also involves reinstating Brickham-designed arched elements above the existing awning windows through the installation of metal applications cut into the stucco spandrels to simulate the original arched windows and create shadow lines. One of the incentives sought in this AspenModern negotiation requests a waiver of any potentially applicable elevator and/or ADA accessibility requirements. As can be seen on the attached plans, installation of an elevator adds height to the building (to 40' on the alley side and approximately 39' on the Hyman Avenue side). Stairs are currently required to get into and access all levels of the building. If accessibility requirements cannot be met by changes to the rear entrance of the building, the front entrance may have to be modified. However, it is the applicant's hope that this building, which is seeking Landmark designation (and has never been accessible) will be allowed to find an alternative way to provide for accessibility. Please refer to the submitted plan sets for details and renderings of the proposed designs. Section 26.415.025(C) of the Code explains that sites associated with Aspen's 20th century history, such as 610 East Hyman Avenue, are called AspenModern properties. This property made the cut to be specifically identified on the AspenModern Map and list of potentially historic sites. Restoration of the Ellie Brickham design and addition of this property to the AspenModern program is appropriate. Pursuant to Code Section 26.415.025(C)(1), the submittal of this application initiates a negotiation period of up to ninety days, which may be extended an additional thirty days upon resolution adopted by City Council, or longer if mutually acceptable to both the Council and the applicant. The City Council or the applicant may choose to terminate the negotiations at any time. 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 5 The goal of the negotiation period is to reach a mutually acceptable agreement for the landmark designation of the property. As part of the mutually acceptable agreement, the City Council may, at its sole discretion, approve any land use entitlements or fee waiver permitted by the Municipal Code and may award any approval that is normally assigned to another Board or Commission, including variations. Council's charge includes seeking compatibility with the neighborhood surrounding the subject property and weighing the benefits in light of whether the property is identified by the HPC as a "good, better, or best" example of Aspens 20th century history. It is felt that the requested incentives are fully appropriate and warranted in exchange for providing a substantial community benefit and valuable community asset by landmark designating a building whose integrity assessment achieves a score of 84, is representative of Aspens rise as a hub for intellectual and cultural endeavors in a pristine and natural environment, and embodies the aesthetic achievements of Ellie Brickham, an important architect of Modern Era Aspen architecture. Preservation of this building will provide a great complement to this block, which is the future home of the Aspen Art Museum and the current home to the restored AspenModern Crandall Building. As such, it is earnestly hoped that the requested incentives will be granted and the subject property will be added to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. In exchange for the voluntary historic preservation of this property, the benefits that the applicant is seeking from City Council include the following: • A modest code variation to accommodate the proposed free-market residential net livable area and Floor Area; • Waiver of any potentially applicable elevator and/or access requirements; and • Ten (10) years of vested property rights. 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 6 CJ Review Requirements In light of the foregoing, this application is submitted pursuant to the following sections of the Aspen Land Use Code (the Code): 26.304, Common Development Review Procedures, including 26.304.060(B)(1), Combined Reviews; 26.310.040, Standards for Review - Rezoning; 26.415.025(C), AspenModern Properties; 26.415.030(C), Designation of Historic Properties - AspenModern; 26.415.070(D), Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development; and 26.710.150, Commercial (C-1) Zone District. The applicable provisions are addressed below. L HPC Review Requirements A. Des nation of AspenModern Properties The designation of AspenModern properties to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures (the Inventory) is governed by Section 26.415.030(C) of the Code. In order to be eligible for designation, an individual building, site, structure, or object, or a collection of buildings, sites, structures, or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. Furthermore, to be worthy of preservation incentives and to evaluate the equitability of such incentives, an AspenModern property must be rated on a "good, better or best" scale with regard to its contribution to and significance in Aspen's 20th century history. Section 26.415.030(C)(1) of the Code states that, The quality of significance of properties shall be evaluated according to the criteria below: a. The property is related to an event, pattern or trend that has made a contribution to local, state, regional, or national history that is deemed important, and the specific event, pattern or trend is identified and documented in an adopted context paper; b. The property is related to people who have made a contribution to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific people are identified and documented in an adopted context paper; c. The property represents a physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsmen, or design philosophy that is deemed important and the specific physical design, designed, or philosophy is documented in an adopted context paper; d. The property possesses such singular significance to the City, as documented by the opinions or persons educated or experienced in the fields of history, architecture, landscape architecture, archaeology or a related field, that the property's potential demolition or major alteration would substantially diminish the character and sense of place in the city as perceived by members of the community; and e. The property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association, given its age. The City Council shall adopt and make available to the public score sheets and other devices which shall be used by the Council and Historic Preservation Commission to apply this criteria. 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application The City of Aspen's historic preservation program includes official context papers about the Post WWII architectural styles that have influenced the City, including Modernism. The context paper describes Modernism as a style of architecture that began in the 20th century as a result of a clear philosophical shift in design practices and attitudes, and incredible changes in building technology. Eleanor "Ellie" Brickham, the architect of the building at 610 East Hyman Avenue, is listed as an "Architect of Note" who completed significant works in Aspen and is considered to have left an imprint of the philosophies of the modernist period on the town. The following information on Ellie Brickham is found in the City's official context paper. Eleanor Ellie' Brickham graduated from the University of Colorado's School of Architecture. Construction was a family business, so Brickham's motivation to be a designer began as a child. She moved to Aspen in 1951, attracted by the skiing, but once there, found herself the only female architect in town. Early in her career, Brickham worked in Fritz Benedict's office and collaborated on projects with both Benedict and [Herbert]Bayer, participating in the work going on at the Aspen Institute. During her time in that office, and later with her own firm, she designed a number of residences and commercial structures in town, including houses for several Music Festival artists in Aspen Grove, the Strandberg Residence (1973, 433 W. Bleeker Street), and the Patricia Moore Building (1969, 610 E. Hyman Avenue.) Within Pitkin County, Brickham designed numerous homes in Starwood, on Red Mountain, and in Pitkin Green. Her works total at least 50 buildings in the Aspen area. Brickham's designs have been characterized by spare, simple forms and detailing, and she has an interest in passive solar techniques. Still practicing today, Brickham's projects focus on an "impeccable sense of proportion and feeling of lightness. " The Aspen Times stated at her death, `She was Aspen's first woman architect, working with Herbert Bayer and Fritz Benedict in the early days on numerous notable and historically significant projects, including the Aspen Institute campus, and later she designed more than 60 residential and commercial buildings locally. She served on the board of and was honored by the Aspen Historical Preservation Committee, and she was presented with a Preservation Honor Award in 2001... As stated in a proclamation by Aspen's Mayor Klanderud in 2003, `Ellie is one of the post- Paepcke pioneers, and is, without question, one of Aspen's treasured characters'. Clearly, Ellie Brickham made important contributions to local history and the Aspen Modernist Architectural Movement, as identified by the City's official context papers, and as documented in both the Aspen Times and a 2003 City of Aspen Proclamation. Further, the subject building maintains a physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of the local Modernist design philosophy. 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 8 The City's Historic Preservation Program utilizes Integrity Assessments in order to score a property's ability to convey its historic significance. A total of 100 points is the most a Modernist property can score between the categories of location, design, setting, materials, and workmanship. A score of 75 points is considerate adequate for Landmark designation. The building at 610 East Hyman Avenue has not yet been officially scored but a review of the criteria reveals that it is worthy of a score of 84 points for the following reasons: • The structure is in its original location (5/5 points); • The original plan form has been slightly altered, but the addition would meet the design guidelines; there have been some changes to the back side of the building and to the fenestration on the front facade, but otherwise the original plan form is intact (8/10 points, subtotal 13 points); • The original roof is unaltered (10/10 points, subtotal 23 points); • The original scale and proportions of the building are intact (5/5 points, subtotal 28 points); • The original pattern of glazing and exterior materials has been altered, but in a manner consistent with the original design intent and that would meet the design guidelines; the proposal involves reinstating the arched elements above the existing awning windows through the installation of metal applications cut into the stucco spandrels to simulate the original arched windows and create shadow lines. (6/ 10 points, subtotal 34 points); • There are minor alterations to the horizontal or geometric form, minimalist detailing and features that relate the building to its environment. The original arched openings on the street level were replaced with operable transom windows but the proposal involves reinstating the arched elements above the existing awning windows through the installation of metal applications cut into the stucco spandrels to simulate the original arched windows and create shadow lines. (8/10 points, subtotal 42 points); • The physical surroundings are similar to that found when the structure was originally constructed (5/5 points, subtotal 47 points); • There have been minor alterations to the original exterior wall materials and glazing but these were done in a manner that conforms to the design guidelines (10/15 points, subtotal 57 points); • Some of the original door and window units have been replaced but the new units are consistent with the design guidelines. The original front doors have been moved from the center to the sides and some windows were added/altered (7/10 points, subtotal 64 points); • The structural composition that distinguishes the stylistic category of Modernism is intact. No decorative materials are used. Design is focused on rationality, reduction, and composition. Materials are generally manufactured and standardized (15/15 points subtotal 79 points); • The neutral or monochromatic color scheme and finishes that define Modernism remain intact (5/5 points, total 84 points). 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 9 Conservatively calculated, the subject building's integrity assessment therefore achieves an approximate score of 84 points, which is well in excess of the minimum threshold for designation. This building was constructed more than thirty (30) years ago, and it is representative of Aspen's Post WWII renaissance as a hub for intellectual and cultural endeavors in a pristine and natural environment. The building embodies the aesthetic achievements of Ellie Brickham, a notable architect of Modernism in Aspen. As such, this structure satisfies every facet of the standards for landmark designation, where only one of three standards need be satisfied before a building can be so designated. This property is clearly more than worthy of Historic Landmark Designation. The applicant appreciates the importance of preserving historic properties in Aspen and as such seeks to have the Ellie Brickham designed Modernist building at 610 East Hyman Avenue granted landmark status. B. Conceptual Approval of a Major Development All applications for Conceptual approval of a Major Development project must receive a determination of consistency with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines (the "HP Guidelines") to be approved. If the subject property is granted Landmark Designation, the proposed addition must, in turn, receive Conceptual Major Development approval. Since this property is seeking Landmark status, Conceptual approval of the proposed design requires a finding of consistency with Chapters 1-10 of the HP Guidelines, as well as the General Design Guidelines of Chapter 14. More specifically, Chapters 1 through 10 of the HP Guidelines refer to renovations of and additions to Historic Structures. Chapters 11, 12, and 13 are not applicable since they provide guidelines for new buildings and additions on residential Landmark Properties, design in the Main Street Historic District; and design in the Commercial Core Historic District, respectively. The project has been designed to be generally consistent with the guidelines of Chapter 14, but specific consistency with these requirements will be demonstrated as part of the HPC Final review. The HP Guidelines state that not every guideline will apply to each project and that some balancing of the guidelines must occur on a case -by -case basis. Accordingly, the HPC must find only that a sufficient number of the relevant guidelines have been adequately met in order to approve the proposal. Conceptual Review focuses on height, scale, massing, and proportions of a proposal. The guidelines addressing treatment and preservation of materials, lighting, fenestration, fences, and the like will be more specifically addressed during Final HPC Review. Chapter One of the HP Guidelines relates to streetscapes and lot features and is largely inapplicable to this proposed development. Sections 1.1 through 1.8 concern fences and 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 10 retaining walls and Sections 1.10 through 1.14 relate to private yards. None of these sections are applicable as no retaining walls or private yards exist on this property, and the lone existing fence will not be altered. Likewise, Sections 1.16 and 1.17 are not applicable as no historically significant landscape designs or irrigation ditches exist on the property. The only applicable guidelines from Chapter One (1.9 Walkways and 1.15 Site Lighting) are addressed below. Walkways 1.9 Maintain the established progression of public -to -private spaces when considering a rehabilitation project. - This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the 'public" sidewalk, proceeding along a "semi-public " walkway, to a "semi -private " porch or entry feature and ending in the 'private" spaces beyond. - Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry. Meandering walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree. - Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style. Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles. The established progression of public to private space will be maintained. The existing straight walkways to the front entries will not be changed, nor will the semi-public spaces. Site Lighting 1.15 Minimize the visual impacts of site lighting. - Site lighting should be shielded to avoid glare onto adjacent properties. Focus lighting on walks and entries, rather than up into trees and onto facade planes. This standard is understood by the applicant and will be addressed at Final HPC Review. No new exterior lighting is proposed at this time. The relevant guidelines from Chapters 2 through 10, as well as those from Chapter 14, are outlined below in italicized text and each is followed by a response demonstrating compliance and/or consistency therewith, as applicable. 2.1 Preserve original building materials. 2.2 Protect wood features from deterioration. 2.3 Plan repainting carefully. 2.4 Brick or stone that was not painted historically should not be painted 2.5 Repair deteriorated primary building materials by patching, piecing -in, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing the material. 2.6 Maintain masonry walls in good condition. 2.7 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary surfaces. 2.8 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for primary building materials. 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 11 Original building materials will be preserved. There are no changes proposed to the original materials that currently exist. As appropriate, this standard will be more fully addressed at Final HPC Review. 2.9 Covering original building materials with new materials is inappropriate. - Regardless of their character, new materials obscure the original, historically significant material. For example, vinyl siding, aluminum siding and new stucco are inappropriate on historic buildings. Other imitation materials that are designed to look like wood or masonry siding, but that are fabricated from other materials, are also inappropriate. - If a property already has a non -historic building material covering the original, it is not appropriate to add another layer of new material, which would further obscure the original. - Any material that covers historic materials will also trap moisture between the two layers. This may cause accelerated deterioration to the historic material which will go unnoticed. No original building materials will be covered. There will not be any vinyl siding, aluminum siding, or stucco. The Brickham-designed arched elements over the existing awning windows will be reinstated through metal applications cut into to stucco spandrels to simulate the arched forms and create shadow lines. 2.10 Consider removing later covering materials that have not achieved historic significance. - Once the non -historic siding is removed, repair the original, underlying material. All historic siding will remain intact. The proposed addition will only obscure a non - historic portion on the alley side of the building. 3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. 3.2 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. 3.3 Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a facade. 3.4 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. 3.5 In a replacement window, use materials that appear similar to the original. 3.6 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. 3.7 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the original window. 3.8 Use a storm window to enhance energy conservation rather than to replace a historic window. Although this standard will be more specifically addressed at the time of Final HPC Review, all remaining historic windows will be retained. 4.1 Preserve historically significant doors. 4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening. 4.3 When a historic door is damaged, repair it and maintain its general historic appearance. 4.4 If a new screen door is used, it should be in character with the primary door. 4.5 When replacing a door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original door or a door associated with the style of the house. 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 12 0 • 4.6 If energy conservation and heat loss are concerns, consider using a storm door instead of replacing a historic entry door. Although this standard will be more specifically addressed at the time of Final HPC Review, it is the applicant's intention to preserve all historically significant doors. Treatment of Porches 5.1 Preserve an original porch. 5.2 Avoid removing or covering historic materials and details on a porch. 5.3 Avoid enclosing a historic front porch. 5.4 The use of a porch on a residential building in a single-family context is strongly encouraged. Porch Replacement 5.5 If porch replacement is necessary, reconstruct it to match the original inform and detail. There are no ground level porches on the existing building and none are proposed for the addition. The second floor residential unit does have some outdoor living space located on the Hyman Avenue side of the building and this space will be retained. This space fits the City of Aspen Land Use Code definition of a loggia ("a deck or porch attached to a living space and open on at least one side developed under a roof as an integral part of the building's mass rather than as an appended element"). Whether one calls this space a porch or a loggia, the proposed renovation retains this space in its current form. Treatment of Architectural Features 6.1 Preserve significant architectural features. 6.2 When disassembly of a historic element is necessary for its restoration, use methods that minimize damage to the original material. 6.3 Remove only the portion of the detail that is deteriorated and must be replaced. 6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features should be based on original designs. 6.5 Do not guess at "historic" designs for replacement parts. 6.6 Replacement of missing elements may be included in repair activities. As previously mentioned, the applicant intends to preserve all of the significant architectural features of this building, although the existing balconies on the alley side of the building will need to be removed. Again, the Brickham-designed arched elements over the existing awning windows will be reinstated through metal applications cut into to stucco spandrels to simulate the arched forms and create shadow lines. This renovation/addition will not obscure any significant architectural features of the building. Treatment of Roofs 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. • Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Instead, maintain the perceived line and orientation of the roof as seen from the street. • Retain and repair roof detailing. 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 1� • 0 The original form of the roof is flat and will be maintained. The third floor addition, which will not obscure the original building, will also have a low -profile, flat roof. 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. • The shadows created by traditional overhangs contribute to one's perception of the building's historic scale and therefore, these overhangs should be preserved. As previously mentioned, the entire front facade will be retained in the renovation. As such, the original eave depth will be preserved. 7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices. • Flat skylights that are flush with the roof plane may be considered only in an obscure location on a historic structure. Locating a skylight or a solar panel on a front roof plane is not allowed. • A skylight or solar panel should not interrupt the plane of a historic roof. It should be positioned below the ridgeline. No skylights are proposed for this development. 7.4 A new chimney should be the same scale as those used historically. 7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they are made non-functional. The existing building does not have a chimney and no new chimneys are proposed. 7.6 When planning a rooftop addition, preserve the overall appearance of the original roof. • An addition should not interrupt the original ridgeline. • See also: Chapter 10, Guidelines for Building Additions. Although a third floor addition is proposed, it is set back more than 40 feet from the front of the building. Therefore, the original roof will remain and a portion of the roof will become a deck for the residential unit. The existing deck off the apartment and on the street -facing fagade has a "temporary' canvas canopy to provide shade and protection from snow; the applicant envisions replacing this with a photovoltaic canopy that will help with energy efficiencies while allowing light to pass through to the arched openings on the building fagade. The overall appearance and lines of the original roof will be preserved. Both the original roof and the proposed third floor roof are flat. 7.7A 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. There are no dormers on the existing building and none are proposed. 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 14 0 • 7.8 Preserve original roof materials. • Avoid removing historic roofing material that is in good condition. When replacement is necessary, use a material that is similar to the original in both style as well as physical qualities and use a color that is similar to that seen historically. • Specialty materials such as tile, slate or concrete should be replaced with a matching material. The existing roofing material is not historically significant. 7.9 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to those used traditionally. • Replacement materials should be similar to those used historically on comparably styled buildings. • If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and have a matte, non -reflective finish. • Flashing should be in scale with the roof material. • If copper flashing is to be used, it should be treated to establish a matte, non -reflective finish. The roof material for the addition will have a matte, non -reflective finish and be, clearly, a product of its own time. The flat roof is not visible from any public vantage points. 7.10 If it is to be used, a metal roof should be applied and detailed in a manner that is compatible and does not detractfrom the historic appearance of the building. • A metal roof material should have an earth tone and have a matte, non -reflective finish. • A metal roof with a lead -like patina also is an acceptable alternative. • Seams should be of a low profile. • A roof assembly with a high profile seam or thick edge is inappropriate. The new low -profile roof over the addition is proposed to have a matte, non -reflective finish. It will not be visible from any publicly accessible vantage points 7.11 Avoid using conjectural features on a roof. • Adding ornamental cresting, for example, where there is no evidence that it existed creates a false impression of the building's original appearance, and is inappropriate. There will be no conjectural features on or added to the roof. Chapter 8 of the HP Guidelines involves preserving historically significant secondary structures. Although there is a separate garage on the property, it is not historically significant as it was built in 2003. The proposed addition maintains this garage, and will be built above it. Chapter 9 discusses building relocation and new foundations; this building is not being relocated and the original foundation is being preserved. 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. 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 15 The only existing addition on the property is on the alley side and consists of the garage and carport area. This addition is not historically significant. The new addition is proposed to be built above this non -historic element. 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. The third floor addition to this building, which is set back more than 40 feet from the front of the building has been designed to complement the historic character of the primary building, but is clearly a product of its own time. As previously mentioned, no historically significant features will be covered up by this addition. 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. The proposed addition is clearly distinguishable from the historic building, but is visually compatible with the earlier design. The addition will be constructed on the alley side and use different materials than those found on the historic portion of the building. The addition's modern loft -style design will complement, yet be subordinate to the historic building. The addition will be clearly recognizable as a product of its own time. 10.5 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic alignments that may exist on the street. • Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings in the area may align at approximately the same height. An addition should not be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured. This building is not in a historic district. 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. 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 16 0 0 • A I -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. The proposed addition simply adds onto the garage/carport area on the back side of the building. The addition is compatible with the resource in size and scale as it is smaller, subservient, and substantially set back from the significant facades. 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. As previously mentioned, the proposed addition is on the alley side of the building and is set back more than forty (40) feet from the front facade, significantly reducing any visual impact and allowing the original proportions and character to remain prominent. 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. The existing building has a flat roof. The proposed addition will maintain this roofline as it features a similar flat roof that is set back more than forty feet (40') from the front facade. 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. No architectural details will be lost, altered or obscured by the proposed addition to this building. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. • The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials. The additions exterior materials will be compatible with the historic materials, and will be discussed further during Final HPC Review. 10.12 When constructing a rooftop addition, keep the mass and scale subordinate to that of a historic building. 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 17 • 0 • An addition should not overhang the lower floors of a historic building in the front or on the side. • Dormers should be subordinate to the overall roof mass and should be in scale with historic ones on similar historic structures. • Dormers should be located below the primary structure's ridgeline, usually by at least one foot. The proposed alley -side addition is subordinate in mass and scale to the historic building and is set back more than 40 feet from the front of the building. The addition will not overhang lower floors on any side, and no dormers are proposed. 10.13 Set a rooftop addition back from the front of the building. • This will help preserve the original profile of the historically significant building as seen from the street. As mentioned above, the addition will be constructed on the alley side of the building and set back from the front facade by more than forty (40) feet. The original profile of the building as seen from the street will be preserved. 10.14 The roof form and slope of a new addition should be in character with the historic building. • If the roof of the historic building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition should be similar. • Eave lines on the addition should be similar to those of the historic building or structure. The proposed addition envisions a flat roofline similar to the existing roofline. 14.1 These standards should not prevent or inhibit compliance with accessibility laws. • All new construction should comply completely with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Owners of historic properties should comply to the fullest extent possible, while also preserving the integrity of the character -defining features of their buildings. Special provisions for historic buildings exist in the law that allow some alternatives in meeting the ADA standards. 14.2 Generally, a solution that is independent from the historic building and does not alter its historic characteristics is encouraged. The existing building does not comply with ADA requirements. One of the incentives sought in this AspenModern negotiation requests a waiver of any potentially applicable elevator and/or accessibility requirements. As can be seen on the attached plans, installation of an elevator adds height to the building (to 40' on the alley side and approximately 39' on the Hyman Avenue side). The elevator is shown on the plans to illustrate a "worst case' scenario in the event that the Ordinance 48 negotiation does not result in the requested waiver. Stairs are currently required to access all levels of the building as the split-level layout does not contain a true street -level floor. If accessibility requirements are not waived and compliance cannot be met by changes to the rear of the building, the front entrance may 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 18 0 • need to be modified. However, it is the applicant's hope that the front facade of this building which is seeking Landmark designation and has never been accessible, will not have to be modified. 14.3 Keep color schemes simple. 14.4 Coordinating the entire building in one color scheme is usually more successful than working with a variety of palettes. 14.5 Develop a color scheme for the entire building front that coordinates all tl:e facade elements. Although the HPC does not review the choice of color, there are guidelines that are provided to encourage similar paint schemes. These guidelines are understood and will be more fully addressed at the time of Final HPC review. 14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that used traditionally. 14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting. 14.8 Minimize the visual impact of light spill from a building. The lighting standards are understood by the applicant and will be further addressed at the time of Final HPC Review. 14.9 Use the gentlest means possible to clean the surface of materials and features. 14.10 Repair deteriorated primary building materials by patching, piecing -in, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing the material. 14.11 Plan repainting carefully. 14.12 Provide a weather protective finish to wood surfaces. 14.13 Leave natural masonry colors unpainted where feasible. If applicable, these standards will be followed by the applicant. However, the proposal does not entail any changes to the historic portion of the building or its exterior surfaces. 14.14 Minimize the visual impacts of service areas as seer: from the street. • When it is feasible, screen service areas from view, especially those associated with commercial and multifamily developments. • This includes locations for trash containers and loading docks. • Service areas should be accessed off of the alley, if one exists. The service area will continue to be located off of the alley, thereby minimizing any visual impacts from the street. 14.15 Minimize the visual impacts of mechanical equipment as seen from the public way. • Mechanical equipment may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does not create a negative visual impact. 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application ly • 0 • Mechanical equipment or vents on a roof must be grouped together to minimize their visual impact. Where rooftop units are visible, provide screening with materials that are compatible with those of the building itself. • Screen ground -mounted units with fences, stone walls or hedges. • A window air conditioning unit may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does not create a negative visual impact. • Use low profile mechanical units on rooftops so they will not be visible from the street or alley. Also minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Use smaller satellite dishes and mount them low to the ground and away from front yards, significant building facades or highly visible roofplanes. • Paint telecommunications and mechanical equipment in muted colors that will minimize their appearance by blending with their backgrounds. Mechanical equipment will not be seen from the public ways and will not create a negative visual impact. 14.16 Locate standpipes, meters and other service equipment such that they will not damage historic facade materials. • Cutting channels into historic facade materials damages the historic building fabric and is inappropriate. Do not locate equipment on the front facade. • If a channel must be cut, either locate it on a secondary facade, or place it low on the wall No service equipment will be located on the front facade and none will damage any historic fagade materials. 14.17Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. 14.18 Garages should not dominate the street scene. 14.19 Use a paving material that will distinguish the driveway from the street. 14.20 Off-street driveways should be removed, if feasible. 14.21 For existing driveways that cannot be removed, provide tracks to a parking area rather than paving an entire driveway. 14.22 Driveways leading to parking areas should be located to the side or rear of a primary structure. 14.23 Parking areas should not be visually obtrusive. 14.24 Large parking areas, especially those for commercial and multifamily uses, should not be visually obtrusive. There is an existing garage and carport on the alley side and these will be maintained. Access to the garage and carport is gained via the alley. Signs 14.25 Locate signs to be subordinate to the building design. 14.26 Sign materials should be similar to those used historically. 14.27 Use signs to relate to other buildings on the street and to emphasize architectural features. 14.28 Pictographic symbols are encouraged on signs. 14.29 Illuminate a sign such that it complements the overall composition of thesite. 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 20 0 • These guidelines are understood by the applicant and will be further addressed at the time of Final HPC Review. All signs will be located so as to be subordinate to the building design. C. Conceptual Commercial Design Review Approval The Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines (the "Commercial Guidelines") set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. They are organized to address the different design contexts that exist in the City. These distinct settings, or contexts, are defined as "Character Areas," within which variations exist among the physical features that define each area. The proposed development is located in the "Commercial Character Area," one block east of the Commercial Core. Per the Commercial Guidelines, all development projects should achieve the following design objectives: • Promote an interconnected circulation system that invites pedestrian use, including a continuous street and alley system and a respect for the natural topography; • Promote a system of public places that support activities, including public amenity spaces, compatible landscaping and paving, and unobtrusive off-street parking; and • Assure that buildings fit together to create a vibrant street edge that reinforces a sense of appropriate scale. The Commercial Character Area largely corresponds to the Commercial (C-1) Zone District which forms the immediate fringe of much of the Commercial Core Historic District (CC). Building heights and materials in the C-1 zone vary. Storefront design and display is a less dominant characteristic than in the CC area. The street wall is less defined than in the CC, and building facades are sometimes set back or include front yard space. The purpose of the Commercial (C-1) zone district is stated in Section 26.710.150(A) of the Code as follows: ... to provide for the establishment of mixed -use buildings with commercial uses on the ground floor, opportunities for affordable and free-market residential density. A transition between the CC and surrounding residential neighborhoods has been implemented [emphasis added] through a slight reduction in allowable floor area as compared to the Commercial Core, the ability to occupy the Ground Floor with offices, and a separate Chapter in the Commercial Design Guidelines. Compliance with the zoning, its dimensional requirements and the Commercial Design Guidelines, therefore, ensures provision/implementation of a successful transition from the CC to the adjacent residential neighborhoods. 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 21 • 0 The key design objectives in the Commercial Character Area are as follows: 1. Strengthen the sense of relatedness with the Commercial Core Historic District. Strengthening the definition of the street edge in a manner similar to the Commercial Core is desired. At the same time, the Commercial Area is a place where more variety in design is encouraged. Imitating historic styles is not an objective, but re-establishing a sense of a stronger fundamental framework will enhance the urban qualities of this area and is a priority. 2. Maintain a retail orientation. Greater retail presence at the street edge should be achieved to ensure an enhanced street vitality and an enriched and more urban definition of the commercial street frontage. 3. Promote creative, contemporary design. Designs should seek creative new solutions that convey the community's continuing interest in exploring innovations. At the same time, the fundamental principles of traditional design must be respected. This means that each project should strike a balance in the design variables that are presented in the following pages. 4. Encourage a well-defined street wall. The intent is to more clearly establish a strongly defined street wall, but with some greater variety than in the Commercial Core Historic District since the historic building edge is not as defined. A stronger street fagade definition should be achieved while at the same time recognizing the value ofpublic dining and landscaped space. 5. Reflect the variety in building heights seen traditionally. It is important that a range and variation in building height and scale in the Commercial Area be recognized in future development. Larger buildings should be varied in height and reflect original lot widths. 6. Accommodate outdoor public spaces while establishing a clear definition to the street edge. Providing space in association with individual buildings remains important, but should be balanced with much greater building street presence and corner definition. 7. Promote variety in the street level experience. Display cases, architectural details and landscaping are among the design elements that should be used. The proposed renovation of 610 East Hyman Avenue will maintain the existing setback from the front property line. When viewed from Hyman Avenue, the proposed addition will have a negligible visual impact as compared with the existing condition. Only the alley side view of the building will significantly change as a result of the renovation. The addition is consistent with the stated goal of having varied building heights in the Commercial Area; the upper floor addition will add approximately 8 feet to the current 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 22 structure, and it will be adequately taller than the adjacent building, while remaining sensitive to its context. Outlined below is each of the Commercial Character Area's Conceptual Review Design Guidelines in italicized print, followed by a description of the proposal's compliance and/or consistency therewith, as applicable. 1.1 Orient a primary entrance toward the street. • A building should have a clearly defined primary entrance. • Providing secondary public entrances to commercial spaces is also encouraged on larger buildings. The front side of the building will not change as a result of the proposed renovation. The existing primary entrances will remain in their current locations (unless required to be changed to meet accessibility laws). 1.2 Maintain the established town grid in all projects. • The network of streets and alleys should be retained as public circulation space and for maximum public access. • Streets and alleys should not be enclosed or closed to public access, and should remain open to the sky. All streets and alleys will be retained and will continue to provide maximum public access. No streets or alleys will be enclosed or closed to public access. Internal Walkways 1.3 Public walkways and through courts should be designed to create access to additional commercial space. • These may be shops that face onto walkways or courtyards. • See also: Public Amenity Space design guidelines. This standard is not applicable to the subject property. 1.4 Develop an alley faVade to create visual interest. • Use varied building setbacks and changes in materials to create interest and reduce perceived scale. • Balconies, courtyards and decks are also appropriate. • Providing secondary public entrances is strongly encouraged along alleys. These should be clearly intended for public use, but subordinate in detail to the primary street -side entrance. The proposed addition uses varied building setbacks, as well as a combination of materials and a small deck to create visual interest on the alley facade. 1.5 The visual impacts of structured parking should be minimized. The access shall be: • Located on an alley when feasible or a secondary street, designed with the same attention to detail and materials as the primary building fagade, and integrated into the building design. 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 23 0 0 1.6 Structured parking should be placed within a 'wrap' of commercial and/or residential uses. The visual impacts of structured parking will remain the same and continue to be located off of the alley. Public Amenity Space 1.7A street facing amenity space shall meet all of the following requirements: • Abut the public sidewalk • Be level with the sidewalk • Be open to the sky • Be directly accessible to the public • Be paved or otherwise landscaped 1.8 A street facing public amenity space shall remain subordinate to the line of building fronts in the Commercial Area. • Any public amenity space positioned at the street edge shall respect the character of the streetscape and ensure that street corners are well defined, with buildings placed at the sidewalk edge. • Sunken spaces, which are associated with some past developments, adversely affect the street character. Where feasible, these should be replaced with sidewalk level improvements. 1.9 Street facing amenity space shall contain features to promote and enhance its use. These may include one or more of the following: • Streetfurniture • Public art • Historical/interpretive marker The front yard setback area and uses located therein (walkways and fenced flower bed), will not be altered or in any way changed as a result of the proposed addition. No other public amenity spaces exist on the subject property. 1.18 Maintain the alignment of facades at the sidewalk's edge. • Place as much of the facade of the building at the property line as possible. • A minimum of 60% of the front facade shall be at the property line. • Locating an entire building front behind the established storefront line is inappropriate. 1.19 A building may be set back from its side lot lines in accordance with design guidelines identified in Street & Alley System and Public Amenity Space guidelines. Since the project proposes only a remodel and addition to the alley side of the building, as opposed to a redevelopment, the existing alignment of facades will continue unchanged. 1.20 Building facades shall be parallel to the facing street(s) and primary entrances shall be oriented toward the street. 1.21 Orient a new building to be parallel to its lot lines, similar to that of traditional building orientations. • The front of a primary structure shall be oriented to the street. 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 24 The existing building and the proposed renovations facades are parallel to the street and primary entrances are oriented toward the street. 1.22 Building facade height shall be varied from the faVade height of adjacent buildings of the same number of stories by a minimum of 2 feet. • If an existing structure is three stories and 38 ft tall for example, then adjacent new infill may be three stories, but must vary in faVade height by a minimum of 2 ft. 1.23 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of the Commercial Area. • Refer to the zone district regulations to determine the maximum height on the subject property. • A minimum 9 ft. floor to ceiling height is to be maintained on second stories and higher. The maximum height in the C-1 zone district is established at twenty-eight feet for two- story elements and thirty-six (36) feet for three-story elements of a building, which may be increased to forty (40) feet through Commercial Design Review. The applicant requests that the height for the proposed third -story elements be established at thirty-seven feet (37), which is still three feet (3') below the forty foot (40') limit that can be approved. The proposed addition will add only approximately eight feet (8') of height to the building. However, since this addition will take place on the alley side of the property, the measured height of the building will be 37', which is one foot over the 36' height limit for three-story elements. The ground elevation along the alley is more than a foot lower than that of the Hyman Avenue sidewalk and this directly increases the height measurement. If the measurement were taken from the Hyman Avenue sidewalk, the addition would be at the height limit of thirty-six feet (36'). If approved, the front portion of the building (the first forty feet in depth from Hyman Avenue) will retain its existing height while only the alley side of the building will get taller. Additionally, the proposed third and second stories both vary from the height of the adjacent buildings by more than the prescribed two (2) feet. In the event that any applicable elevator requirements are not waived as part of the AspenModern negotiation, the allowed height of the building (for the elevator shaft/override) will need to be increased to 40 feet on the alley side of the building and approximately 39' on the Hyman Avenue side. 1.24 Height variation should be achieved using one or more of the following: • Vary the building height in accordance with traditional lot width. • Set back the upper floor to vary the building faVade profile(s) and the roof forms across the width and the depth of the building. • Vary the fagade (or parapet) heights at the front. • Step down the rear of the building towards the alley, in conjunction with other design standards and guidelines. This proposal envisions a second and third floor addition on the alley side of the building. The addition is set back more than forty feet from the front of the building, which reaches a 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 25 height of just two and one-half stories. As such, the building height is varied in accordance with traditional lot width. The upper floors are set back to vary the fagade profiles. 1.25 On sites comprising more than two traditional lot widths, the faVade height shall be varied to reflect traditional lot width. • The fagade height shall be varied to reflect traditional lot width. • Height should be varied every 60 ft. minimum andpreferably every 30 ft. of linear frontage in keeping with traditional lot widths and development patterns. • No more than two consecutive 30 ft. fagade 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 fagade. (e.g. at a minimum, the front 40 feet may be no more than two stories in height.) 1.26 Buildings on sites comprising more than two traditional lot widths shall achieve a minimum of two of the following: • Variation in height of building modules across the site • Variation in massing achieved through upper floor setbacks, the roofscape form and variation in upper floor heights • Variation in buildingfagade heights or cornice line Since this site is comprised of only one traditional lot width these standards are not applicable. 1.27A new building should step down in scale to respect the height, form and scale of a historic building within its immediate setting. 1.28 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. This development does not involve any new buildings and there are no single -story historic buildings adjacent to this property. D. Floor Area (FAR) Bonus Section 26.415.110(E) of the Code allows the HPC to grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet to the 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; and Consistency with the applicable guidelines has been demonstrated above. 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; and/or 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 26 The building will be officially designated as historic, and it will remain the key element of the property. Since the addition is proposed on the alley side of the building and the renovation will not alter the historic part of the building, the visual integrity will be completely maintained. c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; and/or The building will be preserved and its historic appearance will be virtually the same as it is now, with the exception of the following historic restoration efforts. The deck off the apartment, on the street -facing fagade, has a "temporary" canvas canopy to provide shade and protection from snow. The applicant envisions replacing this non -historic element with a photovoltaic canopy that will help with energy efficiencies while allowing light to penetrate and pass through to the arched openings on the building fagade, thereby adaptively and creatively simulating the original design intent. The proposal also involves reinstating Brickham-designed arched elements above the existing awning windows through the installation of metal applications cut into the stucco spandrels to simulate the original arched windows and create shadow lines. d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; and/or e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or The addition will use construction materials of the highest quality. The addition's 40 foot setback from the front facade, as well as the complementary but different building materials that are proposed for this new portion of the building will ensure an appropriate transition that defines the historic building and the new construction. g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or No historic outbuildings exist on the subject property. h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained. All of the development proposed will take place on the alley side of the building. The historic site and landscape features along Hyman Avenue will be retained. In order to be eligible for a 500 square foot FAR bonus, a project must meet standard "a," above and one or more of standards b-h. The Code provides at Section 26.415.110(E)(2) that projects which demonstrate consistency with multiple elements of standards b-h will have a greater likelihood of being awarded additional floor area. The foregoing has demonstrated complete consistency with standard "a," as required. In addition, 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 27 consistency with standards b, c, d, e, f and h has been assured as a result of this application. (Standard g is not applicable as there are no historic outbuildings on the subject property.) This proposal is clearly more than eligible for the 500 square foot bonus. E. Parking Waiver Section 26.515.030 of the Code establishes the number of off-street parking spaces needed for various types of development, and provides that one space is required for every 1,000 net leasable square feet of commercial space. Alternatively, cash -in -lieu for 100% of the required commercial spaces is allowed by right. The proposed renovation of this property will create an additional 935 square feet of net leasable area, resulting in the need for less than one parking space (0.935 of a space). Developmental benefits currently available to Landmark designated properties under Section 26.420.020(B)(1)(e) of the Code include a parking waiver and a waiver of cash -in - lieu fees for sites unable to contain the required number of off-street parking spaces. There are already several off-street parking spaces associated with this property, and said parking will remain after the renovation. There is no further opportunity for additional on - site parking, however, there is ample street parking surrounding this property. Any development of additional on -site parking would adversely affect the integrity of the historic resource. As such, the applicant requests a parking waiver from the HPC in association with the Landmark Designation and Conceptual approval requested herein. II. Community Development Director Review Requirements Pursuant to Section 26.470.060 of the Code, the Community Development Director (CDD) has the ability to approve, approve with conditions, or deny certain Growth Management applications. Subsection (4) thereof allows for the approval of a minor enlargement of a Historic Landmark for commercial, lodge or mixed -use development as long as certain criteria are met. The criteria applicable to this development hold that: if the development increases both floor area and net leasable space, up to four (4) employees generated by the additional space shall not require the provision of affordable housing; and no more than one free- market residence may be created. This proposal seeks to increase FAR by approximately 2,260 square feet, and will increase the net leasable area by approximately 935 square feet on an upper floor (generating only 2.88 FTE [935/1000 x 3.075 = 2.875], per the standards of Code Section 26.470.100(A)(1)). No new free-market residences are proposed, rather there will be only an addition to an existing residence. Therefore, this proposal satisfies the criteria for approval as a minor enlargement of a Historic Landmark and should be approved by the CDD concurrent with designation. 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 28 property rights associated with the site specific development plan approved pursuant to this application so as to ensure an adequate degree of reliability on such approvals into the future. The community benefit of landmark designation will immediately be realized by the City and will never expire; seven years of additional vested property rights in exchange is reasonable. Further, this will enable phasing of construction related impacts on the neighborhood by allowing the applicant the ability to wait until other projects in the area, including the Aspen Art Museum, have been completed. Section V: Summary It is the applicant's desire to see the building at 610 East Hyman Avenue restored and preserved via historic landmark designation under the AspenModern program. As incentives and in exchange for this restoration and perpetual preservation effort, the applicant seeks benefits that are enumerated in the Code as appropriate for designated landmarks. As stated in Code Section 26.415.110, Benefits to encourage good historic preservation practices by owners of historic properties are an important aspect of Aspen's historic preservation program. Historic resources are a valuable community asset and their continued protection is the basic premise supporting the creation of an innovative package of preservation tools that are unlike any other in the country. AspenModern was adopted to address, through negotiation of incentives for designation, the negative impacts that the loss of landmark eligible buildings would have on the health, peace, safety, and general well being of the residents and visitors of Aspen, and the diminishment of Aspen's unique architectural character, livability, and attractiveness as a destination. The applicant is offering assurances for the restoration and perpetual preservation of the building at 610 East Hyman Avenue in association with certain land use entitlements. The proposal outlined herein is fully worthy of City and community support. Furthermore, and in light of recent land use decisions in the nearby vicinity of this property, it is important for the City to support the landmark designation of this building and its continued contribution to the defining character, mass and scale of Aspen. It is felt that the requested incentives are not only modest but fully appropriate and warranted in an equitable exchange for providing the substantial community benefits described hereinabove and a valuable community asset by landmark designating a building that embodies the aesthetic achievements of Ellie Brickham, an internationally known architect who contributed significantly to Modern Era Aspen architecture. It is hoped that the requested approvals will be granted and the property will be added to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application III. City Council Review Requirements In exchange for the voluntary historic preservation of this property, the benefits that the applicant is seeking from City Council include the following: • A modest code variation to accommodate the proposed free-market residential net livable area and Floor Area; • Waiver of any potentially applicable elevator and/or access requirements; and • Ten (10) years of vested property rights. A. Code Variations The allowable free-market residential FAR for this building is 0.5:1 or 1,500 square feet. The existing free-market residential FAR in the building is only thirteen (13) square feet below this limit. After the addition there will be 3,010 square feet of free-market residential FAR (1.003:1), with 511 square feet of that total in non -unit space (prorated circulation and non-exempt garage space). Therefore, of the total free-market residential Floor Area, only 83% (less than 2,500sf) will be part of the apartment itself. The maximum allowable multi -family dwelling unit size is 2,000 square feet of net livable area. The applicant would like to increase the net livable area of the existing residential unit to 2,259 square feet, which remains some 240sf below that allowed in this zone district with the purchase of a TDR. B. Waiver of Any Elevator and/or Access Requirements An elevator will add more height to the building and will take the project all the way to the 40' limit that is allowed only with Commercial Design Review approval. As can be seen on the attached plans, the building will be 40' on the alley side and approximately 39' on the Hyman Avenue side if an elevator is required. The elevator is shown on the plans to illustrate a "worst case" scenario in the event that the AspenModern negotiation does not result in the requested waiver. Stairs are currently required to access all levels of the building as the split-level layout does not contain a true street -level floor. If accessibility requirements are not waived and compliance cannot be met by changes to the rear of the building, the front entrance may need to be modified. However, it is the applicant's hope that the front facade of this building which is seeking Landmark designation and has never been accessible, will not have to be modified. C. Seven (7) Additional Years of Vested Property Rights Given the state of current economic times and the possibilty that AspenModern may be repealed, replaced or amended in the coming years, the applicant seeks 10 years of vested 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 29 0 Exhibits: 1. Land Use Application & Dimensional Requirements Forms 2. Proof of Ownership 3. Pre -application Conference Summary 4. Authorization Letter 5. Fee Agreement 6. Mailing Addresses of Record for Property Owners' within a 300' Radius Attachments: • Existing Conditions Survey • Proposed Drawings and Elevations 610 E. Hyman AspenModern Application 31 EXHIBIT ATTACHMENT 2 - Historic Preservation Land Use Applicatio RECFIV E PROJECT: _ -- __- M A 4 2 8 2012 Name: �w E . N ma F A6PEN Location: 0 E , Asceyo Qmwpmew LO M o cK q (wns i 04, (Indicate street address, lot & block iiumber & metes and bounds description o property) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) 17 37 --- J Za-- / d,— 00 'PLICANT• ame: // U lliv>cr� l��—C� C/o rba",-ler ddress: fU In� man ATr Asoen Co lone Fax#: — E-mail: Cha&CYA,11'-Jfk •C REPRESENTATIVE: o / II 'd •• i �� r • �� Li 1 YFE Or' APPLICATION: (please check all that a NHistoric Designation ❑ Relocation (temporary, on ❑ Certificate of No Negative Effect ❑ or off -site) ❑ Certificate of Appropriateness ❑ Demolition (total ❑ -Minor Historic Development demolition) ❑ -Major Historic Development ❑ Historic Landmark Lot Split N -Conceptual Historic Development ❑ -Final Historic Development -Substantial Amendment KISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) _ M 21/_1 Soo m l Ye 4- d v 1 /C/1 Y1 / q& ;, l v C Oa�0�o,e j ca f�Y-�" On a / [e c� S) dt by i /� /� �63a P.OPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) dMaKL 0- rem6C(�_ c OY131S aL�4fO S G�l h� � � nal�- � ►.S'l�ri Ca,r 6 _ Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: May 29, 2007 COM C� J General Information Please check the appropriate boxes below and submit this page along with your application. This information will help us review your plans and, if necessary, coordinate with other agencies that may be involved. YES NO JX ❑ Does the work you are planning include exterior work; including additions, demolitions, new construction, remodeling, rehabilitation or restoration? ❑ Does the work you are planning include interior work; including remodeling, rehabilitation, or restoration? ❑ X Do you plan other future changes or improvements that could be reviewed at this time? ❑ In addition to City of Aspen approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness or No Negative Effect and a building permit,, are you seeking to meet the Secretary of theYnrofor's Standards or Rehabilitation or.restorafion of a National Register of Historic Places property in order to qualify for state or federal tax credits? ❑ ❑ If yes, are you seeking federal rehabilitation investment tax credits in conjunction with this project? (Only income producing properties listed on the National Register are eligible. Owner -occupied residential properties are not.) ❑ ❑ If yes, are you seeking the Colorado State Income Tax Credit for Historical Preservation? Please check all City of Aspen Historic Preservation Benefits which you plan to use: ❑ Rehabilitation Loan Fund ❑ Conservation Easement Program KDimensional Variances ❑ Increased Density ❑ Historic Landmark Lot Split X Waiver of Park Dedication Fees ❑ Conditional Uses >kExemption from Growth Management Quota System ❑ Tax Credits Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: May 29, 2007 0 • ATTACHMENT 3 - Dimensional Requirements Form (Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.) Project: L C M bVk�Ma (L bQ S )m t y4 M 0 Y _OeUcl 0 " r4 —cay , cd Applicant: TIOT Hq n LLC C o Ct U Project J Location: �_ ma Vl �I aU E' , hs,o�,o C 0 Zone District: C—' Lot Size: 3 r 000 Lot Area: _3 000 S (For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) / Commercial net leasable: Existing: Proposed : Number of residential units: Existing: __,Proposed.- Number of bedrooms: Existing:, Proposed: Proposed % of demolition: DIMENSIONS: (write n/a where no requirement exists in the zone district) ,r Floor Area: Existin Ny S"Allowable: Z• S� S� g � Proposed: 7,5 0 0 S Height tom 37lelwly ino emab-) Principal Bldg.: Existing �Z? d Allowable. `76)1 011-h OYPVpo & Gd�1i B16'61tik r Accessory Bldg.: Existing:AAllowable: hJ Proposed:WA On -Site parking: Existing: 5 Required:�. Proposed: % Site coverage: Existing: ? Required.• ^/Proposed: No CAa/yg % Open Space: Existing: Required: WA Proposed. -No C 4 a,-) 2 Front Setback: Existing: &i . Required: N A Proposed: No e On L Rear Setback: Existing: llNon p Required: &A Proposed: 0 C� Combined Front/Rear: Indicate N, S. E, W Existing: Required: N/A Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: Required: ;✓ >f Proposed: Side Setback: Existing:�Required: Ai �11 Proposed: � Combined Sides: Existing:__.6�'l Required:YAProposed.•�_ Distance between Existing: 0 Required: ^Proposed: buildings: Existing non -conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued: Variations requested (identify, the exact variances needed): Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: May 29, 2007 1] Original Note and Deed of Trust Returned to: 610 EAST HYMAN LLC, 610 EAST HYMAN AVE, ASPEN, CO 81611 WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Customeratabove address ' Prepared/Received by: Mary Piha REQ(IEST FOR FULL (X ) /PARTIAL () RELEASE OF DEED OF TRUST AND RELEASE BY OWNER OF INDEBTEDNESS NVrruovr PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE OF DEBT PURSUANT TO y38-39-102 (1) AND (3), COLORADO REVISED STATUTES) JJUNE 30, 2009 Date 610 EAST HYMAN, LLC Original Grantor (Borrower) 610 EAST HYMAN AVE ASPEN. CO 81611 Curren Address of Original Grantor, Assuming Party, or Current Owner () Check here if eumen[ address is unknown. NORWE.ST BANK COLORADO NATIONAL ASSOCIATION Original Bcneftciary (Lender) JANUARY 7,1999 "Date ofDeed ofTrust JANUARY 25,7999 Dare of Recording and/or Pe -Recording orDeed ofTruu PlTKiN County of Recording 426913 of Rocorded Deed o f Trust Reception No. And/or Film No. and/or Book Nolpage No, TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF PITKIN County'(The County of the Public Trustee who is the appropriate grantee to whom the above Deed ofTnrst should grant and interest in the property described in the Deed of T=L) PLEASE EXECUTE AND RECORD A RELEASE OF THE ABOVE -DESCRIBED DEED OF TRUST, The indcbtdness secured by the Deed of Trust has been fully or partially paid and/or the purpose of the Deed of Trust has been fully or partially satisfied in regard to the property encumbered by the Deed of Trust as described therein as to a full release or, in the event ofa partial release, only that portion of the real property described as: (IF NO LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS LISTED THIS WILL BE DEEMED A FULL RELEASE) Pursuant to §38.39-102 (3). Colorado Revised Statutes• in sopportofthis Regoat of Release of Dad of-rrwt. the undersigned• as the owner of the evidence of debt secured by the Deed ofTnur described above• or a Tide Insurance Company authorized to rcgecat the release ofa Dad ofTnut Pursuant to 439-39-102 (3) O, Colorado Revised Sww's. in lieu ofthe production or ezlnbition ofibe original evidence ofdebt with this Roquest for Release, cenitiu as follows: I . The purpose of the Deed of Trust has been fully or partially satisfied. 2. The original evidence of debt is not being exhibited or produced herewith. 3. It is one of the following entities check applicable box): a. (X) The holder of the original evidence of debt that is a qualified holder, as specified in 33s.79-102 (3) (a)• Colorado Revised Stetula• that agrees Oat is obligated to indemnity the Public Trustee for any and all damages, costs, liabJlrics• and reasonable attorney fees incurred as a result oftbe ' action of the PubGe Trtat" lateen in accordance with this Request for Releaser. b. O The holder ofthecvida+eeefdebt requesting the release ofa Iced ofTrnst without producing or exhibiting the original cvideaa ofdcN Out delivers torhe Public Trust" a Corponte Surety Bond as spwified io §3&39-102 (3) (bx Colorado Revised Statutes: or () A Title Insurance Comp..y licensed and qualified is Colorado, as specified in PW9-102 (3) O, Colorado Revised Statutes, that agrees that it is obligated to indemnify tho Public Trust" for any and all damages• costs, liabilities. and reasonable anornry fees incurred as a result of the acdon of the Public Trustee takaa in accordance with this Request for Release: Wells Fareo Bank National Association formerly Wells Famo Bank West N.A. formerly Norwect Bank Colorado N. A 119 S. Mill St Aspen, CO 81611 Name and Address ofthe Holder of the Evidence of Debt Secured by Deed of Trust (tender) Or name and address of the Tide tnsuranm Company Authorized to Request the Release ofa Deed of Trust Dan s . eni rVice 'dent. Wells F o 81617 ir Narft., Title >m A.0drcss. of teer, Agent, or Attoenry of the Holdcrofthe Evidence of Debt Secured by Deed of Trust (Lender) smn.ava • _ p �aS;�OTAq�,go State of Colorado, County of a'7/c St The foregoing Request for Release was acknowledged before me on June 30 9 (date) by* �;UBG'f�� Witnts my hand and official seal S Oa"COt -Date Commission Experts i Notary Public RELEASE OF DEED OF TRUST WHEREAS, the above referenced Grantor(s), by Dad of Taut conveyed certain real property described in said Deed of Trust to the Public Trustee of the County referenced above, in the State of Colorado, to be held in trust to secure the payment of the indebtedness referred to therein; and WHEREAS, the indebtedness secured by the Dad of Trust has been fully or partially paid and/or the purpose of the teed of Trust has been fully or partially satisfied according to the written request of the holder of the evidence of debt or Trctc btsuranoc Company authorized to request the rcicasc of the Occd of Trust; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the payment of the statutory sum, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, 1, as the Public Trustee in the County first referenced above, do hereby fully and absolutely release, canal and forever discharge the Deed of Trust or thpt pol¢lon of re the a(propertydescrib=6 above in the Deed of T: ust together with all privileges and appurtenances khcreto belonging. r 7 Executed on By Norma Avila T RU Deputy Public Trustee ••• S Pitkin County, Colorado sPEAf r__' Notarization not required per § 38-38-106 C.R.S the o��o���f•••111111Court IQra XL Witness my hand and ofiictDate Comm• •1(pifflplio bla Wme net Addra of Peraan Cantina Ncw up, D_1V6on y/ ••aid loan 2009 CPTA, All Rights reservist Rev. 04108 RECEPTION#: 560371, 06/30/2009 at 11:56:46 AM, 1 OF 1. R $6.00 DOC Code RLS DT Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO E EXHIBIT -• is DEED OFTRUST (Colorado) 7 Gram«- 610 Last Hyman, LLC A AjTk/N3�10pg 610 Heat By— Ave. N co Asp—, CO 81611 �A i 2. UneBCllfy:NORW= SANS COLORADO, HAT101ML ASSOCXATION 119 SOUTH baLL SITRIERT ASPM, CO 91611 3. Tnwoe: The Public Truslee for the Cour ty in which the property is located. 4. Property. The following land inPlTI=N County. Colorado LOT M, BLOCK 99, CITY AND TOWNSITZ of Aspm. COUNTY OF eInmr, STATE Or COLORADO S. Obrgnlont: (a) All Indebtedness evidenced and created by the following described Promissory note (the 'Note-) payable to the order of Beneficiary, and all renewals, excenslonsand amendments thereof and subsdUlons therefor. Date: Jaaaazy 07, 1999 Amount $260,000.00 1?1 a Xetereat µ0S1rty Da1B: rebroaxy 09, 1999 . Maker (If other than Grantor: - Cb lov L. f£. (b) future advances made by BenefWary on or before the maturity date of the Note plus Interest thereon provided arty mclWred notice of right to rescind or cancel has been given. (c) all expenditures made or Incurred by beneficiary pursuant to The provtslons of the Note and this deed of trust together with interest lhereon. (d) other e: Conuunucdon Mortgage: If checked here (_� this deed of trust secures an inda nedrmss for eorLrovction purposes as decrlibed In CRS (1973) s=lon 4.9313 THE GRANT. TERMS AND CONDITIONS BELOW AND ON THE REVERSE SIDE ARE A PART OF TfifS DEED OF TRUST AND ARE HEREBY INCORPORATED INTO IT. pate Jantaasy 07, 1999 610 Sae Byasa, LLC X Charles L. Crmaiffe, amgei Attest Co-owner. spouse or other claimant of a right with respect to the real property described above joins In granting the Ilan and waiver set forth in paragraph 13 ad this deed of tr st, but does not assume any liability for payment of the Note. Dom: January 07. 1999 r 111111 Hill 111111 rill110111 III Ilia III Hill lilt IHI 426913 01/25/1f909 e2:09P OT DNYIS SILVI STATE OF COLORADO ) 1 or 2 R 11.00 0 0.00 N 0.e0 prMN COtpay CO fn,.Alrf nF f'lTKIIJ ) The foregoing hutnvnentvas admowledgedd rbefore me this day of UG..n�a rj .19 �. by �ariL� `. �titnni j^tL �Mw✓•o o-�-- �(o L.w-( i%�jtt.-n ; LLB Witness my hand and odfl fad My Commiss Ion eA*esair- 9. 2002 0 0 �(.—(!,•t.v��--' `-Ez) - ��LC.�i.�-,�.� l�C 'c, C C`.�`-�.C4s�•.C;� /J , d�l . mat T.O.N.fer.WW,cwbsrb.Ou.no.Pwe �Lw,oMPwPw•nf lnTrvw•.WA�wWPaYWWr .fb.n5.nlew.•rM «m0.Mn• akd ulaloanetrryrtq)taawar MEe,.[ea.lGD•�^IP9 wn®aeeemmnn.cumm..w�.,,a.w,nwue.mr. PAwnr...b}crna.Rrar.r ww.,r ..,�raew.n.«amw.mya..wal.rwro J�o.wa.ny.aw.mwbwrs Ta, Q.nnll.- '-..wnm..o..w Onoarms A Cara.nbdawx. O�wuna..wawy+•r. 47 b EqM rh}rlw fb•pan wwr..Pw D•aeln••colaYO bwYbma.rl aw mwvr. M pwir,ramn•Yr.N W w•daw•lM bJnwln Jyarr4,YumrnwM1kbmayrwTo.mrsmd Nmn�wlon VS N dradwn; P) b pyarL rrby.an. w.0 u,Uuar•,ar �wM�i,bar Pan w.w.b,vw•JJrA rl.tw Pmgwwnatb P•anY n.nJ.wod;rteN •C.b.tw Plm.w. mo.PEo>n v»P•b..m.nm...r d e.wa•n:W r.a.4w n..wJn.aaom.• mw:euEr w.e.lwrw.nu• Nwrw N an cw.+.wr N w Ism wnw.�.aub.PA,•,n.n. enwl+.P.ny,w re•�+vrw,•aJ+.orwn•«bP�rPm�wew,.nn.Ym camPaNa allvye• �P,wd q bn.3rl.Ywal9ubeJ.Y n�naau NYwsaprry. w b atlpnvW a4vw poar:.d N.u.nrb e.n•anvy, wm ,.mw®.dxrlmdw..m,....,..,..•vdo•.men...�.n o•ml..l. r+Pw+n, ronnowww. m.orr••ea.rn..r o•,law ObEpmay.vm. w vanPn ray, m r Pwnawm, i% ar.Pw •,w•ww •wNw..w.a.wd, o.r••w•�• r ww Pmo•n N onnamrmbn w nprrnne bme.ar nvan rover: M ml b aownnnwra.ana.a annwa. a nyNm••w•..nam,nryr.wv.�. r n,wwne.ayrand. M pm.,wn m-..nae•n•aaw,.11e rolb W(,nw I.aa v1:,mm.e...w PmpJly.ov bow.Jm.ry, A a rnnPym.m..w b.m�w. Pray pdc,ldu W eE bw.,a•eNovS ncre nmra�a.w. ayo+rd,.n.•..a�na..9.�•�^e wnm.y n r�.c ey b.A�.. Nwna aJ.wa ny.dtnn r P�.a4o PWPaerom u.ew P,wny,wwu. ub e.w dma «6,nan.ryaapw aw.N. MlnubwPrr«w,nm,. a�..w-ra.Pr.n w NwsnO oonm'a•4Nwn.a WBvNc'uYr. aagT�•abn npoawJnE lnl a,r.e rrmwmm••a•..ao.eb r«.m..,raw m,a.,wmr.a s Flmyp avravb M Paprb«unounb I�Ta U vw du+?. rrA vma«wm anaE NPra IPDJaadW ana,wb• aPrP,a bl pw«Irryblm«wbeulQamau6axLaNp yf4K Nw�W gOJMUryU blaOlsYN r..a.ap.«•.E•wu„naw pq+wrn.N T• rneaeend Wn•aa.y, m.P.w»d. aw Oeapdo+.aTw „am.r.,,,.. m ao.ama.v. nur.raw.m m r.y.ro Pnw,..,rm-^.+a, wymnl ao,aW+a Uwnara aM.crm L'9b n 4na4.a.✓W'•'•%.•u..u•iw...aa..,w nu,nro e. wn ucr ua, rll e.malrw•••ryry Onea4bwM mr rar,ee..ww w •ven'a'Ib reryn. rd sW P•aonn•a.way.....ra,...a..aow•;ro saw.,wimu,raq M•eOayN wwaaa NeWGnO nmryi Iw, ruE Wm.nau Nv�ir•�'r✓Aor,wP>-rw.Nv Mw. W MYaW m a�arK Yd Jot Ce✓Mwl r w Dove laa. dwprevb•aryroa; W rw,pnCd Ban.MJ.ry,aaPeJ:•� U.r.nn•,ra••n rortNbramRgrlbonaawM dtla w,emWaamYJ wmo.• la,..w....r,w�ororm. aeP.ny.v.�...s� rw..ww..wrmo.Nam.wm.,be..adw b Pawwdaar..,.em.w.n�.. ,.aaY•4w M mwmr e.^a'+wP,>�roetwonwmmcnd.�ry.m.�woon.N.a Nw,w.s.+wa f. mrYenn.nlYfi...u.o.ma•mrlKW auaorm..a.P,w nyebwlw gop.ly b,vlw yw.,a+aaawyw.a.nd «onpobq VEDrbI p,eem.a,a.dT.,oar.nerw, oo.p.w «.alrw dJdmnnWrgbmNwo w.a.ww«•..nu Iw.rb+� T. a..e.n de,.a.n 4o.ldo.,ap w� w Pmemn,JE ml ImTTe«eJwu+.n«mwwatm�ne.mwroeowwnone.w.aetaa.w+.bn.ea,rt.+r«rP�+a a, « w.a,.w P•oP•M m.cm,e4.aw u.Prwaaa «fermnupK c.nya5 hti+�,•a.r«u.mnww«.Tw.a.•rw..�v...•••r «,...mu.mm n �.PJe<n 4..mnrnnd.nnnl.a w ppw aorow4 N wnvn.nw wm r.PEac.w ndmr..cr I... p) r:min aPeesa w.,w.w-in�ww Mmlrnr..9•n•aaLyrx ea..w w.M w.. iJ,w...aeaa•y.nn�vcrm.y.ro •na4a�a....aal..,au9am. .nm.n. jY�vbrq df wl aw.eo,� aamw! rnaa .tl nm.�..• v,d ma • b.wn4 Ymmq Ina. v 4vm en. a.•^wa 4'I'a a Yuan a M 4.med•n r .y maq�dwd.Ypwa«ra4Enp b•w•aJn.r.gaUmc«naary•tlrrq mriem•m.mvnr+tlr«+yd.b•eu,nn[.r«...w.:w ...mwwcn..nm�m, annmwrwPmn.y •,r+•r«,nwm ram.nu,Jw.e N.aJbn a.nyndlanwar Jon. a b�l6on w�.<•. T:v. w.+aJY rJa 4a Yrvaary.�aL Kwdrq Yrmab avMaw rJrr dN4, ena dw.a fd Ton 4mi Cx+1am'naaon «Gar4nerW roan �.N• P,•�r. d wa «ra,m..w.•. nmaa•.. r e..n.., Pa4aro m �N..a� varw•w InJc r nmrdn mlvewa. a w+4r w.4til., •• .�. ,ww .na.rwe.w..nn!.a.rvJr.rNal.eh.n.w.n.�..M«..e•w^�r•'rn•4«aw�abnmmwner «�mwmmes. ma , Ta Tt.orr. • �nnw Jur1aM •JloenYa3b W n asw,Autw4r rmrryeutdlM Pmplyamaaw paa.riEw, corm dibrohWy, ar OOYyT«s rJE a idelnaYa arpar•e4 aw.w•naw a.rdogYP-.w.eeyc<mmoa.xwn In.e.a. ewne.�y�.yrcm.waw!.. ne.uww o«pJmr.omamanaamr..amwmnc..wam«..nrewrr.nam..P.�.*•a erw. ewe,.wv�mwer^^YHe•^+r�na..eroa.;"w4rm ,vyvnrafardme Aop•Rr. d D•aml Tvoranm•dnnydwrJl«anprW eaaYr�•wr.l•1ra...aP.r•waay.en4Jlw.w.wau; pJ a.d..a pnvmnoMna uyaN.rm....i+aw..+aa N.e..a.l m.+.wrmu«.nr wr.m•�^�'� V+nMaw:awn,n•'.,Y N.o�.•os..m w.obaae M1 aryv.wva.,pn.amaen a rJwddawwN W, 0•Na!wJ,«WoWma4 mnarJnre mem,orry bra onewrdOna«.Y•••• b nr bw M1b• U.^Y nJ�.'•�.d a.nm[uanaiWn•61%aao.oSalaU.mn d.rna•mn d«...lay..4ltiur'%Kw.+..rJ...,{nppWnrna aalwb rvWldwpepayd.aWpm•d4w ndaae?"z•br'.vwrae.nva.nw.Jc'1'Potwa.V ma+M'av�r,MO'«b.^,�•. Jb•`Y^'•B^"`J c a+Ivcy.rmaur oagmantnwnooa avl o.oJgee..adryemwm:pun...�.N.a.c�+u•N,�,,•a«a. e. ao•P•.aPw+�+•. p.ar.nv.aar -omgem.a UOJra. rrLdadbunbCronbawi•woa'gnena•drmn.aorwn duelm•aaNd.lwaaesu. N.E.. an n•n:riry a.v d w.bo.. wl• nmmbov ggnrv+.pa a r.an m.rP...on ia....r.. uPa or.nr. umnav aeuev«idury waaar.w, e.nm.yw. wraw.yrya..m.vnnm...nb, J..E ercn•aae. v.aarb• +va y.a.v.«rmw loan.....e.w�.n,.vu.«�,w.rJ•b.mP.m.nwn��...ywne.o..,n...�e a.,q«u,.awna•ury .�..wa...,.a..wb.e..n.el..e..o.a..+�.�.�npw�+a e.n,aww....n..nann iw.�r.«.aa e•raa+,r�•rb•.bla..w ..w,!�s..aaan.,n.•.ai.a..�e.,.vrm.an•I.m.nm..aawncp.b•=waa.a-.•.�n.odwobveJlon.!,w.rvan...a pn. (aals�. Nw.,.a.. Po•••w.-�•na•�.. w n.nwl da..,erw w m.wY..a w�..4 w w.r u,..m..+.am...r..re...a•-..a..sn...,,um w. ewsd.,y.,.r e.�. •-••--I! n e�Y.a., tV w er.n w .ar..yw r �.�a I.Y...n a wau w,n w P•,P.c�.na a ssly a. w w a,opew a.wy m.wr«b wnyrmm•w.nscaawP�vp,ry. «beuw W.nwpy br.waeJn, •a•a•.na.,nna wv.,w ePa"ewa a I..�may,.a.ww annro«., e..PPdneawaa.Pnmmr.I.ar..a•m. AaP•m«aw,.nasww P„mw,.d,«e•r.w al.....ab..daw .aRnnearam<ray+.elcx.yn0aw jdryp�s+s«..e•prr d.,yro+v�w Wu«�aw•aa.raw.u,ewun.a by.n�l ,.n.n..5.w a.aYdvgwwrNr mJ.w.aw•.aw.l.«r.Id+oSmaweYo•�n+ 4.a e.nJle•n� 4W4a to woary.bn•ln ..ww.v.,a«e.r rO.W,ymV•wMtM7bN•dw•Mewa amwca.wqn a.Twlrntl.e.gnwmuisrwo..IN.ry. /anu•wmm,..r o-.b�•...aw Proorry r.r y bvre.nYl r. [ lol.aow• b md• a,n�yn w Tnvrw n ewmp n w mua u w e,n•ealy mry a W n we a r+d� Uw n.,N.�r m 0. A.w.y rrya.aonaa..Ir. rb�aomw.Tb.r�:•uwy,w Tn.Jnn,...nw.en.Y�Jr b..rr�.d•a NIN n�.n.w vw'"'"Prw r.dlti ^--ardmwa � b aw cq w.n6nTaw opw d('wrmr. .UMra W sr� mu,Man. oda> n.,.q.dw•s Nna Pr IImm� m.Y Iw a mm w.iq.rtyn • Mn.wa •.vwlanm.ww.M1SNa, l..aa wiry bw•a..aaNr. u rrrJwav� W TM a..a ab.v.r.wa aP•nbl•�J J..E e. etrm.r pa,wnb+. P.,.ow,�,e,aw..,,m�.ao.d r.on. acrw«.r r.a Nva la Nr bxuraa Nr TR-111r. Te PanAlEle) mE Ilb rIN bYXiaa.'•w •rt ra jq Tnb awa rM wryA n,nrr.ro «n.mawauy %•^•,uw.wn n.ep,pw M wpp Nqw, aramll annae�+t «vr�. W Tlu Mra9r.W."9wmC6ny; TW r: 9apry,•Oeyramv,' W Tia•"ra0intl N pJPplynn 1 tNdgn 1 ,••P•w+•d. al Tew Tnw4•,vy.a••n Peawanaw uar.adaaw.c•e.ne nwmn¢d.o r... wme aY Cmrra ir.r. vW aw ermm.maa Ymvrrrbq o nv,••nl dw aao•e«a hl r.«. ebnoroaolaoc.r wl....na o.,ar. ara, e.•r oar nn.nwPyb..r�.do..n. W T.w TM.w mayabar Paa• e w naP• M N... w O.n d va. a..e a b.wl •oa. w.a..r d eww.ym.n hrYNr M r aabY «unary bruYJary mry M ro w nm6d., or w Pwp.y m yJni anaoc d rduamw pJWIwY'n Irib aaVrbly/a, 4 w«nudnrywEWillrur M aen.awanW.d.�Cl apM N ba.�6auryaubnqua ^J. .. w Nrw•a nmr.Marvrom...J«m..awe.am.wnrn.e4rmb a..eaa.l wE r N.acro : w.na.awo.m,n•n.o I.a....acb.•arn.u.a ..+wp•Pw..a..+nac...m.,...:.n.owl.�....e..an..�.a.an....a�...wn>r^awrwJn «owa_ Iramwowe..YNne.a.«.a a•aloav aaou•Yac•wa Yy a.,o.W r.MwEwrwwLpr.wauOerY•IM.w Mm.Mr.fr b,wT+uvar n.wwwnwdNw!1ww• , b ny MwaU^d�NY�UwP,spnl!.womiC^.UnNpoc•lv,a• 0•.bIMOeYOJM.w Cell..n•nwmnlK•a WM1•. I hill Hill Dgll In Ilion M III# 1111191lit uIl 42M12 of 2 R 11.00 DD Q.ee R 0.89 PIT-. CO:R{fY CO • 0 EXHIBIT CITY OF ASPEN 3 PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Amy Guthrie DATE 03.21.12 PROJECT: 610 E. Hyman Avenue REPRESENTATIVE: Charles Cunniffe Architects; Haas Land Planning TYPE OF APPLICATION: Historic Designation and AspenModern negotiation for preservation incentives DESCRIPTION: The owner of 610 E. Hyman wishes to remodel the building to expand residential living space. In 2010, an application for voluntary designation/AspenModern was initiated, and reviewed by HPC at two hearings before the applicant decided to terminate the effort. A new application may be filed now to renew pursuit of land use approvals and incentives that facilitate the proposed expansion. The project will return to HPC for review of the property's qualifications for landmark designation. HPC will also conduct a Conceptual review of proposed exterior alterations to the building. City Council will make the final determination on designation and incentives. If designation is completed, the applicant will return to HPC for Final design review. Land Use Code Section(s) that may be applicable: 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.412 Commercial Design Review 26.415.030 Designation of historic properties 26.415.070 Development involving designated historic property 26.415.110 Benefits 26.470 26.515 26.575 26.710.150 Review by: Public Hearing: Planning Fees: Referral Fees: Total Deposit Growth Management Off-street Parking Miscellaneous Supplementary Regulations C-1 Zone District Staff for complete application and GMQS exemptions Historic Preservation Commission (Designation, Design Review, Incentives) Council (Designation, Incentives) Yes at HPC and Council. $4,410 Deposit for 14 hours of staff time (additional staff time required is billed at $315 per hour) None. $4,410 Total Number of Application Copies: HPC: 10 Copies Council: 10 Copies RECEIVED MA.R 2 8 2012 CITY OF ASPEN COWUNITY DEVELOPME14T To apply, submit the following information: 1. Total Deposit for review of application. 2. Applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. i 0 3. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 4. Completed Land Use Application. 5. Signed fee agreement. 6. Pre -application Conference Summary. 7. An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcels within the City of Aspen. 8. Proof of ownership. 9. Existing and proposed site plan, landscaping plan, and parking plan. 10. Existing and proposed floor plans and elevation drawings that include proposed dimensional requirements. 11. A site improvement survey that includes all existing natural and man-made site features. 12. A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how a proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. 13. A written description of proposed construction techniques to be used. 14. All other materials required pursuant to the specific submittal requirements. 15. List of adjacent property owners within 300' for public hearing. The GIS department can provide this list on mailing labels for a small fee. 920.5453 16. Applications shall be provided in paper format (number of copies noted above) as well as the text only on either of the following digital formats. Compact Disk (CD) -preferred, Zip Disk or Floppy Disk. Microsoft Word format is preferred. Text format easily convertible to Word is acceptable. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. EXHIBIT D City of Aspen Community Development Dept. 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 610 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen (PID# 2737-182-12-004) Historic Designation and AspenModern Negotation To whom it may concern: As owner of the above referenced property, I hereby authorize Haas Land Planning, LLC (HLP) to act as my designated and authorized representative for the preparation, submittal and processing of the application requesting the approvals listed above, as well as, any subsequent applications that may be associated therewith. HLP is also authorized to represent me in meetings with City staff, the Historic Preservation Commission, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Aspen City Council. Should you have any need to contact us during the course of your review, please do so through Haas Land Planning, LLC. Yours truly, G� 610 E. Hyman LLC by Charles Cunniffe 610 E. Hyman Ave Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 925-5590 0 0 o l • 2-o (2 - -Ai+F — EXHIBIT Agreement to Pay Application Fees Hn agreement Detween the Ulty of Aspen ("Uity") and Property U {_ j (UUvrl(1(l l_ L i Phone No.: 617(] - (L , - 5 5 9 C Owner ("I"): J ar -f " i Email: hG✓�i's rvGUrl✓�i C C(w' Address of Property: �n1 �' U ti"e,'Iyj 7 t;"'P-- Billing Address: s6`�� e- (subject of application) `�c �},;�Pr� co � I O l (send bills here) I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No. , Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications and the payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application. For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are non-refundable. $.0 flat fee for Select Dept $ 0 flat fee for Select Dept $ 0 flat fee for Select Dept $ 0 flat fee for Select Review For deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review, and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services. I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for non-payment. I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not render an application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated. $ 4,410 deposit for 14 hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $315 per hour $ deposit for hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $265 per hour. City of Aspen: Chris Bendon Community Development Director City Use: 4410 Fees Due: $ Received: $ c-) n Property Owner: z n O D ao Name: Gtfi�izt-+� cy�+ra� o� i M _o C z Title: � EXHIBIT rt 091.8/ ©1GaAV oane a1411edwoo ww L9 x ww g lewaol ap a Ili 8/09190 AaaAV qm alglledwoo „8/q Z x „G azls I@q1W 308 HUNTER LLC I .14 SKIERS LP 517 EAST HOP 490 WILLIAMS ST 1108 NORFLEET DR 517 E HOPKIN DENVER, CO 80218 I NASHVILLE, TN 372201412 !:ASPEN, CO 81 EAST COOPER PTNRS LLC it �530 HOPKINS LLC '!15301/2 630 EAST HYMAN LLC 1520 402 MIDLAND PARK E HOPKINS 532 E HOPKINS AVE . ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ! 633 SPRING II LLC I 1635 E HOPKINS LLC ALPINE BANK ASPEN 418 E COOPER AVE #207 532 E HOPKINS ATTN ERIN WIENCEK PO BOX 10000 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 I:I ARCADES ASSOCIATES LTD LLC C/O KRUGER & CO i ASPEN ART MUSEUM ASPEN BLOCK 99 LLC 590 N MILL ST 532 E HOPKINS AVE 400 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 I: I, ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN CORE VENTURES LLC ASPEN PLAZA LLC 1 AUSTIN LAWRENCE CONNER LLC 418 E COOPER AVE #207 1 PO BOX 1 1532 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 C/O STEVE MARCUS C/ I . ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 AVP PROPERTIES LLC BASS CAHN 601 LLC BATTLE GERALD LIVING TRUST HIXON BURT LIVING TRUST 630 E HYMAN AVE #25 PO BOX 4060 i PO BOX 2847 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 1 I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 BAUM ROBERT E BERN FAMILY ASPEN PROPERTY LLC BG SPRING LLC PO BOX 1518 1 ' 65 FIRST NECK LN 300 S SPRING ST #202 STOCKBRIDGE, MA 01262 1 SOUTHAMPTON, NY 11968 ASPEN, CO 81611 BISCHOFF JOHN C BOOGIES BUILDING OF ASPEN LLC BORGIOTTI CLAUDIO 502 S VIA GOLONDRINA C/O LEONARD WEINGLASS 9610 SYMPHONY MEADOW LN TUCSON, AZ 85716-5843 534 E COOPER AVE VIENNA, VA 22192 ASPEN, CO 81611 1 CHATEAU ASPEN CONDO ASSOC CHATEAU ASPEN UNIT 21-A LLC CICUREL CARY 630 E COOPER AVE 421 ASPEN AIRPORT BUSINESS CTR 2615 N LAKEWOOD ,ASPEN, CO 81611 1 STE G ASPEN, CO 816113551 I CHICAGO, IL 60614 COOPER STREET DEVELOPMENT LLC DUNN JUDITH A REV LIV TRUST EDGETTE JAMES J & PATRICIA C/O PYRAMID PROPERTY ADVISORS 8051 LOCKLIN LN 19900 BEACH RD STE 801 418 E COOPER AVE #207 COMMERCE TOWNSHIP, MI 48382 : ' JUPITER ISLAND, FL 33469 ASPEN, CO 81611 I: label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery 05160/8160 Ctinnnffn rin fnrm-f 9F mm v R7 mm nmmn-tihln -van Ava— orianipun 09 L8W9/0%go,, „ r�aAV oane alglledwoo ww Lg x ww gZ lewiol op o iibq AaanV gl!m alglledwoo ,,8/9 Z x „L ozls lag S3�dd1S ERGAS VENESSA BLAIR & CLAUDE PO BOX 4316 ASPEN, CO 81612 FITZGERALD FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LTD C/O PITKIN COUNTY DRY GOODS LLC 520 E COOPER ASPEN, CO 81611 GOFEN ETHEL CARO TRUSTEE 455 CITY FRONT PLAZA CHICAGO, IL 60611 i GREENWAY COMPANY INC 666 TRAVIS ST #100 SHREVEPORT, LA 71101 HOPKINS DEV LLC 345 PARK AVE 33RD FLR NEW YORK, NY 10154 i JARDEN CORPORATION 2381 EXECUTIVE CENTER DR BOCA RATON, FL 33431 1 1 EXELCEDAR INC 20% 634 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 j FURNGULF LTD A COLO JOINT VENTURE 616 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 i l: GONE WEST LLC 401 W CENTER SEARCY, AR 721451406 GROSFELD ASPEN PROPERTIES PARTNERS LLC 10880 WILSHIRE BLVD #2222 :: LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 HORSEFINS LLC 601 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 I JENNE LLP ! 11510 WINDSOR RD ' AUSTIN, TX 77402 FERRY JAMES H III BOX 167 GLENCOE, IL 60022-0167 I� �I GELD LLC C/O LOWELL MEYER PO BOX 1247 ASPEN, CO 81612-1247 GOODING SEAN A 80% & RICHARD L 20% C/O PARAGON RANCH INC 620 E HYMAN AVE #1 E ASPEN, CO 81611 HIMAN LLC PO BOX 6159 SWANBOURNE WA 6010 AUSTRALIA, HUNTER PLAZA ASSOCIATES LLP . 205 S MILL ST #301A ASPEN, CO 81611 I JOSHUA & CO REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS LLC 300 S HUNTER ST ASPEN, CO 81611 JOYCE EDWARD LCT LP LUCKYSTAR LLC 1310 RITCHIE CT I TENNESSEE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP p0 BOX 7755 CHICAGO, IL 60610 PO BOX 101444 ASPEN, CO 81612 NASHVILLE, TN 37224-1444 �i MALLARD ENTERPRISES LP 317 SIDNEY BAKER S #400 KERRVILLE, TX 78028 I MCMURRAY WILLIAM & HELEN : 29 MIDDLE HEAD RD MOSMAN NSW 2088 AUSTRALIA, MYSKO BOHDAN D 1615 E HOPKINS ASPEN, CO 81611 MARTELLBARBARA 702 E HYMAN AVE i ASPEN, CO 81611 MIAO SANDRA 9610 SYMPHONY MEADOW LN VIENNA, VA 22182 i NATTERER HELEN 67 BAYPOINT CRES OTTAWA ONTARIO CANADA K2G6R1, MASON & MORSE INC 514 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 i MORRIS ROBERT P 600 E HOPKINS AVE STE 304 ASPEN, CO 81611 NIELSON COL STEVE & CAROL D • 501 S FAIRFAX ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery e5160/8160 kmipttp rip fnrmnt 25 mm x 67 mm romnatible aver Avery 05160/8160 09 G9/0910aAV oaAe algltedwoo ww L9 x ww 5Z tewjol ap 91fanbi13 ,M8/09 Goo AJaAV LII!M olgltedwoo „8/5 Z x „ l azls logeA i( NONNIE LLC OLITSKY TAMAR & STEPHEN P & L PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 565 PO BOX 514 101 S 3RD ST #360 ,ASPEN, CO 81612 GWYNEDD VALLEY, PA 19437 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501 .I PITKIN CENTER CONDO OWNERS � 0 I PITKIN COUNTY BANK 80 /o f, REVOLUTION PARTNERS LLC 597 W NORTH ST SOC 534 E HYMAN AVE PO BOX 1247 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ROTHBLUM PHILIP & MARCIA RUST TRUST RUTLEDGE REYNIE 140 EAST 80 ST #26A 9401 WILSHIRE BLVD #760 51 COUNTRY CLUB CIR NEW YORK, NY 10075 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 SEARCY, AR 72143 SCHNITZER KENNETH L & LISA L SHUMATE MARK SILVER DIP EQUITY VENTURE LLC 2100 MCKINNEY AVE #1760 1695 RIVERSIDE RD 2100 MCKINNEY STE 1760 DALLAS, TX 75201 ROSWELL, GA 30076 DALLAS, TX 75201 SJA ASSOCIATES LLC SNOWMASS CORPORATION STERLING TRUST COMP 418 E COOPER AVE #207 PO BOX 620 12091 MANDEVILLE CYN RD ASPEN, CO 81611 BASALT, CO 81621 l LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 STEWART TITLE CO I SWEARINGEN WILLIAM F 1 TAYLOR FAMILY INVESTMENTS CO C/O JENNIFER SCHUMACHER 1450 CONWAY MANOR DR NW 602 E HYMAN #201 PO BOX 936 TAYLORSVILLE, NC 28681 ' TA ATLANTA, GA 303273518 ASPEN, CO 81611 TENNESSEE THREE j TENNESSEE THREE RENTALS i THOMPSON ROSS & LYNETTE PO BOX 101444 C/O J H COBLE 5033 OLD HICKORY BLVD � ' 1502 GREYSTONE DR NASHVILLE, TN 37224-1444 NASHVILLE, TN 37218-4020 I; CARBONDALE, CO 81623 TOMKINS FAMILY TRUST TREUER CHRISTIN L TROUSDALE JEAN VICK 520 E COOPER AVE #209 981 E BRIARWOOD CIR N 611 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 LITTLETON, CO 80122 j ASPEN, CO 81611 ' VICTORIAN SQUARE LLC I WAVO PROPERTIES LP WEIDEL LAWRENCE W 418 E COOPER AVE #207 512 1/2 E GRAND AVE #200 PO BOX 1007 ASPEN, CO 81611 DES MOINES, IA 50309-1942 MONROE, GA 30655 i WISE JOSEPH WOLF LAWRENCE G TRUSTEE WOODS FRANK J III 1320 HODGES ST 22750 WOODWARD AVE #204 205 S MILL ST #301A RALEIGH, NC 27604-1414 FERNDALE, MI 48220 ASPEN, CO 81611 it label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery 05160/8160 ® Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery °5160/8160 09 GQ/0915®AaaAV Dane algltedwoo ww L9 x ww gZ tewao} ap 9149nUl13 G8/09[ge) AIaAd qj!m algltedwoo „g/g Z x „t azls laq WRIGHT CHRISTOPHER N YERAMIAN CHARLES REV TRUST 13 BRAMLEY RD I PO BOX 12347 LONDON W10 6SP UK, ASPEN, CO 81612 I i I I I I i 1 I I S3�dd1S� ® label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery/95160/8160 kig6ette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible aver; Avery 155160/8160 Xa-.,;fm 0 0 OF5 HIGH A WXLH L L PL-)LH 4. I Elm Moll. I Ll oil NN "Or in i m 0 -bASF-MF-NT FiW4 • 7777�,) %I reg vis .100.0 tQwAlzmT. $,u 4.6f4r, ON I-OTf- K W� Q. - ROOP151TS PLAN - I-OT M N =Tl "I N Mw 0 u O A2.1 79zvA j94TIrrN6D . �oerEaPMc+w ?.a."kl-f:�r.P�N7HDtIl6E N�RAtI�u =IT�i�sc E 14�', 95.11 FIEvl.MTINAeV . ' - � i I Y•a.[XIETNQ G9.FN6R 11v1FiCL4_ - -- - TT.�o. H{C15f 1�+4 - •.•c:. •.. PARAP f +1 Hq T __.------z-------_----- — �L• Ih'7-4 I tt RNFLC YEI Pao — AWµm_kr- hl,4� -- Y ••`• r __ __ .[714 Pro efrKK U e^• q I PpoFv5�o 4fl'[R �.Hla or C><16{INGs lyGILO1HG _ [�cl'.. sn1UA w L �`Y GVEL NT�TIPrI eL.04•-$ -- 'AT—_ IDLjwa.or NmJh:RNT I.t•CX{. _ _� __ - AC'4 L1P•.1_ER (.IW€L. _ _ - _ ::. .: - •EL IIt o 1�- • E1..114 - o' I 7wN. Ec{.@Rrl ...__ - _— —_ Cx'4 Mtr�ooN�zEb u+oo• L-% .�aJ V=lr o HEYFOL1MVP t.1JPpeltly.q!L-�-= .tX'4 Fla1fJ t.GVft =`3_-�--___ _ -+, —. = _ = I:L.104-6 E _ � tK'Ci NvVN 1EYEL - -_ _ cwa +b� L• w - RY�4 GF"•LI. _ tel: _.-=_-=_- _-_-ram:= .---_' [%I'J N - _ _ — _ _ -� EICGMNH llRKY LL c LL_ `.' Il 7-------------------------'----: _1 Li `t' r -�•� z 3 �j: IIIr--- 11 '-----------------�� 11 eLS4 'T�/p!' 1--------, ---"---+ U eXlvfu+4 1-� Ii (N'�MAN AVE.} F_LP_YP.TION LLI W E57' E.LEy/•.TInN.. � � �/J'�/ Ll.. V; 1/ESU- 11_pd Q � � - U tlx TbYJN4' - P_X14 pop CWCK .kuG swot o _ESX,EOFKxIt.TIN4tstll�Jl;q . EL..114- b �r[.�N.YnTSeIFeD F-1%•71!li-'�1� (r— - - . Fa�i!o3 Eo SO. L9CIJ, Lk Yid~ 11 ---�1- gb EVC T _ ___ 1 I - �L.119•Fs - 1 r+�.w colusr.xl. . { � - 12A.tNT6C�Rrt 004 M14H EL t I New rvTr`Wo VOow- bF" I '-- -- rvrraRrttr Fxrq arRlw'--sc. • 1 1 II 1 i( 6 H�- �, W€ q t*/ate—ij1---------------------I'---�--� I! '' If EAST 'F L_EVATIQIJ. 1/b >I •o laent W. ik"60 GOYKRTd�GrA �' elsGroe[v - _ TO.rl✓Gv.� i�sATHIs fIF - �i'N �.�....��ll III iiil lllllJllllllfD� tl1lIQ IIUIII'n d xl i HAEV. iLNel_h o t ww. DEL ACi.J y aA-d M-0. noows V, u1PFR » 511mor+ -mo,r^ of "A NAe7 "CL3 r ET' .0 k! ee[wye w.aE II �I I i 1.1 .CIF DASFIJ- EHT dy .NORTH ALLEY EL1;�JA�tON I W 0 0 2:: O O L]J z < < O J Ll_I = O U_ ul z LL LL < 0 U U DRkW'NrL 7ir J03 N0. 0832 WET NO. All Os,w azn r".m w_, • +s;:'P1cK[iY Y1NC ' ('RVPP6ED NaY� Mn[,7FR CE��fxiM � •NT.1'.' •�aq NCEFK �E>f15TINq 'fk01�5GP _�l;hyiCR '. i'%+KJ. C� - I _r+eYJaFFtct�11 �E%'4hAFtPA�fT- Orc '. PRppoyfiP � � - a WC-11T. YELL- € iEW5T1114 O I HY�rv`2r �`�� p.LiBY P-�c1enN4.Ci�f�K c_- - _ AM.IHEI 4-A' cT EXIG.ai-!•9�,?ct6TP1 - - _ _ Pict6TlNa OIYI - �^o Q G RY oL, I _ 6X113jIHq ES<16TIrIG B-rcThoc _ - _ _ I:A'IEri ktNF1. BUILDING BCGTION B_'12� prtorer"rr MM - � Ir:s NJ.arr.� T1 1 9T/aR.--N[vrghlpEcK n X I p�v OFFI:F. H 2 ;4hYt1 — �YJTc= Ii: F.>:.?ttle A E�LG R:opu9gD. _E4XlPPgF'1-E67"IN4 VE[-,� —� _ e ISTIN? oF�r•It,�' r 7#'i4kAti nvr. pLt.&Y .T:X 1671r!q ChF(c'F:( �� -: �F: -__,". -_- �si7-!•i ��+i� {�5- E Y,GyAe, I_� MtEAT tip—( I c E:uBTI a otf•Ic li --1 =_-I �IE��-IMl� STJPi4E - _- EL c- I C+c16T t!1 FAIIL•D 11-46 5rICT IOM P.-A ss R V LLI < Lli 9 LL Z� Z m� e U Ln LLI , J Q —U W U r4 z O ¢� a Z 7 x LI..I 9llQl O �a W a Qo o� V z to uj Uci: FLEVAT,ONS ISSUE: DATE: XJB N0. C01 1 9iEET NO. A4.1 ELK5 BJLDING VEOTRA BANK LOTS K t L 610 E. HY14AN AVE. LOT N 1 O GRANDALL BALDINS 500 BLOCK 600 BLOCK EAST HYMAN AVE SOUTH ELEVATION 1" • 20' A. -PROVED A5PEN A¢T NV59JM AFFR0V.D BV LDI-' VIGTORIAV 50JARE A PROVED BiRLD LNG EENT04 LITTLE ANI �E5 WE CITY eVLOiN* 6HLDity b00 BLOCK 500 BLOCK EAST HYMAN AVE NORTH ELEVATION V•20' L1J U� Z 0 U- �i za o 0 a 4� z f q w� o- z LU LL a Q O U� EAST"H1-MIN AVE ELEVATION'S IsSL1E: MATE DES. MEV. 11-12-08 ]OB NO. 0013 SHEET W. A5,1 e cm:'srtoaaaaar� uxrtcn