Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.hpc.20230823
AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 23, 2023 4:30 PM, City Council Chambers - 3rd Floor 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 I.ROLL CALL II.MINUTES II.A Draft Minutes - 7/26/23 III.PUBLIC COMMENTS IV.COMMISSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS V.DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI.PROJECT MONITORING VI.A Project monitor list VII.STAFF COMMENTS VIII.CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT ISSUED IX.CALL UP REPORTS X.SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS XI.OLD BUSINESS XII.NEW BUSINESS XII.A 517 E. Hopkins Avenue – Substantial Amendment to Major Development and Growth Management, Public Hearing minutes.hpc.20230726_DRAFT.docx PROJECT MONITORING.doc 517 E Hopkins_Substantial Amendment Growth Management_HPC memo.pdf 1 1 XII.B Staff Presentation: Beyond Facades, Broad Benefits of Historic Preservation XII.C Preparation for September 5th Joint HPC/City Council Work Session XIII.ADJOURN XIV.NEXT RESOLUTION NUMBER 517 E Hopkins_Substantial Amendment Growth Management_Resolution.pdf Exhibit A_Substantial Amendment Staff Findings.pdf Exhibit B_GMQS Staff Findings.pdf Exhibit C_Co-working space coming to downtown building _ Aspen Daily News_Dec 2018.pdf Exhibit D_Global workspace company coming to Aspen_Aspen Times_Jan 2019.pdf Exhibit E_HPC Resolution 19 Series of 2018.pdf Exhibit F_Development Agreement.pdf Exhibit G_HPC Minutes December 12 2018.pdf Exhibit H_APCHA recommendation.pdf Exhibit I_Application.pdf TYPICAL PROCEEDING FORMAT FOR ALL PUBLIC HEARINGS (1 Hour, 10 Minutes for each Major Agenda Item) 1. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest (at beginning of agenda) 2. Presentation of proof of legal notice (at beginning of agenda) 3. Applicant presentation (20 minutes) 4. Board questions and clarifications of applicant (5 minutes) 5. Staff presentation (5 minutes) 6. Board questions and clarifications of staff (5 minutes) 7. Public comments (5 minutes total, or 3 minutes/ person or as determined by the Chair) 8. Close public comment portion of hearing 9. Applicant rebuttal/clarification (5 minutes) 10. Staff rebuttal/clarification (5 minutes) End of fact finding. Chairperson identifies the issues to be discussed. 11. Deliberation by the commission and findings based on criteria commences. No further input from applicant or staff unless invited by the Chair. Staff may ask to be recognized if there is a factual error to be corrected. If the item is to be continued, the Chair may provide a summary of areas to be restudied at their discretion, but the applicant is not to re-start discussion of the case or the board’s direction. (20 minutes) 12. Motion Updated: November 15, 2021 2 2 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 26TH, 2023 Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Peter Fornell, Roger Moyer, Jodi Surfas, Barb Pitchford, Kim Raymond, Riley Warwick and Kara Thompson. Absent was Jeffrey Halferty. Staff present: Amy Simon, Planning Director Kirsten Armstrong, Principal Planner Historic Preservation Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: Ms. Thompson moved to approve the minutes from 6/28/23. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote:Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-0 vote; motion passes. Ms. Pitchford moved to approve the minutes from 7/12/23 with the correction to the formatting issue. Ms. Raymond seconded. Roll call vote:Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; 5-0 vote; motion passes. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Fornell brought up previous conversations about the benefits of having models. He showed a physical model he had used in his own business to present in front of the Board of Adjustment and mentioned it only cost him $1,500 and took less than a week to produce. He said the model helped him get in and out of that meeting in only one session. He stated that it was not difficult, expensive or time consuming. Ms. Pitchford agreed with Mr. Fornell and asked staff why they can only request a physical model and not require it. Ms. Simon reviewed the code language and noted that it leaves it up to some discretion of the applicant to choose how to represent the context of a project. There was then some discussion about the process to create a physical model and Ms. Simon noted that it can be difficult for an applicant to anticipate what HPC may want when it come to a representation of a project. He said staff would continue to emphasize to applicants that HPC appreciates as much analysis as possible. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None. PROJECT MONITORING: None. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon updated the commissioners about the progress on the Boomerang Lodge. The chief building official is pursuing the process as the Land Use Code lays it out. There was a site visit with the chief building official, a structural engineer, and the ownership team. She then mentioned the Red Onion Office Building and referenced the meeting from a few months ago related to the west wall. She talked about the current condition and construction details of the existing wall next to the Aspen Sports building and said it was inadequate. Ms. Simon said the work session with Council is still tentatively scheduled for September 5 th, 2023. 3 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 26TH, 2023 CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. CALL UP REPORTS: None. SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Johnson said that she reviewed public notice, and that notice was provided per the code for both the agenda items. OLD BUSINESS: 205 W. Main Street- Minor Development and Relocation, PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM June 28th, 2023 Applicant Presentation:Mr. Mitch Haas – Haas Land Planning, LLC Mr. Haas started by going over the history of the historic structure and the lot. He then talked about the project objectives, being the proposal of a 100% affordable housing project, restoration of the historic asset and removal of all non-historic additions. He said the relocation would move the asset to the most prominent location on the lot, being the front corner. He detailed the zone district and highlighted the property’s location on Main St., noting that it is close to amenities like parks and transportation hubs. He then highlighted the relocation standards related to a 100% affordable housing projects and noted that staff memos had always found the project to be consistent with the standards. He said the most important standard states that the HPC may not deny the relocation but needs to consider the relocation to best meet the historic preservation guidelines, while accommodating the allowable development rights of the property. He noted that the full site plan for the project was included in their packet. He then went over the proposed on-site relocation and detailed the location and stated for the record their commitments to the historic asset. This included using different color pallets for the historic asset versus the new structure and that the new structure would have a greater setback from Main St. than the historic. He moved on to go over the allowed development rights for the lot and lot size. He showed diagrams of different buildable areas based on various potential relocations of the historic asset and the resulting remaining developable area. He showed an example of a straightforward move of the asset and explained how this would not mathematically allow for the full amount of square footage development rights on the property. He stated that the asset must be moved to the front most corner that the setbacks allow to leave enough developable area to achieve the development rights of the zone. Next, he went over the relocation setbacks and noted the mixed-use zone setback distances. He presented several diagrams of the zone district context and detailed the setbacks of other structures on Main St. and in the district. He then showed a few context pictures taken at the site that included stakes placed that outline the proposed relocation of the historic asset. He stated that their proposed relocation not only moves the historic asset to prominence but also to consistency with the surrounding structures. Next, he detailed their restoration actions planned for the asset and also other site improvements and landscaping. He wrapped up by going over the main accomplishments of the project, including 4 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 26TH, 2023 advancing City Council’s goals of increasing livable affordable housing, restoration and preservation of the historic asset, restoration of the streetscape on First and that no variations were being requested. Ms. Surfas asked Mr. Haas how they came up with the average setback number for the district. Mr. Haas said the only way to consistently measure the various setbacks was from the curb line and that is what the entire context study was based on. Ms. Raymond thanked Mr. Haas for all the extra studying and effort. She asked him about the commitment he mentioned about setting the new building behind the front of the historic asset. Mr. Haas said the new building will not be at the 10-foot setback but would be set back further. Ms. Raymond appreciated all the restoration work they are doing, bringing the Victorian back to what it was. Mr. Fornell asked if the applicant believed that they will be able to achieve the allowable Floor Area Ratio of 1.25:1. Mr. Haas said that they think with their proposed relocation that they can. He also noted again that without their proposed relocation, they don’t believe they can reach it. Mr. Warwick asked how many units were being proposed including both the historic asset and the new building. Mr. Haas said they did not know that number yet. Ms. Thompson said that they need to limit the discussion to the historic resource. Mr. Hass said there would be two units in the resource. Ms. Pitchford asked if she was allowed to ask what the height of the new building would be. Ms. Thompson said that is not part of this review process, but it would have to meet zone district requirements and historic preservation guidelines. Ms. Pitchford said it would be important in her decision on relocation. Ms. Raymond asked what the height of the historic resource was. Mr. Haas said he was not sure of its exact height, but it was less than the 28-foot height limit. Staff Presentation:Amy Simon – Planning Director Ms. Simon started by going over some details of the minor development and relocation for this property and also those sections of the Land Use Code. She again went over the relocation standards and noted the specific standard staff believes has been met and the reasoning for this. She then showed pictures of the few landmarked historic structures that have been preserved in a way that makes a future addition impossible or very unlikely. She also mentioned the importance of having affordable housing to be located in a historic asset, being that it will be a full-time “lights on” situation. She then addressed the zone district setback context diagram and said that there is no consistent setback line that is being disturbed by this relocation and the existing home is not original to the lot or neighborhood. She referenced the diagram that was presented showing the potential footprint of the new development. She again noted that the tighter that the development envelope gets, still fitting the allowable square footage to be built, the less opportunity the applicant has to pull back, step down or reduce the massing of the new development. She then noted that staff is recommending approval with the conditions included in the resolution. She then showed a list of those conditions and noted that some of the things that have been discussed could 5 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 26TH, 2023 be added as conditions. These could include commitments that the applicant has made. She went over details of a few of the conditions. Mr. Fornell wanted to clarify that the stated commitment of the applicant to differentiate the color pallets of the two structures was a condition that HPC could add to the resolution. Ms. Johnson said yes, in a way it would be memorializing that commitment. Ms. Raymond asked if the same could be done for the applicant’s commitment to set the new development back from the historic asset. Ms. Simon said that could be included when a motion is made. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mr. David Scruggs had Ms. Simon had out a letter to the commissioners. He began by stating that the commissioners’ job is to determine the relocation based on the historic preservation guidelines. He said they need to relocate it so that there is livable space for the new development and that it is compatible with the setbacks of the neighborhood. He stated that the neighbors are asking for a 15-foot setback from Main St. and to maintain the 15-foot setback from First St. He went over their reasons for this. He then detailed the setbacks of the 3 contiguous properties to this one and others in the neighborhood, stating that they all have greater than 15-foot setbacks. He said he did not know how the HPC could ignore these facts. He finished by again asking that HPC maintain the consistency of the neighborhood. Ms. Thompson asked if all commissioner if they had read the public comment email from Elizabeth Milias. All commissioners said yes. Ms. Thompson then closed public comment. BOARD DISCUSSION: Ms. Thompson opened the board discussion and noted that most of concern the board has had is related to the relocation and that members have supported the removal of the non- historic additions and the overall restoration efforts the applicant is making. She maintained her support of the proposed relocation and thought that it is in context with the surrounding area and meets the design guidelines. Ms. Raymond said that after listening to past meetings and reading all the comments she was in support of the proposed relocation. She said part of her reasoning is the balance that HPC needs to meet for the City’s goals of affordable housing and the restoration efforts being proposed by the applicant. Another reason she noted was the more the historic resource gets pushed back the denser the applicant’s new building has to get, which would overpower the Victorian. With the applicant’s commitment of holding the new building back to keep the historic asset prominent, she felt it met the guidelines in her mind. Ms. Surfas still thought historic asset was being moved too far forward. She was ok with the east movement but thought the forward movement should at least be in line with the average setback. Mr. Fornell said he continued to support the project and thought they had a great combination of preservation and “local living” affordable housing. He would be giving his support to this. Mr. Warwick said he was in support of the project and that moving the historic resource to the north and east only makes it more prominent, which is important. He thought the affordable housing is a gift, especially in this location, inside the roundabout. He agreed with Ms. Raymond’s comments regarding the potential density and height. He thought preserving the historic resource and making it prominent relative to the new building was important. 6 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 26TH, 2023 Ms. Pitchford agreed with Ms. Surfas that it was being moved too far forward. She referenced guidelines 9.3 and 1.1 and felt that the move was too far forward. She was not thrilled that it was being moved laterally but could let that go for not moving it so far forward. She understood the other’s perspective about allowing it to be more prominent, but she thought the grass area in the front is important and should be consistent. She appreciated a lot about the project, including the restoration, removal of non- historic additions, the east side parking going away and the employee housing, but that it was still moving too far forward. Mr. Moyer said it was interesting how people play the game and he thought that they just lost. He also agreed with Ms. Surfas. He would be ok with the move to the east but not forward. He spoke to the two new members and said that their job was the historic building and nothing else. He said the commission has been screwed by City Council and staff with the new affordable housing ordinance. He said it was very disappointing. He was not disappointed in the two new members and thought their comments were valid but thought that Council and staff’s mandate is that employee housing takes precedent over everything. Ms. Pitchford added to Mr. Moyer’s comment and agreed that their job was the preservation of the historic asset and nothing else. She also felt that they were stuck and that her job was preservation not affordable housing. Mr. Moyer then talked to the two new commissioners and described another project that he believed was one of their biggest mistakes. He said that when they were talking about the new code amendment before it was adopted, he thought that it was conceptually a good idea. He was looking at it in a situation of a historic resource with a vacant lot next to it. He did not think of a situation of someone buying a historic resource on a lot and wanting to put something around or next to it. He thought the two new members were making a huge mistake. Ms. Thompson commented on the project that Mr. Moyer referenced as HPC’s biggest mistake, stating that she thought it was entirely subjective. She notedthat, at the moment they cannot relitigate the code change, but they have to operate under what isin front of them now. Ms. Raymond asked Mr. Moyer and Ms. Pitchford what about moving the Victorian forward was not preserving it. Mr. Moyer responded that they do not know what is going to be built around the resource and overwhelm it. Ms. Raymond agreed with Mr. Moyer on that but reiterated that the more you push it back the bigger and maybe more blocky the new building is going to become. MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to approve the next resolution in the series with the following revisions to the conditions. Revision to condition #8 to state that location of ground mounted mechanical equipment around the historic resource will also be provided for review. The addition of condition #11 to say that the historic resource and any new construction will be of different color pallets as agreed to by the applicant. Also adding condition #12 to say all new construction will have a greater front setback than the north face of the historic resource as agreed to by the applicant. Mr. Fornell seconded. Roll call vote:Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, no; Ms. Surfas, no; Ms. Pitchford, no; Ms. Raymond, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 4-3 vote, motion passes. 7 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 26TH, 2023 NEW BUSINESS: 420 W. Francis Street. - Minor Development, Demolition, Setback Variations - PUBLIC HEARING Applicant Presentation:David Rybak, Rybak Architecture and Development P.C Mr. Rybak started by going over some the history of the property and the many additions that had been added over the years. He said these have all contributed to a tight site and an overwhelmed north side of the resource. The intent of the applicant is to take some these off, remove the existing garage and CDU and construct a new single story one car garage on the alley and renovate the interior of the resource. He then showed a site plan of the existing conditions and detailed some the current distances between structures. He said their proposal will reduce the size of the outbuilding and give some breadth to the historic resource achieving the 5-foot requirement for separation between the two structures. Next, he showed a few 3D renderings of the proposed new garage and an elevation of the front façade, stating that they will be replacing all the existing aluminum clad windows with new wood units. They would also be removing a non-historic chimney and existing AC units on the west façade. He showed a sample of a lap siding material proposed for the north side of the existing addition, trying to differentiate old from new. He went over some details of their proposed new design for the historic chimeny, changing from a stepped look to more of a tapered look as consistent with historic photos. He continued detailing some of the proposed changes and the design of the new garage. He showed more historic pictures of the property, highlighting a few details. He then turned it over to Mr. Matt Moritz to go over the landscape plan. Mr. Moritz went over the details of their proposed plan. He said that the existing Herbert Bayer fence on the property would be repaired. He detailed some of the proposed materials for the walkways. Ms. Pitchford asked what the disatance was of the current garage from the historic resource. Mr. Rybak said it angled from 1’ to 1’8”. He showed the site plan of the existing conditions to better show this distance. Ms. Thompson asked if the neighbors’ shed was historic, to which Mr. Rybak said he did not believe so. Mr. Fornell said that it looks like there are currently two front doors and was wondering if that was a historic condition or a result of the remodels over time. Mr. Rybak said that the two doors had always been there, but over time the roof over the east door has gotten larger and now matches closer to the west doors making them look similar. Mr. Fornell asked if they were planned on changing those current conditions. Mr. Rybak said they did not intent to change them and showed a few historic pictures to show the evolution of the porch size. Mr. Fornell then brought up the CDU above the garage and asked Mr. Rybak to define a CDU. Mr. Rybak said it was a voluntary caretaker’s unit that was constructed in 1998 for which there was no employee mitigation. Mr. Fornell asked if it was a designated ADU. Ms. Simon said it was a voluntary ADU and that the applicant went through the process to remove the designation and that no mitigation was required because it was voluntary. Ms. Thompson asked for the site plan showing the dimension from the property line to the new proposed garage. Mr. Rybak said it was 5’ to the west and 1’ 6” from the rear property line. Ms. Raymond asked if they intended to keep the front porch railing shown in one of the historic pictures. Mr. Rybak said it does not currently exist and they are not intending on replacing it. 8 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 26TH, 2023 Staff Presentation:Kirsten Armstrong – Principal Planner Historic Preservation Ms. Armstrong began by going over the background of the property and some details of the lot. She then went over the applicant’s proposals, that include exterior updates to the historic resource, demolition of an existing non-historic two story detached accessory dwelling unit, construction of a new one story, one car garage and requested setback variations. Next, she went over the background of the historic resource and noted it was designated as a landmark property in 1987. She described the original, historic conditions and the additions and alterations that have occurred over the years. She wentover the major portions of the applicant’s requests and noted that this project involves a net decrease in floor area due to the removal of some non-historic additions. She presented the proposed site plan pointing out the smaller garage, setback farther from the resource. She went over a summary list of the exterior scope of work and stated that in general, staff finds the design guidelines are met with conditions and most of the recommended conditions in the draft resolution involve details of materials, which staff believes can be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. She noted that there are few topics staff feels need some additional consideration and one of these is the landscaping plan. She said that as proposed, staff finds that it is complex and clutters views of the historic resource. She highlighted a few existing trees that currently somewhat block the view of the resource and the applicant’s proposed addition of another tree in front of the resource will add to the clutter and further block the view, which does not meet design guidelines. She said staff is also concerned about the multiple proposed walkways. Staff recommends a restudy of the landscaping plan to simplify it and that the proposed 4-foot front walkway be reduced to 3 feet. Staff also recommends the front porch be rebuilt per historic photographs if it is found to be original. Next, she talked about the demolition of the detached non-historic ADU and noted that it meets the design guidelines. As far as the requested variations, she noted that the new garage is proposed to be sited in a similar position to the current structure at the rear property line. The current structure has a zero-foot setback and with the new garage the applicant is requesting a 1’ 6” setback, which given the smaller size is in line with the historic configuration of the site and draws construction away from the historic resource. She closed by stating that staff finds that the minor development, demolition, and variation criteria are met with the conditions listed in the resolution and recommends HPC approval. Mr. Fornell said that he did not find there to be a variety of setbacks of neighboring properties along the alley, as staff stated in the memo. He asked if there was evidence of these setbacks. Ms. Armstrong said she did not believe in her response that she discussed varied setbacks and based on the Sanborn map there were mostly consistent setbacks for out buildings at the property lines along the alley. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. BOARD DISCUSSION: Ms. Thompson started with the proposed demolition of the non-historic two-story structure at the back of the property and said that she was ok with it. 9 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 26TH, 2023 Mr. Fornell asked with the proposed demolition and subsequent reduction in floor area what the difference in the resulting total floor area would be compared to the total allowable floor area for the lot. Ms. Pitchford commented that she liked a lot about this project, especially that they are reducing the mass, but also restoring the Bayer fence and the chimney. Ms. Thompson moved on to discuss the architectural elements and the lightwell guards. She did not have an issue with the vertical railings. Mr. Fornell stated that they usually asked that lightwell guards not be visible. Ms. Thompson believed that the building department was changing their requirements, going to vertical rails. There was some discussion on the life safety reasoning for the change in requirements. The other commissioners were all ok with the proposed horizontal bars on the vertical railings. Ms. Thompson spoke about the proposed siding materials and thought that there were too many different materials on an already complicated structure. She asked if the applicant would be ok with using the same siding on the new garage as the north side of the main structure. This would keep anything new the same. There was some discussion about this. Mr. Fornell asked if the applicant had found the floor area numbers he was asking about earlier. Mr. Rybak said the allowable is 3,240 square feet, existing is 3,227 and the proposed after demolition would be 2,447. Mr. Fornell asked if they would be eligible to request historic TDRs, to which Ms. Simon said yes. Ms. Raymond stated that the variation request for the new garage was consistent with where the existing building is, just making it straight, and consistent with other historic buildings, so she was ok with the request. Ms. Thompson did not believe she had enough context to approve the setback variation at this time. She said that when she visited the site, she could not tell how close some of the neighboring structures were to property lines. She would need more information about the setbacks of the surrounding structures along the alley on that block. Mr. Rybak responded, stating that their proposed siting was based on the existing conifer trees on the west property line. They are placing their new foundation in the east west direction so that they are not disturbing the roots of those trees and in the north south direction to meet the required 5-foot separation between buildings, which is something that does not exist currently. He stated that if they do not get the rear setback variation, they do not have a garage. Ms. Thompson argued that they could flip or mirror the orientation of the garage and meet the separation requirements. Mr. Rybak responded that a flip would not work, again because of the neighboring trees and the foundation. As it was approaching 7:00pm, Ms. Thompson moved to extend the meeting until 7:15pm. Mr. Fornell seconded. All in favor, motion passes. Ms. Thompson moved on to discuss the landscape plan and agreed with staff that the proposal for three walkways in the front of the house was a little overwhelming but was fine with keeping the four-foot front walkway. Ms. Raymond agreed that there was too much hardscape in the front yard because it is not historic. 10 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 26TH, 2023 Mr. Moyer agreed about the hardscape and walkways but noted that people would still walk around the house regardless and he would be ok with a dirt path. Ms. Thompson was also ok with the proposed tree. MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to approve the next resolution in the series with the following edits. To remove condition #2 and to amend current condition #3 to remove the language requiring the removal of the rocky mountain maple from the landscape plan. Also, to simplify the landscape plan in zones A and B to be reviewed by staff and monitor. Mr. Moyer seconded.Roll call vote:Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 7-0 vote, motion passes. Ms. Pitchford and Mr. Warwick were assigned as monitors for 420 W. Francis St. and Ms. Raymond was assigned monitor for 205 W. Main St. ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor; motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk 11 HPC PROJECT MONITORS -projects in bold are permitted or under construction 8/18/2023 Kara Thompson 931 Gibson 300 E. Hyman 201 E. Main 333 W. Bleeker 234 W. Francis Skier’s Chalet Steakhouse 423 N. Second 135 E. Cooper 101 W. Main (Molly Gibson Lodge) 720 E. Hyman 304 E. Hopkins 930 King 312 W. Hyman 520 E. Cooper Jeff Halferty 110 W. Main, Hotel Aspen 134 E. Bleeker 300 E. Hyman 434 E. Cooper, Bidwell 414-420 E. Cooper, Red Onion/JAS 517 E. Hopkins Lift 1 corridor ski lift support structure 227 E. Bleeker 211 W. Hopkins 211 W. Main 204 S. Galena 215 E. Hallam 500 E. Durant 413 E. Main Roger Moyer 300 W. Main 227 E. Main 110 Neale 517 E. Hopkins Skier’s Chalet Lodge 202 E. Main 305-307 S. Mill, Grey Lady 320 E. Hyman (Wheeler Opera House, solar panels) 611 W. Main 132 W. Hopkins 500 E. Durant Jodi Surfas 202 E. Main 305-307 S. Mill, Grey Lady 320 E. Hyman (Wheeler Opera House, solar panels) 611 W. Main 602 E. Hyman Peter Fornell 304 E. Hopkins 930 King 233 W. Bleeker 214 W. Bleeker 12 HPC PROJECT MONITORS -projects in bold are permitted or under construction 8/18/2023 Barb Pitchford 121 W. Bleeker 312 W. Hyman 132 W. Hopkins 214 W. Bleeker 630 W. Main 420 W. Francis Kim Raymond 630 W. Main 205 W. Main Riley Warwick 420 E Durant/Rubey Park 420 W Francis Need to assign: 209 E. Bleeker, Lift One Park 13 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Planning Director RE: 517 E. Hopkins Avenue – Substantial Amendment to Major Development and Growth Management, Public Hearing MEETING DATE: August 23, 2023 Applicant/Owner: 517 E. Hopkins Aspen LLC, 516 E. Hyman Avenue, 2nd Floor, Aspen, CO 81611 Representative: Sara Adams, BendonAdams Location: Street Address: 517 E. Hopkins Avenue Legal Description: Lots D, E, and F, Block 94, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado Parcel Identification Number: PID# 2737-073-040-003 Current Zoning & Use: CC, Commercial Core Retail use, Service Use and Affordable Housing Proposed Zoning & Use: 100% Commercial use Figure 1: Property Location Summary: In 2016, HPC granted Final design and Growth Management approvals to demolish and replace the existing structure at 517 E. Hopkins with a new building containing retail space in the basement and the ground floor, and affordable housing on the second floor. In August 2018, HPC approved an amendment to the project involving minor design adjustments and off-site affordable housing mitigation in order to convert the bulk of the building to an essential public facility for City offices. The concept at the time was for City offices to remain in the Armory Building, with 517 E. Hopkins operating as a nearby annex. The City offices concept failed to gain voter support in the November 2018 election and the idea was abandoned in favor of building the new City Hall at Rio Grande Place. That December, the property owner returned to HPC with a request for similar exterior design changes and the conversion of the second floor of the building from all affordable housing units to all free-market commercial use, specifically a co-work business. The demolished affordable housing was to be replaced using credits generated from housing developed on other properties in Aspen. HPC approved the concept against the recommendations of staff and APCHA, who, with the community benefit that might have come from devoting the structure to a uniquely located essential public facility off the table, favored affordable housing to remain on-site, as has been the case for decades. HPC made their decision based on the applicant’s enthusiastic representation that, like affordable housing, a co-work business has significant community benefit. Said use was a condition of approval that cannot be replaced without HPC’s consent. The applicant is now approaching HPC to amend the condition of approval to allow a non-coworking business to occupy the upper floor of the proposed new building. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends HPC deny the request, finding that the amendment to the condition for a co- work space would negate the board’s basis for their 2018 finding in favor of off-site affordable housing, and does not meet review criteria. 14 2 REQUEST OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION: Vested Rights for the subject redevelopment of this property expired on September 23, 2019, but the approval is currently sustained by a “Core and Shell” building permit submitted before that date. Applicant responsiveness in the permit review process lagged in 2021 to the point that Community Development considered cancelling the application, however after property representatives reinforced their intention to construct the project, the Chief Building Official recognized the permit as active in 2022 and allowed review to continue. Staff does not have an estimated date for permit issuance. After the Core and Shell permit is issued, the applicant will be able to submit for Tenant Finish permits. This is the point when specific tenants are typically reviewed to verify conformance with zoning and site-specific approvals. In anticipation of applying for Tenant Finish permits, representatives of the 517 E. Hopkins property owner reached out to Community Development in March 2023 regarding Section 11 of HPC Resolution# 19, Series of 2018, which reads: Section 11: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department and the Historic Preservation Commission are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. This includes the representation that co-work space will occupy all of the second floor net leasable space at 517 E. Hopkins and may not be replaced with another use without approval by HPC. Community Development staff was asked to confirm whether a tenant proposed to occupy all of the upper floor of this building, Remedy Place, would comply with representations made regarding the nature and purpose of a co-work business. Community Development underwent extensive research before rejecting the assertion that Remedy Place offers an updated version of co-working and provides resources to support the accomplishment of professional work. Community Development’s view is that the proposed tenant is a luxury spa where conversations about business might happen – rather than a co-working space where social and wellness activities are sometimes provided as a secondary amenity. We acknowledge that “co-working” is not a defined term in Aspen’s Land Use Code. During the HPC conversation in 2018, the applicant referenced models such as HanaHaus to explain their concept. While the City certainly would not require the inclusion of a particular brand, HanaHaus, for instance, offers workspaces of various sizes for hourly rates starting at $4 per hour. No membership is required, so access to the facility is very affordable. The facility includes typical work necessities, like whiteboards and scanners, has a coffee bar and gathering space, and hosts networking events. These are the operational characteristics that the owner represented in the 2018 HPC meeting and the qualities Community Development believes are warranted for the tenant of the upper floor at the new 517 E. Hopkins structure. A review of the Remedy Place website, https://www.remedyplace.com/, and a letter in this land use application, describes Remedy Place as a social wellness club offering traditional spa treatments a la carte, or through monthly membership, which at the New York location ranges from $595 to $2,750 per month for services that would individually cost $26,870. The membership offer makes no mention of facilitating or completing work being central to the business model of Remedy Place. HPC’s role in this discussion is not to make their own evaluation of a compliant co-working tenant. Interpretation of the land use code and decision-making documents such as an HPC resolution is a standard and daily administrative function of the Community Development department. To the extent that an applicant is aggrieved, there is an appeal process to an Administrative Hearing Officer. 15 3 The application before HPC is somewhat confusing in that it is titled as a request for an amendment to the use of the upper floor, but then proposes that Remedy Place is in fact co-working, noting that 84% of the second floor will be occupied by private and shared work spaces and 16% will be combined wellness and work space, “for example an infrared sauna, ice bath studio or the cryo wakeup corner.” Again, Remedy Place has been determined by staff to not comply with the HPC Resolution. HPC’s options in this review of a Substantial Amendment to Major Development and Growth Management approval are to respond to the application in one of the following ways: • Retain the condition of approval requiring co-work space to occupy all of the second floor net leasable space at 517 E. Hopkins. Community Development will continue to make the determination as to whether or not any proposed tenant conforms to the co-working model represented to HPC. The applicant may appeal Community Development’s determination. • If the applicant consents, amend the condition of approval requiring co-work space to occupy all of the second floor net leasable space at 517 E. Hopkins and instead allow the existing affordable housing units to be replaced on the upper floor of the building, finding that to be compliant with the applicable review criteria. • Remove the condition of approval requiring co-work space to occupy all of the second floor net leasable space at 517 E. Hopkins and instead make a detailed finding that any permitted use in the Commercial Core Zone District, as described in Land Use Code Section 26.710.140, meets the applicable review criteria. This option allows the applicant to replace the 5 FTEs on-site through equivalent Affordable Housing credits. Substantial Amendment/Growth Management Review There are two land use processes to be addressed in this hearing: Substantial Amendment to a Major Development approval and Growth Management review. This review is conducted according to the land use code in place at the time the original application for redevelopment of 517 E. Hopkins was deemed complete, in September 2015. This application does not propose any exterior changes to the approved building, so no design review discussion is needed, and staff finds that a Substantial Amendment to the Major Development approval in that regard is a non-issue. The more complex topic of review is Growth Management. The current building includes four Category 1 deed restricted units, housing five Full-Time Equivalent employees, or FTEs, according to housing standards. These units are on the third floor of the existing structure. The replacement building can only be two stories tall due to changed height limits and a protected viewplane. At one time, the approved new two-story building recreated those affordable units, and more, on the second floor. In the approval, which is currently in permit review, these units were allowed to be replaced off-site through Affordable Housing credits on the condition that the second floor is occupied by co-working. For the board’s information, along with displacing the existing units, the new structure will include free- market commercial development above and beyond what exists in the current building and will require additional mitigation of approximately 10.81 new FTEs through the provision of affordable housing credits. As approved, the net housing mitigation impact from the new structure including the relocation of the on-site affordable units will be approximately 17.55 FTEs, Category 4. The final calculations and transfer of affordable housing credits will occur at the time of building permit issuance. The discussion before HPC at this meeting does not change the amount of affordable housing mitigation that is required. 16 4 What does need discussion is Municipal Code Section 26.470.050.5.4, which clearly states that when existing free-market or affordable multi-family housing units are demolished in Aspen, mitigation is required, and that mitigation is to be constructed on the same site. No other alternative is deemed appropriate unless the decision-making board, in this case the Historic Preservation Commission, determines that replacement of the units on site would be in conflict with the parcel's zoning or would be an inappropriate solution due to the site's physical constraints. Given the prevalence of multi-family housing in the CC zone, the existence of multi-family units on site presently, and the allowance for affordable multi-family in CC zone district standards, staff’s position is that such a finding would not be supported by the review criteria. When either of the above circumstances result, the owner shall replace the maximum number of units on site which the HPC determines that the site can accommodate, and may replace the remaining units off site, at a location determined acceptable to the HPC. A recommendation from the APCHA shall be considered for this standard. APCHA’s recommendation from 2018, which they have reiterated for this review, is attached as Exhibit H. It is APCHA’s and Community Development’s unchanged position that the appropriate outcome of this redevelopment is to replace the affordable housing on-site. So long as the existing approval remains valid, this outcome can only be achieved if the applicant agrees. The decision HPC is tasked with, is whether their 2018 finding, that on-site replacement of the existing affordable housing units conflicts with the parcel's zoning or would be an inappropriate solution due to the site's physical constraints, still has a basis if the second floor of the structure is replaced with a commercial use that is not devoted to co-working as represented. To make that finding, the commission should clearly express their rationale as to how general commercial use is appropriate and justifies approval for off-site affordable housing mitigation if no community benefit of the type represented in 2018 is delivered. The application for this review mischaracterizes Community Development staff’s influence in the inclusion of the co-work condition, and implies HPC was ambivalent. The record demonstrates that HPC exercised independent judgment in granting the approval based on the co-work representation, despite staff’s objections. As HPC’s advisors, staff and the City Attorney did recommend that, once HPC had reached that conclusion, it was appropriate to include the co-work representation in the approval because all seven of the participating board members clearly expressed the co-work representation as a basis for their decision concerning replacement of on-site affordable housing. (Note that the only current HPC members who acted on the prior application were Jeff Halferty and Roger Moyer.) A review of the meeting minutes reflects the persuasiveness of the applicant’s description of the public benefit that would be delivered by a co-work tenant. Numerous citizens were motivated to speak in favor of the concept (somewhat of a rarity at HPC) and mentioned perks like affordable office space, supporting younger workers and entrepreneurs, and building community. The proposal was described by the applicant and public as a great opportunity. Two newspaper articles written after the HPC hearing are attached as Exhibits C and D and further illustrate the tone of meeting and the focus on the applicant’s representation to deliver co-work space. As noted in an Aspen Daily News article on Dec. 14, 2018, “The City’s Historic Preservation Commission on Wednesday approved a change in use for upstairs space in the building from affordable housing to affordable, shared workspace,” and “A developer’s promise to deliver a co-working space in a new 17 5 downtown building helped convince the City of Aspen’s Historic Preservation Commission to waive a requirement that existing affordable housing units at 517 E. Hopkins Avenue be replaced onsite.” The applicant informed the HPC at the time that co-work space met one of Council’s stated goals, said the co-work tenant was “a signed deal,” and noted that the unnamed operator would offer shared spaces, delis, café, a bar, health and fitness classes. “They will open their doors to anyone who wants a shared workspace. Office space like this is such a shortage and it’s a real opportunity.” Staff acknowledges that many circumstances may have changed since 2018. However, subjective market and community circumstances are not included in the list of review criteria and considerations applied to quasi-judicial reviews of land use applications. Generally, staff discourages an approval as specific as that expressed in HPC Resolution #19, Series of 2018, because it locks in a specific business use in perpetuity, however the basis for HPC allowing off-site replacement of the existing affordable housing was so clearly driven by the co-work premise that it was necessary to reinforce that as a binding representation and condition of approval. In staff’s opinion, no evidence has been provided that amending Section 11 of HPC Resolution #19, Series of 2018 to change the requirement for co-working and opening the opportunity for replacement with Remedy Place or any other non-compliant free market commercial business justifies the displacement of the current on-site housing at 517 E. Hopkins according to the adopted criteria. Affordable housing credits are a valuable and sometimes preferred solution, but opportunities to provide housing in a variety of locations, particularly proximate to the businesses requiring employees, is the priority that has been adopted by the City. Since 2018, securing land use approvals for the development of affordable housing anywhere in the City has continued to be a challenging and divisive topic. Here they are mandated by the land use code and are therefore beyond objection. Any housing location in the city can be characterized as having positives and negatives, however the need is urgent. Staff finds the relevant GMQS criteria will only continue to be met if the current on-site units are replaced by co-working, as represented in 2018. If HPC’s decision is approval, the matter will be brought to Council as an Amendment to a Development Agreement, a document which was required as part of the Growth Management Review in 2018 per Municipal Code Section 26.470.070.5.6. The Agreement states at Article 3.5 that any amendments to the agreement itself or to HPC Resolution #19, Series of 2018 may only occur “by written instruments executed by all parties hereto that are affected by the proposed amendment.” City Council, by virtue of the Mayor’s approval of the Development Agreement, is an affected party. A written notice from the applicant to James R. True, City Attorney, will advance review of the proposed amendment to Council. The amendment may not proceed unless HPC’s findings on the review criteria are accepted by Council. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of Resolution #__. Series of 2023, which is written to amend Section 11 of HPC Resolution #19, Series of 2018 to eliminate the requirement for co-work space to occupy all of the second floor net leasable space at 517 E. Hopkins.” ATTACHMENTS: Resolution #__, Series of 2023 Exhibit A – Review Criteria/Staff Findings, Substantial Amendment to HPC Major Development Exhibit B – Review Criteria/Staff Findings, Growth Management Exhibit C – “Co-working Space Coming to Downtown Building,” Aspen Daily News, Dec. 14, 2018 Exhibit D – “Global Workspace Company Coming to Aspen,” The Aspen Times, Jan. 1, 2019 18 6 Exhibit E – HPC Resolution #19, Series of 2018 Exhibit F – Development Agreement Exhibit G – HPC Minutes December 12, 2018 Exhibit H – APCHA Recommendation Exhibit I – Application 19 Historic Preservation Commission Resolution #__, Series 2023 Page 1 of 4 RESOLUTION #__ (SERIES OF 2023) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO FINAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR 517 E HOPKINS AVENUE, LOTS D, E, AND F, BLOCK 94, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO BY AMENDING HPC RESOLUTION #19, SERIES OF 2018 Parcel ID: 2737-073-40-003 WHEREAS, on September 21, 2015 the Community Development Department received an application from 517 E. Hopkins Aspen, LLC (Applicant), for the following land use approvals related to the demolition and replacement of the existing building at 517 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lots D, E, And F, Block 94, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado: • Conceptual Commercial Design, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.412; • Conceptual Major Development, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.415; • Mountain View Plane Exemption, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.435; and WHEREAS, Conceptual approval was granted by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) on December 9, 2015 through HPC Resolution #31, Series of 2015; and WHEREAS, on May 8, 2016, the Community Development Department received an application from 517 E. Hopkins Aspen, LLC for the following land use approvals: • Final Commercial Design, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.412; • Final Major Development, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.415; • Growth Management Review, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.470; • Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.540, and; WHEREAS, Final approval was granted by the Historic Preservation Commission on September 14, 2016 through HPC Resolution #28, Series of 2016. A Development Order was issued by the Community Development Director and remained in effect until September 23, 2019. A building permit submitted prior to that date currently maintains the approval in good standing; and WHEREAS, on October 11, 2018, the Community Development Department received an application from 517 E. Hopkins Aspen, LLC, for the following land use approvals to modify the approved building program and design: • Substantial Amendment, Major Development Review, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.415; • Substantial Amendment, Commercial Design Review, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.410; • Amendment to a Growth Management Development Order, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.475; and WHEREAS, approval for the Amendments was granted by the Historic Preservation Commission on December 12, 2018 through HPC Resolution #19, Series of 2023; and 20 Historic Preservation Commission Resolution #__, Series 2023 Page 2 of 4 WHEREAS, on June 6, 2023, the Community Development Department received an application from 517 E. Hopkins Aspen, LLC requesting to amend the proposed use of the upper floor of the approved new building, which would necessitate amending Section 11 of HPC Resolution #19, Series of 2023 and a subsequently recorded Development Agreement and repeating the following land use reviews: • Substantial Amendment, Major Development Review, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.415; • Amendment to a Growth Management Development Order, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.475; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director determined the application to be eligible for review as Minor Amendment pursuant to current Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.304.070.A.1, under which a project within the period of pendency may propose a Minor Amendment and be reviewed under the original land use code in effect during the initial approval for the site specific development plan; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.304, Common Development Review Procedures, and Section 26.304.060.B.1, Modification of Review Procedures, all necessary land use reviews, as identified herein, have been combined to be considered by the Historic Preservation Commission at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, such combination of review procedures was done to ensure clarity of review, was accomplished with all required public noticing provided as evidenced by an affidavit of public noticing submitted to the record, and the public was provided a thorough and full review of the proposed development; and, WHEREAS, in preparing a recommendation to the Historic Preservation Commission, the Community Development Department received updated referral comments from APCHA; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Application and recommended denial; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the application at a duly noticed public hearing on August 23, 2023, during which the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were requested and heard by the Historic Preservation Commission; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on August 23, 2023, the Historic Preservation Commission approved Resolution #__, Series of 2023, by a __ to __ vote granting approvals for Substantial Amendment to Major Development and Growth Management Development Order in the form of an amendment to HPC Resolution #19, Series of 2018, as described below. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Approvals Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Historic Preservation Commission hereby grants Substantial Amendment to Major Development and Growth Management Development Order for 517 E. Hopkins Avenue only to the extent that Section 11 of HPC Resolution #19, Series of 2023 is amended as follows: 21 Historic Preservation Commission Resolution #__, Series 2023 Page 3 of 4 Section 11: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department and the Historic Preservation Commission are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. This includes the representation that co-work space will occupy all of the second floor net leasable space at 517 E. Hopkins and may not be replaced with another use without approval by HPC. The second floor of the building may be occupied by any permitted use in the zone district. All other provisions of previous approvals granted for this project and memorialized in the Development Order remain in full effect. HPC’s basis that this amendment complies with Municipal Code Section 26.470.070.5.4, Demolition or replacement of Multi-Family Housing, Location requirement, is…. Section 2 : Amendment to Development Agreement Pending The representation that co-work space will occupy all of the second floor net leasable space at 517 E. Hopkins Avenue is reiterated in a Development Agreement (Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder Recordation #654590), to which both the property owner and the City are a party. A decision by HPC to amend Section 11 of HPC Resolution #19, Series of 2023 shall be null and void unless the Development Agreement is also amended accordingly by a majority vote of Aspen City Council. Section 3: Vested Rights This approval shall not extend the Vested Rights provided to this development through a Development Order issued by the Community Development Director on September 22, 2016 and expiring on September 22, 2019. Section 4: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department and the Historic Preservation Commission are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. Section 5: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 6: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. 22 Historic Preservation Commission Resolution #__, Series 2023 Page 4 of 4 APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 23rd day of August, 2023. Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: ________________________________ ________________________________ Katharine Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Kara Thompson, Chair ATTEST: ________________________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk 23 Page 1 of 1 Exhibit A Substantial Amendment to Major Development Staff Findings The following language was in effect at the time of the Conceptual application in September 2015 and is applicable to this review. 26.415.070.E.2. Substantial amendments. a) All changes to approved plans that materially modify the location, size, shape, materials, design, detailing or appearance of the building elements as originally depicted must be approved by the HPC as a substantial amendment. e) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the extent of the changes relative to the approved plans and how the proposed revisions affect the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Codes. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed revisions and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. f) 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 Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Staff Finding: 517 E. Hopkins Avenue received Final HPC Major Development approval for a full redevelopment of the site in 2016, and a subsequent Substantial Amendment approval in 2018. Vested Rights for the project expired on September 23, 2019, but the approval is currently sustained by the submittal of a complete building permit (0015-2019-BCOM), which is under active review. The developer now requests approval to amend a condition established in the 2018 Substantial Amendment, requiring the second floor of the building to be occupied by a co-work tenant. This condition was the result of a representation made by the applicant and was directly influential in the HPC decision to allow the replacement of the current second floor use, affordable housing units, elsewhere in Aspen, contrary to the land use code indication that on-site housing is preferred. Amendments to HPC approved projects are either deemed Insubstantial (an Administrative Review) or Substantial (an HPC Review) per Land Use Code Section 26.415.070.E. Because HPC Resolution #19, Series of 2018 stated than an amendment to representations related to co-work space requires HPC approval, the process is a Substantial Amendment. No exterior changes to the project have been proposed, therefore design review is not needed, but Growth Management review must be repeated. Per the review criteria for Substantial Amendments, staff has prepared an analysis of the application’s conformance with the Land Use Code. Staff has no objections to criteria related to Substantial Amendment. 24 EXHIBIT B Growth Management Staff Findings The building at 517 E. Hopkins includes commercial space and four affordable housing units. HPC’s 2018 approval to redevelop the site with a new structure allowed for the demolition of the existing affordable housing units to be mitigated by providing affordable housing credits acquired by constructing deed restricted units elsewhere in the City. The approval also established the affordable housing mitigation that will be required by replacing the on-site housing with new commercial development. These calculations do not need to be revisited with regard to the current application before HPC. The calculation is the same for any commercial use in the building, whether it is a co-working tenant or some other use permitted in the zone district. For reference, in 2018, the required mitigation for the project, in addition to replacing the affordable housing through credits, was 10.81 full-time equivalent employees. The final determination of mitigation will be confirmed as part of the building permit issuance. The subject to be re-visited at this hearing is HPC’s 2018 findings and conditions of approval regarding demolition and replacement of the four affordable housing units that are currently occupied at 517 E. Hopkins. When any free-market or affordable multi-family residential units are proposed for demolition in Aspen, a review process is required to set “limitations on the combining, demolition or conversion of existing multi-family housing in order to minimize the displacement of working residents, to ensure that the private sector maintains its role in the provision of resident housing and to prevent a housing shortfall from occurring,” as expressed in the land use code section below. Staff and APCHA’s position that on-site housing is the preferred outcome is unchanged from 2018. While it is not possible to withdraw HPC’s approval to replace the housing on the site with affordable housing credits so long as the approval is actively pursued and remains valid, this application proposes to remove a meaningful condition of that approval. This condition was expressed as the basis for HPC allowing the existing housing to be replaced with credits and to be substituted with commercial development that generates its own need for affordable housing mitigation. HPC is asked to determine whether removing the requirement that the upper floor of the redevelopment at 517 E. Hopkins be occupied by a co-work space, as required by HPC Resolution #19, Series of 2018, would still result in a project which is in compliance with the following criteria, namely Section 26.470.070.5.4? If found not in compliance, approval to remove the condition and allow a use other than co-working should not be granted. _________________________________________________________________________________ Section 26.470.070.5 Demolition or redevelopment of multi-family housing. The City's neighborhoods have traditionally been comprised of a mix of housing types, including those affordable by its working residents. However, because of Aspen's attractiveness as a resort environment and because of the physical constraints of the upper Roaring Fork Valley, there is constant pressure for the redevelopment of dwellings currently providing resident housing for tourist and second-home use. Such redevelopment results in the displacement of individuals and families who are an integral part of the Aspen work force. Given the extremely high cost of and demand for market-rate housing, resident housing opportunities for displaced working residents, which are now minimal, will continue to decrease. Preservation of the housing inventory and provision of dispersed housing opportunities in Aspen have been long-standing planning goals of the community. Achievement of these goals will serve to promote a socially and economically balanced community, limit the number of individuals who face a long and sometimes dangerous commute on State Highway 82, reduce the air pollution effects of commuting and prevent exclusion of working residents from the City's neighborhoods. 25 Page 2 of 5 The Aspen Area Community Plan established a goal that affordable housing for working residents be provided by both the public and private sectors. The City and the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority have provided affordable housing both within and adjacent to the City limits. The private sector has also provided affordable housing. Nevertheless, as a result of the replacement of resident housing with second homes and tourist accommodations and the steady increase in the size of the workforce required to assure the continued viability of Aspen area businesses and the City's tourist- based economy, the City has found it necessary, in concert with other regulations, to adopt limitations on the combining, demolition or conversion of existing multi-family housing in order to minimize the displacement of working residents, to ensure that the private sector maintains its role in the provision of resident housing and to prevent a housing shortfall from occurring. The combining, demolition, conversion or redevelopment of multi-family housing shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on compliance with the following requirements (see definition of demolition.): 1. Requirements for combining, demolishing, converting or redeveloping free-market multi- family housing units: Only one (1) of the following two (2) options is required to be met when combining, demolishing, converting or redeveloping a free-market multi-family residential property. To ensure the continued vitality of the community and a critical mass of local working residents, no net loss of density (total number of units) between the existing development and proposed development shall be allowed. One-hundred-percent replacement. In the event of the demolition of free-market multi- family housing, the applicant shall have the option to construct replacement housing consisting of no less than one hundred percent (100%) of the number of units, bedrooms and net livable area demolished. The replacement units shall be deed-restricted as resident occupied affordable housing, pursuant to the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Each replacement unit shall be approved pursuant to Subsection 4, Affordable housing, of this Section. When this one-hundred-percent standard is accomplished, the remaining development on the site may be free-market residential development with no additional affordable housing mitigation required as long as there is no increase in the number of free-market residential units on the parcel. Free-market units in excess of the total number originally on the parcel shall be reviewed pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.3, Expansion of free- market residential units within a multi-family or mixed-use development. a. Fifty-percent replacement. In the event of the demolition of free-market multi-family housing and replacement of less than one hundred percent (100%) of the number of previous units, bedrooms or net livable area as described above, the applicant shall be required to construct affordable housing consisting of no less than fifty percent (50%) of the number of units, bedrooms and the net livable area demolished. The replacement units shall be deed-restricted as Category 4 housing, pursuant to the guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Each replacement unit shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing. When this fifty-percent standard is accomplished, the remaining development on the site may 26 Page 3 of 5 be free-market residential development as long as additional affordable housing mitigation is provided pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.3, Expansion of free-market residential units within a multi-family or mixed-use project, and there is no increase in the number of free-market residential units on the parcel. Free-market units in excess of the total number originally on the parcel shall be reviewed pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.7, New free-market residential units within a multi-family or mixed-use project. b. One-hundred percent affordable housing replacement. When one-hundred-percent of the free- market multi-family housing units are demolished and are solely replaced with deed- restricted affordable housing units on a site that are not required for mitigation purposes, including any net additional dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.470.070.4, Affordable Housing; all of the units in the redevelopment are eligible for a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit, pursuant to Section 26.540 Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit. Any remaining unused free market residential development rights shall be vacated. Staff Findings: No free market units are involved this project. This criterion does not apply. 2. Requirements for demolishing affordable multi-family housing units: In the event a project proposes to demolish or replace existing deed-restricted affordable housing units, the redevelopment may increase or decrease the number of units, bedrooms or net livable area such that there is no decrease in the total number of employees housed by the existing units. The overall number of replacement units, unit sizes, bedrooms and category of the units shall be reviewed by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and a recommendation forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff Findings: The current building includes four Category 1 deed restricted units, housing 5 FTEs. The applicant proposes to mitigate through Affordable Housing Credits. Staff finds this criterion is met in terms of mitigating an adequate number of FTEs, but Staff and APCHA do not support the use of credits to replace the demolished units. 3. Fractional unit requirement. When the affordable housing replacement requirement of this Section involves a fraction of a unit, cash-in-lieu may be provided only upon the review and approval of the City Council, to meet the fractional requirement only, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3, Provision of required affordable housing via a cash-in-lieu payment. Staff Findings: This criterion does not apply. 4. Location requirement. Multi-family replacement units, both free-market and affordable, shall be developed on the same site on which demolition has occurred, unless the owner shall demonstrate and the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that replacement of the units on site would be in conflict with the parcel's zoning or would be an inappropriate solution due to the site's physical constraints. When either of the above circumstances result, the owner shall replace the maximum number of units on site which the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the site can accommodate and may replace the remaining units off site, at a location determined acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard. 27 Page 4 of 5 Staff Findings: Staff finds the relevant GMQS criteria were not met in 2018 with regard to the replacement of the existing units. On-site replacement of units is not in conflict with the zoning. Affordable housing is a permitted use for all upper floors and is an important use to retain in the zone district. Additionally, there appear to be no physical constraints that would prevent replacement in this location. Staff acknowledges that HPC responded favorably to the co-work proposal in 2018 because of community benefit. Without that community benefit, staff sees no basis for off-site replacement of the existing affordable housing units through credits. Staff does not recommend HPC amend their decision to allow a different commercial use. Affordable housing credits are a valuable and sometimes preferred solution for mitigation. However, opportunities to provide housing in a variety of locations, particularly proximate to the businesses requiring employees, is the priority that has been adopted by the City and is required in this code section. APCHA and Community Development staff made that recommendation in 2018 and still hold this position. Staff finds the application should be denied as it does not comply with this code section. 5. Timing requirement. Any replacement units required to be deed-restricted as affordable housing shall be issued a certificate of occupancy, according to the Building Department, and be available for occupancy at the same time as, or prior to, any redeveloped free-market units, regardless of whether the replacement units are built on site or off site. Staff Findings: This criterion does not apply. 6. Redevelopment agreement. The applicant and the City shall enter into a redevelopment agreement that specifies the manner in which the applicant shall adhere to the approvals granted pursuant to this Section and penalties for noncompliance. The agreement shall be recorded before an application for a demolition permit may be accepted by the City. Staff Findings: The requirements of this criterion are addressed as a condition of approval. 7. Growth management allotments. The existing number of free-market residential units, prior to demolition, may be replaced exempt from growth management, provided that the units conform to the provisions of this Section. The redevelopment credits shall not be transferable separate from the property unless permitted as described above in Subparagraph d, Location requirement. Staff Findings: This criterion does not apply. 8. Exemptions. The Community Development Director shall exempt from the procedures and requirements of this Section the following types of development involving Multi-Family Housing Units. An exemption from these replacement requirements shall not exempt a development from compliance with any other provisions of this Title: a. The replacement of Multi-Family Housing Units after non-willful demolition such as a flood, fire, or other natural catastrophe, civil commotion, or similar event not purposefully caused by the land owner. The Community Development Director may require documentation be provided by the landowner to confirm the damage to the building was in-fact non-willful. 28 To be exempted, the replacement development shall be an exact replacement of the previous number of units, bedrooms, and square footage and in the same configuration. The Community Development Director may approve exceptions to this exact replacement requirement to accommodate changes necessary to meet current building codes; improve accessibility; to conform to zoning, design standards, or other regulatory requirements of the City; or, to provide other architectural or site planning improvements that have no substantial effect on the use or program of the development. (Also see Chapter 26.312 – Nonconformities.) Substantive changes to the development shall not be exempted from this Section and shall be reviewed as a willful change pursuant to the procedures and requirements of this Section. b. The demolition of Multi-Family Housing Units by order of a public agency including, but not limited to, the City of Aspen for reasons of preserving the life, health, safety, or general welfare of the public. c. The demolition, combining, conversion, replacement, or redevelopment of Multi-Family Housing Units which have been used exclusively as tourist accommodations or by non- working residents. The Community Development Director may require occupancy records, leases, affidavits, or other documentation to the satisfaction of the Director to demonstrate that the unit(s) has never housed a working resident. All other requirements of this Title shall still apply including zoning, growth management, and building codes.) d. The demolition, combining, conversion, replacement, or redevelopment of Multi-Family Housing Units which were illegally created (also known as “Bandit Units”). Any improvements associated with Bandit Units shall be required to conform to current requirements of this Title including zoning, growth management, and building codes. Replaced or redeveloped Bandit Units shall be deed restricted as Resident Occupied affordable housing, pursuant to the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. e. Any development action involving demising walls or floors/ceilings necessary for the normal upkeep, maintenance, or remodeling of adjacent Multi-Family Housing Units. f. A change order to an issued and active building permit that proposes to exceed the limitations of remodeling/demolition to rebuild portions of a structure which, in the opinion of the Community Development Director, should be rebuilt for structural, safety, accessibility, or significant energy efficiency reasons first realized during construction, which were not known and could not have been reasonably predicted prior to construction, and which cause no or minimal changes to the exterior dimensions and character of the building. Staff Findings: The project does not meet any criteria for exemption. 29 8/10/23, 3:00 PM Co-working space coming to downtown building | News | aspendailynews.com https://www.aspendailynews.com/news/co-working-space-coming-to-downtown-building/article_0b2544d2-ff5b-11e8-92ac-43990bcded6b.html 1/6 https://www.aspendailynews.com/news/co-working-space-coming-to-downtown-building/article_0b2544d2- 5b-11e8-92ac-43990bcded6b.html Co-working space coming to downtown building Curtis Wackerle, Aspen Daily News Sta Writer Dec 14, 2018 Architect’s rendering showing the facade of the planned building at 517 E. Hopkins Ave. The City’s Historic Preservation Commission on Wednesday approved a change in use for upstairs space in the building from a ordable housing to a ordable, shared workspace. Courtesy David Johnson Architects 30 8/10/23, 3:00 PM Co-working space coming to downtown building | News | aspendailynews.com https://www.aspendailynews.com/news/co-working-space-coming-to-downtown-building/article_0b2544d2-ff5b-11e8-92ac-43990bcded6b.html 2/6 A developer’s promise to deliver a co-working space in a new downtown building helped convince the city of Aspen’s Historic Preservation Commission to waive a requirement that existing affordable housing units at 517 E. Hopkins Ave. be replaced onsite. HPC on Wednesday evening unanimously approved an amendment to Mark Hunt’s prior approval to redevelop the site, which was the home of the Aspen Daily News until 2015, and a recent subject of a public vote weighing two possible locations for city of ces. The prior approval included six new affordable housing apartments on the building’s second level, which were required in part to replace existing units in the building. Hunt was asking that he be allowed to provide the housing off-site or using affordable housing credit certi cates. The HPC approval is contingent on the condition that at least the second oor of the building be used as co-working space. If Hunt were ever to seek a different type of tenant for that space, he would need HPC approval. Going into the meeting, the city’s planning of ce was recommending against the request since the land use code, which requires replacement of any demolished affordable housing units, favors the replacement occurring on site. “No evidence has been provided that replacement of the current on‐site housing at 517 E. Hopkins is inappropriate, therefore mitigation should occur on this property,” says a staff memo to HPC from Amy Simon, historic preservation of cer. “Affordable housing 31 8/10/23, 3:00 PM Co-working space coming to downtown building | News | aspendailynews.com https://www.aspendailynews.com/news/co-working-space-coming-to-downtown-building/article_0b2544d2-ff5b-11e8-92ac-43990bcded6b.html 3/6 credits are a valuable and sometimes preferred solution and are acceptable for the new commercial space, however opportunities to provide housing in a variety of locations, particularly proximate to the businesses requiring employees, is the priority that has been adopted by the city.” Hunt, who spoke at the hearing, and planning consultant Chris Bendon, made the case that they had a better plan for the space than workforce housing. Bendon added that replacement housing can be moved off site if the HPC nds that it would result in a better planning scenario. Co-working space has become all the rage in cities around the world, where entrepreneurs or those working remotely can sign up to use shared facilities with amenities including conference rooms, desks and creature comforts. Many spaces include games, comfortable seats and beer on tap. “We think it’s an amazing opportunity, something that would be great for the downtown and we are pretty enthusiastic about it,” Bendon said before the meeting. Such concepts have attracted interest in Aspen in the past but failed to get off the ground. Most recently, in 2015, the city tried to lease the Old Powerhouse historic building near the Roaring Fork River to a tenant that would have provided shared 32 8/10/23, 3:00 PM Co-working space coming to downtown building | News | aspendailynews.com https://www.aspendailynews.com/news/co-working-space-coming-to-downtown-building/article_0b2544d2-ff5b-11e8-92ac-43990bcded6b.html 4/6 workspace along with a cafe and other elements, but those plans broke down as neighbors fought the commercial activation of a space that had previously housed a museum. With voters passing over 517 Hopkins for city of ces in November, going instead with a plan using city owned land near Rio Grande Park, the shared workspace concept may have nally found a home in Aspen. Hunt, who manages corporations that have purchased more than a dozen Aspen properties since 2010, has inked a deal with a shared workspace provider that would take over the square footage the city would have used in the building. Bendon declined to name the provider by multiple sources have said it will be a WeWork, which is the largest global brand in the co-working market. The city’s footprint in the new building included the entire second oor, portions of the ground oor and the entire basement, which would have a light well coming in from the second oor. Other retail tenants could still use three street-facing units on the ground oor. HPC Chair Gretchen Greenwood said around 10 people came to the meeting to speak in favor of the concept, making a powerful case for approval. Having smaller of ces spaces that are available at affordable rates targeting the young and entrepreneurial is “something the community would greatly bene t from,” Greenwood said, re ecting what she said was the unanimous sentiment of the board and 33 8/10/23, 3:00 PM Co-working space coming to downtown building | News | aspendailynews.com https://www.aspendailynews.com/news/co-working-space-coming-to-downtown-building/article_0b2544d2-ff5b-11e8-92ac-43990bcded6b.html 5/6 the community members in attendance Wednesday. “We are very excited about the concept,” she said. “We all understood that the credit program” — where housing is provided off-site in privately developed buildings — “was a better use of employee housing than putting it back” at the downtown location. She added that she was in agreement with comments made by Peter Fornell, a developer of housing that generates the credit certi cates, that commercial activity and vitality belong in the commercial core. Since the co-working space had much to do with HPC’s goodwill toward the amendment, the board made it a condition of approval, meaning Hunt must provide co-working space or get city permission to change the use. Greenwood added that there was a fairness element to the approval. HPC earlier this year approved moving the housing off-site when the building was considered for city of ces. The new offering in Aspen could hasten a transition that is already underway, according to Peter Grenney, who runs a small real estate and development business in Aspen. The ability to work remotely has made Aspen a more attractive second-home market, he said. With a well-done co-working space, Grenney envisioned a scenario where nance or tech workers from the city, who were already planning a vacation in Aspen, could extend their stays. 34 8/10/23, 3:00 PM Co-working space coming to downtown building | News | aspendailynews.com https://www.aspendailynews.com/news/co-working-space-coming-to-downtown-building/article_0b2544d2-ff5b-11e8-92ac-43990bcded6b.html 6/6 “I think it accelerates the concept that people aren’t just here for vacation and they can mix the two” — work and play — “a little more seamlessly,” he said. “And I think there is a huge bene t to the local economy,” Grenney said, referencing small businesses that are “looking for alliances and partnerships.” “This will increase visibility for all those people who are working in their basement or a garage” and want to be part of a larger community, he said. Curtis Wackerle is the editor of Aspen Daily News. He can be reached at curtis@aspendailynews.com or on Twitter @CurtisWackerle. 35 8/10/23, 3:01 PM Global workspace company coming to Aspen | AspenTimes.com https://www.aspentimes.com/news/local/global-workspace-company-coming-to-aspen/1/2 Global workspace company coming to Aspen An architect's rendering of the front facade of a redeveloped building at 517 E. Hopkins Ave. that will house a global collaborative workspace company and an associated retail storefront. Rendering courtesy of David Johnston Architects A downtown developer is skirting the city’s municipal code that requires him to build on-site employee housing in his new building. That’s because the commercial tenant proposed to occupy the space was intriguing enough for the citizen board to approve it. The city’s Historic Preservation Commission in December went against the recommendations of the local housing board and the city’s Community Development Department that Mark Hunt should put apartments on the second oor of his redeveloped building at 517 E. Hopkins Ave. Instead, HPC members agreed — after a two-hour discussion — that Hunt’s prospective tenant, an unidenti ed global shared workspace company, is enoug h of a community bene t that it could replace on-site housing. “HPC was interested in affordable workspace and the community bene t in that,” said Amy Simon, the city’s historic preservation of cer. So, the nearly 11 full-time employees who will be generated from the new building will be mitigated by Hunt either building affordable housing or using housing credits. The credit program allows a developer to build affordable housing and get a credit for each unit that comes online. That credit can then be sold to another developer who uses it to ful ll employee mitigation requirements on a separate project. Hunt’s project had to go through HPC review because of changes to previously approved plans and the request to remove on-site affordable housing. In her memo to HPC members, Simon was clear on what the community development department’s position is regarding on-site affordable housing. “Staff has reinforced the importance of on-site affordable housing mitigation in several recent projects,” Simon wrote. “No evidence has been provided that replacement of the current on-site housing at 517 E. Hopkins is inappropriate, therefore mitigation should occur on this property. “Affordable-housing credits are a valuable and sometimes preferred solution and is acceptable for the new commercial space; however, opportunities to provide housing in a variety of locations, particularly proximate to the businesses requiring employees, is the priority that has been adopted by the city.” But Hunt and his land-use planner, Chris Bendon, were able to convince HPC members otherwise. YOUR AD HERE » Local F O L L O W L O C A L | Jan 1, 2019 Carolyn Sackariason F O L L O W csackariason@aspentimes.com 47%81%40%55%47%47% ✕ 36 8/10/23, 3:01 PM Global workspace company coming to Aspen | AspenTimes.com https://www.aspentimes.com/news/local/global-workspace-company-coming-to-aspen/2/2 “They thoug ht, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and what a great opportunity it is,” Bendon said. Hunt had told the Aspen-Pitkin County Housing Authority board a week prior to the Dec. 12 HPC meeting that he was planning to build a complex that would house close to 70 workers, but he didn’t mention the prospective tenant. Bendon said outside of both meetings that Hunt has been courting the company for at least a year. He declined to reveal the name of the collaborative workspace company, saying it’s up to them to announce their arrival. “We don’t want to hit the parade button yet,” he said. “But we’re excited about the tenant and it will bring a lot of enthusiasm to downtown.” Shared workspaces for entrepreneurs, freelancers, small businesses and startups have gained popularity around the world in recent years. It will ll a void in downtown Aspen where a nite amount of of ce space exists and rents are high, Bendon said. “There is a massive barrier with the costs associated of starting a business here,” he said. Both oors will occupy shared of ces, and the retail storefronts along Hopkins Avenue will be related to the workspace, such as a coffee shop or other food and beverage operations. “There’s light throug hout the building,” Bendon said. “It looks like a really welcoming space.” csackariason@aspentimes.com ✕ 37 RECEPTION#: 653319, R: $93.00, D: $0.00 DOC CODE: RESOLUTION Pg 1 of 17, 01/14/2019 at 03:03:56 PM Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO RESOLUTION #1q SERIES OF 2018) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO FINAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, FINAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR 517 E HOPKINS AVENUE, LOTS D, E,AND F, BLOCK 94, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Parcel ID: 2737-073-40-003 WHEREAS, on September 21, 2015 the Community Development Department received an application from 517 E. Hopkins Aspen, LLC (Applicant), for the following land use approvals related to the demolition and replacement of the existing building at 517 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lots D, E, And F, Block 94, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado: Conceptual Commercial Design, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.412; Conceptual Major Development, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.415; Mountain View Plane Exemption, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.435; and WHEREAS, Conceptual approval was granted by the Historic Preservation Commission on December 9, 2015; and WHEREAS, on May 8, 2016, the Community Development Department received an application from 517 E. Hopkins Aspen, LLC for the following land use approvals: Final Commercial Design, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.412; Final Major Development, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.415; Growth Management Review, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.470; Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.540, and; WHEREAS, Final approval was granted by the Historic Preservation Commission on September 14, 2016. A Development Order was issued by the Community Development Director and remains in effect until September 23, 2o19; and WHEREAS, all previous code citation references are to the Aspen Municipal Code in effect on the day of initial application - September 21, 2015, as applicable to this Project; and, WHEREAS, on October 11, 2018,the Community Development Department received an application from 517 E. Hopkins Aspen, LLC, for the following land use approvals to modify the approved building program and design: Historic Preservation Commission Resolution #19,Series 2018 Page 1 of 6 38 Substantial Amendment, Major Development Review, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.415; Substantial Amendment, Commercial Design Review, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.410; Amendment to a Growth Management Development Order, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.475; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director determined the application to be eligible for review as Minor Amendment pursuant to current Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.304.070.A.1, under which a project within the period of pendency may propose a Minor Amendment and be reviewed under the original land use code in effect during the initial approval for the site specific development plan; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.304, Common Development Review Procedures, and Section 26.304.060.B.1, Modification of Review Procedures, all necessary land use reviews, as identified herein, have been combined to be considered by the Historic Preservation Commission at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, such combination of review procedures was done to ensure clarity of review, was accomplished with all required public noticing provided as evidenced by an affidavit of public noticing submitted to the record, and the public was provided a thorough and full review of the proposed development; and, WHEREAS, in preparing a recommendation to the Historic Preservation Commission, the Community Development Department received updated referral comments from City Engineering, Environmental Health, Public Works Department, and APCHA; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Application and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the Application at a duly noticed public hearing on December 12, 2018, during which the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were requested and heard by the Historic Preservation Commission; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on December 12, 2018, the Historic Preservation Commission approved Resolution #19, Series of 2018, by a 7 to 0 vote granting approvals for Substantial Amendment to Final Major Development, Final Commercial Design Review, and Growth Management Development Order with the conditions of approval listed hereinafter, including all relevant conditions contained within the vested approval granted to this project through Resolution #28, Series of 2016. Historic Preservation Commission Resolution #19,Series 2018 Page 2 of 6 39 NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: ApprovalspP_— — Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Historic Preservation Commission hereby grants Substantial Amendment to Final Major Development, Final Commercial Design Review, and Amendment to a Growth Management Development Order for the final design as depicted on Exhibit A attached and as represented through the approval process and subject to the conditions of approval as listed herein, including: 7. Restudy the center module of the north fagade to reduce the scale of the glazing wall in conformance with the design guidelines, for review and approval by staff and monitor. 2. Final materials for the proposed on-site and off-site public amenity spaces shall be approved by staff and monitor. 3. An internal connection between the second floor of 577 E. Hopkins and the second floor of 204 S. Galena is permitted if allowed by Building Code. Section 2: Growth_Management Allotment and Reconstruction Credit The existing development provides 12,756 square feet of net leasable area and may be credited toward the proposed development. Any reconstruction credit shall be valid for one (1) year following issuance of a demolition permit, pursuant to Chapter 26.470.130. Existing and proposed net leasable calculations shall be verified by the Zoning Officer at time of building permit review. Section 3: Employee Generation and Mitiqation The Historic Preservation Commission has determined that on-site replacement of the existing affordable housing is inappropriate due to the site's physical constraints, and the units may be replaced through credits equivalent to 5 FTEs at Category 1. The applicant must mitigate any new net leasable space created above and beyond the reconstruction credit noted in Section 2 through affordable housing credits at Category 4, provided before issuance of the building permit for the project. A redevelopment agreement, per Section 26.470.070.5.6 of the Municipal Code shall be recorded before an application for a demolition permit may be accepted by the City. The approximate increase in net leasable area represented by this approval is 4,471 square feet. Section 4: Public Amenity The project has a 900 sq.ft.(10%) public amenity requirement. A portion of the required Public Amenity (285 sq. ft. or 3.2%) will be provided onsite, located in front of the entrance to the upper and lower levels. The remaining Public Amenity requirement will be mitigated through off-site improvements to the adjacent right-of-way, to be approved by the Parks and Engineering Departments, staff and monitor. The final calculation of existing and proposed Historic Preservation Commission Resolution #19,Series 2018 Page 3 of 6 40 Public Amenity shall be verified by the Zoning Officer at the time of building permit review, in accordance with the Land Use Code. Section 5: Utility, delivery and trash service provision A 300 square foot trash and recycling area, as depicted in the land use application, is approved, pending final review by the Environmental Health Department. A transformer, meeting the requirements of the Public Works Department, shall be provided on the site. The applicant shall revise the plans to ensure that all tenants have access to deliveries as described at Section 26.412.06o.B.8 of the Municipal Code. Section 6: Parking The property currently has no on-site parking spaces, and demolition and replacement of the existing building allows for an equal area of the new building to be exempt from parking requirements up to 12.76 parking spaces. The parking required by the building expansion shall be verified with the Zoning Officer at time of building permit and will require a cash-in-lieu fee, at a rate $30,000 per space. Section : TIA As noted in Sections 2 and 6, above, a credit of 12,756 square feet of net leasable space will be applied to this project, and no parking or TIA mitigation is required for that area. The applicant has provided a preliminary proposal to mitigate 20 new trips through a variety of actions. Final calculation of trip mitigation will be based on the new net leasable space created on the site as verified by the Zoning Officer at the time of building permit review. The Engineering Department will work with the applicant to finalize the TIA ensuring that all proposed TIA measures are appropriate and applicable to the project and that any unmitigated trips will be addressed through a cash in lieu payment. Section 8: Parks Silva cells with tree plantings are required. City Forester will determine species and spacing. Irrigation is required. Electric outlets/stanchions shall not interfere with long term growth of trees. Water line shall run midway between trees to minimize future impacts. Section 9• ACSD A potential location for a grease trap (subgrade) shall be included in the building permit application to allow flexibility for future conversion of the commercial/retail spaces to restaurant. Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Historic Preservation Commission Resolution #19,Series 2018 Page 4 of 6 41 Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. Glycol heating and snow melt systems must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines and within 3 feet vertically below an ACSD main sewer line. Section 10: Vested Rights This approval shall not extend the Vested Rights provided to this development through a Development Order issued by the Community Development Director on September 22, 2016 and expiring on September 22, 2019. Section 11: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department and the Historic Preservation Commission are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. This includes the representation that co-work space will occupy all of the second floor net leasable space at 517 E. Hopkins and may not be replaced with another use without approval by HPC. Section 12• This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section-13- If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Historic Preservation Commission Resolution#19,Series 2018 Page 5 of 6 42 APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 12th day of December, 2018. Approved as to form:Approved as to content: J James R.True, City Attorney G en Gree Chair Attest: Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Attachments:_Exhibit A: Approved final elevations and floor plans Historic Preservation Commission Resolution#19,Series 2018 Page 6 of 6 43 L 1 03'N=dSV M Tom' ll3H393800 N- 0_ 3AV SNINdOH'3 LLS d E SNVId 1 iMVYV 0nend 03SOd0lfd f31'NI SNIMdOH 3 Sig r ool a C o. g 0 W w, z g8 cc a RMIN TI r a w. @ a sg a e s u e M1tlM 3l3NJHOJ S 33 EI CJTNI SNIMdOH 3 MS a d SNIMdO11'3 GlS V 1 9U'0O1 l/ Y I I b w n z w 1- msQILL p x z t r I I K @ 5 I MNM 313NONOO SNIMd-'3CCG y:3 44 ll_ OZ)N3dSV T u 113HS93803 V M O_ 3AV SNINdOH 3 LLS q NVId liMft onand x0013 ON003S i x II I I i a 0 Wm0 OO M O O I I J I I LL aIIN I I p I I I I I1I o I E LMLl 8- 0 k M a N z 0 4 uj O Q LL U 0 J Z m0 UaWNLL lA i O o 8 s 45 V- OO'N3dSV vaeow 113HS V 3WO 3AV SNIAdOH 3 LLS V Q NVld KIS f J'I'NI SMN H3SIS 001 1 1° 1 LU z 1 I s 1 ' cc momEMEMEMEMNN INEWEEMEMEN 110111 I aJ Q 8g 5 ml E fJ'I'NISNI=dOH 3¢S SNOId011 39L9 I Ip ul g "I I I p ma>r3oNaccs 3 46 ll_ 00'N3dSV u_ 113HS43800 Q TDo ba O 3AV SNNdOH*3 L S o Q SNVId 2i001d 13A3183MOI cy J mw a00ga 47 a 0O'N3dStl T y 113HSI3NOO V O 3 V SNINdOH'3 LLS NVId HOOIJ ONno'dg 03SOdOdd i a Y S i W g, tW O CCr7lL 3 e® 4 R g. 48 OO,N3dSV 4 T.-.113HS 932100 Mq Q k J O 3Atl SNINdOH*3 LLS r m, a SNVld 8001A ONOOAS 03SOdOdd I F1 I s Q3 1 ui Q LU I Ct a I I n---4 I I 6® 49 Y r®ran 9 03'N3dSV ro. 113HS93wo s. uwwo QO k O 3AV SMDIdOH'3 LLS up r L V Nbld 40021 03SOdOHd I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I oLUI ccI1 1 I I I I I I N t g I 50 OO'N3dSV r® a T13HS43lW SNI1dOH*3 LLS N „ NOIIVA913 HIHON Q l e e4mtaz r pr r r r b is - b 6 dbX,b ob b b b a g Ila zi t7.r W i cc a Q I F b b<b b == Ca 51 r b 00'N3dSv 113HSV9803 3 V SNINdOH 3 LLS ao. N L NOIltM313 1S`d3 y 3 y i y_ ggf sB @ Ib yb b I, ZI gg W Ni^ r LLr moi- ZIa Cl— d W CC CA. a Q 4 0 52 1• V 03W^dSV T13NSTMW r O 3AV SNI1dOH*3 LIS ro N0= QL NOI1HA3l3 Hinos rua r r i.a• r r tr r z gY gb ,b«bd f' gb i• ail py I Fr 7L a N O N a 3 i E 5 0 s 53 00'N3dStl V n3HS I380 p AAV SNINdOH'3LLS a Aa N NOIIVA3131S3M r r r gr k Zm N a e W h II I1I I I I III I I II I1 II I 1 1I I I I J ui CC I a14 IIIII I IIIIIIII III r I q II f 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 4 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2018 PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Simon handed to Mr. True. CALL UPS: None. Ms. Sanzone exited the meeting. NEW BUSINESS: 517 E Hopkins Amy Simon This is for a proposed demolition and replacement from a 2016 approval. What you are discussing tonight is for a proposed amendment. In August, we discussed an annex for City Hall. That was approved, but not by the voters. A number of architectural changes to the front and rear façades discussed at that time and are basically the same. The site plan approval was shown on screen. The public amenity has not changed. The street façade was shown on screen. The store front moved up closer to the street, we lost a bridge/deck. It created a two-story glazing wall, so HPC established a condition which is included in tonight’s resolution. They will be enlivening the façade with a lot more windows. This design is acceptable and will contribute to the alley scape, but it may need to be revised. The main change is the programming in the building. The approval that HPC granted was commercial in basement, commercial on the main floor and affordable housing occupying the entire second floor. There are currently four studio apartments in the building and they are occupied. The applicant had intended to replace the four units and add a few more to generate affordable housing credits. On the right is what is proposed, which is all commercial net leasable space and all of the affordable housing replaced with credits. APCHA has submitted a referral comment. Staff feels that the four existing housing units need to be replaced on site. We feel this is important to address city goals of the housing deficit. We don’t want to miss any opportunities to address this issue. Affordable housing credits are great and have helped, but we need other solutions. We are recommending approval once we solve the issue of mitigation with the following conditions: 1. Center module needs some design to reduce the scale 2. Material for the public amenity space needs further definition 3. Repeating the previous agreement that 285 sq. ft. of the public amenity is on site and the rest is on the streetscape 4. Applicant gets credit for the existing building. 12,756 sq. ft. of net leasable space. The commercial space will have some mitigation 5. Five full time employees living in this building, so these FTE’s must be replaced at category 1. Staff wants onsite units. 6. Applicant will have to mitigate for any new net leasable space beyond the credit at a category 4. 7. Parking- credit – can mitigate via cash in lieu 8. Trash, delivery, transformer – alley. The applicant will work with engineering to mitigate any new trips. Bus passes for employees, etc. 9. Automatic three years of vested rights, which protects them from changes in the code. This project was approved under the pre-moratorium code. When the city plan was here in August, it was considered an essential public facility and there was no housing. The city was going to provide all credits because it was a unique opportunity to create a city hall annex space right across the street. Ms. Garrow said there were different review standards for that request for an essential public facility. There were also criteria related to waiving mitigation 79 5 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2018 requirements from council to promote civic uses and broader community goals, which created a unique opportunity to for city offices in a campus-like situation. Mr. Halferty asked if staff is suggesting that the city can play by different rules than a private applicant when it comes to employee housing. Mr. True said yes, there are different review standards, which the code provides and different rules. Ms. Garrow said the city was going to use its own credits. This aspect hinges on the location requirement standards, which is why the specific language was pulled for this presentation. It is absolutely within HPC’s authority to find that credits are appropriate here and is within HPC’s purview. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Chris Bendon of Bendon Adams, Mark Hunt & Chris Bryan of Garfield & Hecht Mr. Bendon thanked HPC for their service to preservation. He showed the conceptual approval on screen and mentioned that Mr. Hunt is the largest credit holder of housing credits currently. The approval for retail and city offices was just given with the housing mitigation offsite on August 1st. The proposal for tonight is for retail and offices. There is a new exciting tenant he wants to talk about that we have leased up for the space. The roof would be the same and the façade would be more lively and we can work with staff and monitor on this aspect. The retail and city offices were required to meet the multi-family replacement standards. In addition, it was required to meet the essential public facility. With retail and non-city offices, we have to meet those first three criteria: HPC, commercial design review and a multi-family replacement. Both projects had to address this standard. He showed on screen the requirements for demolishing affordable multifamily housing units, which references section 26.470.070.5.2. The location requirement is important – he read to the board. The importance of this is that the city had to address this same standard. The recommendation you see in front of you tonight is for denial under this standard. Staff and APCHA do not support the use of credits. The growth management criteria have not been met according to staff. We did go to the APCHA board and they previously recommended the use of credits for the city project, so we were thinking they would recommend approval for an all commercial project. We are getting a transcript of the meeting and have some suspicion around a couple of members and their possible bias. There was one member who was upset because he used to live in one of these units. We think he made his decision based on this and another woman commented on the change in the retail environment downtown and suggested we don’t need more retail pop up stores. We were caught off guard by this. He ran through APCHA’S approval for the city project. He feels they have already demonstrated compliance with the same criterion which the city met with its project. We think as community members, you can be proud of this project. He mentioned HanaHaus in Silicon Valley as an amazing shared workspace. There is a huge buzz surrounding this and is a retail and commercial shared workspace. We have a tenant currently on board with this same idea and we don’t currently want to say exactly who it is. They have their own marketing and roll out plan, but it’s a signed deal and they are ready to come with it. We are very excited about this space and it is actually one of city council’s top 9 goals. #5 is to look at shared work spaces. Mr. Hunt said they were really excited to work with the city. Recently, he felt a little blindsided and surprised with some of the recommendations coming through. We’ve always put our best foot forward and tried to do the right thing, not just in a vacuum on a single property, but regarding offices, housing, retail, local, etc. It’s an important mix. Shortly after the election, towards the end, we had some discussions for this type of use. Maybe things happen for a reason. A huge challenge was natural light 80 6 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2018 and he is proud of the work that was done with the city to find solutions for this to make a compelling development. This is truly dynamic and opens up opportunities to all of us. The problem, for him, regarding housing units, is that they are taking the only wall that gets the southern light and creating subpar housing in the alley right above the trash and also makes subpar commercial space. We believe this tenant is perfection for this town and truly is dynamic. There are shared spaces, delis, café, a bar, health and fitness classes. They will open their doors to anyone who wants a shared work space. Office space like this is such a shortage and it’s a real opportunity. There’s very little commercial space in the downtown area. He truly puts forward what he thinks is right for the community. We will end up with a bank or pharmacy in this space if not and it’s a miss to the community. This is something we want and is truly the last piece of property in town where something like this can happen. We are going above and beyond and asking for your help and support. Mr. Bendon mentioned that David Johnston Architects have been a key element for the transition of this building and have been instrumental in turning the light on to the shared office space and vision. Collin Frank is here representing David Johnston Architects. This is a fully mitigated project and we are not side stepping anything. It’s our position that it meets the same standard as the city. The project relies on having the solar light down through the center of the building. Mr. Kendrick said Aspen isn’t Palo Alto; it’s much smaller and less people to drawn from to make a project like this successful. How do we make sure that going forward, we aren’t giving up housing for this space to be turned into retail 5-10 years down the road? Mr. Bendon said he agrees, this isn’t Silicon Valley, but he just started his own business and he would have appreciated a collaborative space to have in lieu of initial startup costs when anyone is starting a business. Will it be here forever? Maybe not, but there is a lot of change in retail that we are all seeing. Mr. Kendrick said he doesn’t want to see more high-end retail. Tell us about the offsite housing. Mr. Bendon mentioned the Base Lodge and said there is one approval there they would like to convert to affordable housing for 22 units. We see this as a fabulous opportunity to rehouse tenants. Ms. Greenwood said she recollects that this board made statements toward the end of the approval for this building, that they would allow you to maintain your approvals with all commercial. She felt the board agreed to that. Ms. Simon said the resolution said the exact opposite. Ms. Greenwood said the board generally felt that they should be able to keep their approvals. She said it was in the meeting minutes. A level of fairness was where the board was coming from. Ms. Garrow said that if HPC likes this idea and it’s exciting and thinks it’s appropriate, you could use the location requirement standard and you can make that finding that the housing is an inappropriate solution due to physical constraints. Our recommendation is that you hold the applicant to this representation and that in section 11, that there be added language about a co-work space on the second floor but hold the applicant to the representation to address the location requirement. Mr. Moyer said they didn’t address the large two-story fenestration. Mr. Bendon said when they went through for the City project, there was concern about that needing more refinement and would be worked out with staff and monitor. He is assuming it is still staff’s position that it still needs more refinement. We would still like to connect into 204 as we wanted to with the annex, so we have the same desire to align these floors and connect them. 81 7 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2018 Mr. Blaich asked about the potential tenant and if they are interested in the additional space. Mr. Hunt said yes, they would need that space including the Kitchen space. There are two requirements for the tenant, the natural light and square footage. Ms. Berko said the city does play by different rules whether we like it or not, so she is having trouble understanding the comparison of the previous approval and their current approval. Ms. Greenwood said the city had the same criteria for being able to satisfy the housing need off site as the applicants are proposing. Mr. Bendon said that is correct. Ms. Garrow said that is not correct along with Mr. True because their presentation was made as an “essential public facility”, which allowed HPC to waive the requirements due to providing civic services. Mr. Bendon said we are not subject to the essential public facility standards, but we are subject to the multifamily replacement standards instead. If it’s good enough for the city, it’s good enough for us. Mr. True said we want to focus on this and resolve this because I believe you are ok with the provision within the proposed resolution that would recognize the commitment to the proposal that Mr. Hunt spent time explaining. That would perhaps allow more consideration of the onsite property being an inappropriate solution due to the site’s physical constraints. The way Mr. Hunt has described the physical constraints, they do not contemplate affordable housing. We want to make sure that representation carries forward. Ms. Garrow said we would want this to be very specific because we’ve all seen this property a few times. We’ve talked a lot about what is happening in this building, so if HPC finds that the location requirement shouldn’t be met with onsite housing, we want you to include specific language that it is for this co-work space and that a future change would need to be reviewed. Ms. Greenwood said staff can help us with the language if it goes that direction. MOTION: Mr. Blaich motioned to extend the meeting past 7:00 p.m., Ms. Berko seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT: Peter Fornell There are some compelling points about this mitigation. The City of Aspen has a 120 million dollar a year budget and we all benefit from this budget. The lion’s share of our tax base comes from the commercial core. We rely on these dollars for all things that we all utilize and take benefit from. A thousand square feet of affordable housing produces $300 a year in property taxes. A thousand square feet of free market commercial produces $15,000 a year in property taxes, including taxes for housing. The five people that we are considering housing, will benefit 5 people. Moving the affordable housing to an offsite location, will till benefit the 5 people and the building will additionally assist all of us in the community. Those of us going in to use this building with the five FTE’s is very limited. The likelihood of many of us going in to use the second floor of this building as commercial space, is very likely. The certificate program needs the support of the commercial developer. I hope you guys all see the wisdom and have our residential housing be in a residential area. We still have room to build more affordable housing. Let’s use the available space for this purpose of co-work space. 82 8 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2018 Andrew Sandler: Mr. Sandler said he wants to underscore what Mr. Fornell said. When we sit in this room, he finds that often we suffer from paralysis by analysis in this room. We overanalyze the code and make the best decision for the city, but we have to just go off instincts and fundamentals. There are always exceptions to these rules and situational. We need to look at the cost vs benefit. The shared spaces and shared thinking, whether in Palo Alto or here, is a feather in our caps. This will highlight and complement the rest of the town. It helps the surrounding businesses as well. Let’s look at the opportunity of cost vs benefit and don’t kick the can down the road. We have to think about the now. He urges the board to think about the tax base and everyone in the community. Matt Brown: Mr. Brown said he has been in front of HPC for his project at 834 Hallam. He said the two speakers in front of him, said what he wanted to come up with. They did a great job. I felt like my conversations with APCHA, was really supportive of finding more dedicated sites for housing. I didn’t know the plans or potential vendors for this building either, but he does believe Mr. Hunt when he says he’s invested in building dedicated sites for affordable housing for the larger picture. We have to look at the time and place of this and the particular circumstance. Let’s focus on offsite housing. This was not their objective, they would prefer things offsite. From a tax base and vibrancy, this is compelling to him. Bill Small: Mr. Small said his company is Zenith Realty Advisors. He has personally been involved in commercial real estate for 30 years. He has personally been responsible for many of the leases in downtown Aspen. The unique aspect I bring to this is that he wants to speak about the shared offices. Quality shared office facilities are the fastest growing in the United States. There really is a huge demand for this kind of thing. The whole way we use office space, is changing. Companies are changing. Independent contractors, etc. here in Aspen, have come to him to get a single office space, so there is a strong demand for this type of thing. We need office space for the next generation of millennials. It’s an exciting office amenity. This kind of thing is a catalyst to service this new part of the population. Montrose shared office facility is very vibrant and energetic. Great amenity. Bill Stirling: Mr. Stirling said he appreciates the tug of war and the balancing of the issues. Mr. Stirling is a big proponent of option A in the election and the people did speak pretty clearly about the alternative. He said he has no engagement with the applicant in any way, whatsoever, but he has some thoughts to share. Two years ago, limits were put on chain stores in downtown Aspen. Ms. Garrow confirmed that this took place in 2015, but she mentioned that this property is exempt. The idea was to create more locally owned businesses downtown and to change the oxymoron, which is affordable commercial into something that it could be, like affordable housing, which is not an oxymoron. The purpose was to bring back the concept of locally owned businesses and affordable commercial space. The spirit of what this proposal has is in line with this idea. The one try downtown for this incubator approach, was over where the old state street theater used to be, but they couldn’t manage the finances. The city proposed the old art museum for this concept, instead, but was resisted by neighbors and didn’t pan out. I think the purpose of this project is, in spirit with what the town is after. Affordable housing shouldn’t only be in residential areas. There is still a lot downtown and it doesn’t have to be one way or the other. In long 83 9 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2018 term interest of the community, let’s work on a compromise. This is a legitimate concern and we do need to keep a wonderful mix and the messy vitality that is Aspen. Toni Kronberg: Ms. Kronberg said the very first time she spoke in front of a group 40 years ago, was when Bill Stirling was mayor. She said the question before him at the time was regarding whether they were going to build a rec center or build something for the arts and the arts won out. It took 20 years to get a recreation center. Ms. Kronberg went on to say that she wants to support the all commercial building. A lot of other places benefit from the tax revenues generated in the commercial core. If it’s affordable housing, they won’t generate the sales tax. As you were told tonight, it’s within your purview to approve this request. One of the things she heard loud and clear in the election, is that people didn’t want to lose the retail space. This building really does have a constraint in it and you would really diminish the work space if affordable housing were added. She said she wanted to echo all of the other speakers and points they have made. Is affordable housing really an appropriate use for this property? We would like to have quality of life and having a unit in an alley isn’t great. You would really be satisfying the younger generation for shared office space. It’s a win win condition for everyone. It’s funny how it all circles around. Chris Bendon read a letter from Linda Manning and was entered into the public record. Mr. Bendon quoted Ms. Manning as saying that this is exactly the type of business which Aspen needs to support our business community. It will deliver just what is needed and is providing vitality and benefit to the entire community. It should receive the same support as previous application received. Ms. Greenwood said her daughter lives in San Francisco and she’s in a shared office space and has allowed she and her friends to interact and become an entrepreneur. She loves this idea and mentioned that she works out of the Elks building and said it’s affordable office space, but currently have a waiting list of 30 people. She said there isn’t enough affordable office space in the city. This would be a win win for developers to have these grand spaces. She knows this alley very well and it’s super busy and is not suitable for living. Trucks are always running and it’s very dark. She doesn’t feel like we’d be losing any housing and would be an excellent concept for our town to tie the approval to it. This is an exciting and important project and she would like to see this building be all commercial and tie this to and affordable housing situation. This has really worked in San Francisco for her daughter because ideas are exchanged and its life changing. It’s much more vital than affordable housing for this site. She hopes that we can agree to do this as it would be an excellent ending to this building. Mr. Moyer said he agrees in this situation, that the building should be all commercial. He would like to be able to demand a third floor for employee housing. He’d also like to demand employee housing in the Kitchen building, but he doesn’t think we can do that at this time, but maybe something to look into for the future. The design on the two-story can be handled by a monitor. We do need a clause that there will be a guarantee that they will provide housing in or close to the core. Mr. Blaich said he supports this project. We approved this design before and he doesn’t know why they would want to change it. The shared work space is a national and international trend. He said he was party to starting this in 1964 with Herman Miller, when they invented the “action office”. It was an open plan concept and it was the start of this breaking down the walls of a traditional office. He said he 84 10 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2018 subscribes to a design magazine, Metropolis, and in almost every issue, they are dealing with this subject. This isn’t just in Palo Alto, but all over the country. I think it’s a very healthy step and I’ve always supported affordable housing, but he doesn’t feel it’s appropriate in this building. Because of the environment of the alley, he thinks the project stands on its own. Mr. Kendrick said he does really like the idea of having the startup businesses having a place to operate out of. He’s still a little concerned about how it operates and being able to fill it with local people and not other corporations coming in and using up the space. He thinks it’s worth giving it a shot. He would like to see the affordable housing built somewhere near the town core. You have to trust people and he knows that Mr. Hunt will be in front of HPC again and that he will do what he says. I would stand in favor of the full commercial. Mr. Halferty said he supports the application. He said the applicant has been very patient. The city government vs the private sector has always been complex. What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander, so he thinks it’s perfectly appropriate. Whoever the tenant is, is a great collaboration for the space. He was working a lot just to pay for his space, when he started his own office in 1995. The front façade and alley can be handled by staff and monitor. The housing credits are more than sufficient. The applicant has shown his commitment to employee housing and is well prepared to move this offsite. Overall, he said he is in complete support of this project. Ms. Berko said that any of us who are connected with young people, know that work space is really a challenge. We all know people who live and work in these spaces. Theoretically, she believes in on site housing, but feels it’s a difficult situation. She is fine leaving the facades and alley to staff and monitor. She thanked the public commenters for all of the input and thinks it was really helpful. She would like some sort of clause on the use as the others have mentioned. She’s in favor of this project. Mr. Lai said he will make it unanimous as he is also in favor of the project. He said he’d like to speak a little bit as a former academic. He said that James Jacobs is always talking about the necessity of having housing to inject “exuberant vitality” into an area. If you walk around downtown Aspen, even at one or two a.m., the last thing we have is quiet, so we don’t need to have the exuberant diversity that housing brings because we have so much already. We don’t need to have affordable housing on the alley either. Ideally, he’d like to have affordable housing in the downtown, but that is really against the market. There is a strong current towards having incubator commercial space, so it is something we need to try. He agrees with the cautionary tale from Ms. Berko, that we need to have a clause for the future. He said he was personally disappointed with the vote as he liked the idea of having city offices right across the street from city hall. He likes the design, but the façade he’d like to hold off on. Generally, he likes it. Ms. Greenwood summed it up and said it’s unanimous for the building being commercial. Ms. Garrow said that staff has two suggestions for the resolution. The first is in section 3 related to employee generation and mitigation. The first paragraph has been edited to read, “the historic preservation commission has determined that existing affordable housing has been replaced through housing credits equivalent to 5 FTE’s at a Category 1”. Mr. True said that section also needs to have a finding pursuant to the code that HPC determines that the units on site are an inappropriate due to the sites physical constraints. The physical constraints were made regarding what is proposed there. The second change would add at the end of section 11 to address the representations which create those physical constraints. Ms. Garrow read the amended section as, “HPC has determined that the replacement is inappropriate due to the site’s physical constraints and the existing affordable housing may be replaced 85 11 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2018 through credits at 5 FTE’s at category 1. Material representations and commitments. This would include the “representations that co work space will occupy all of the second-floor net leasable space and will not be replaced with another use unless approved by HPC”. Ms. Garrow mentioned adding to section 1, a subsection 1.3, which says a connection between 517 and 204 would be permitted pursuant to the representation. Mr. Bendon agreed this is fine. MOTION: Mr. Lai motioned with the amendments, Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Kendrick, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Lai, yes. 7-0, motion carried. Ms. Simon said they will do the year in review at the first meeting in January. MOTION: Mr. Kendrick motioned to adjourn, Mr. Halferty seconded. All in favor, motion carried at 7:53 p.m. Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk 86 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Matthew Gillen Amy Simon Cindy Christensen FW: About to call you about the attached recommendation... Thursday, August 10, 2023 1:30:02 PM Exhibit D_APCHA Referral Comment.pdf Amy, Thank you for the opportunity to review. APCHA’s position remains the same as reflected in this memo. Thank you, Matthew 87 Strengthening Community Through Workforce Housing Page | 1 LAND USE MEMORANDUM TO: Amy Simon, Community Development Department Jessica Garrow, Community Development Department FROM: APCHA Board of Directors THRU: Mike Kosdrosky, Executive Director MEETING DATE: November 28, 2018 RE: 517 East Hopkins Avenue, Amendments to Growth Management Review, Major Development Review and Commercial Design Review approvals PROJECT The applicant for the property located at 517 E. Hopkins Avenue, 517 East Hopkins LLC, requests an additional amendment to an approval received from the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), Resolution No. 28 (Series of 2016), on September 14, 2016, and Resolution No. 11 (Series of 2018). The applicant is proposing to satisfy any mitigation requirement through the Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits program. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff informed the APCHA Board that the Community Development Department will recommend the replacement of the existing Category 1 studio units to be replaced on-site, which is not only the priority under the Employee Housing Guidelines but is required under the multi-family replacement section of the Land Use Code. APCHA BOARD RECOMMENDATION: The APCHA Board reviewed the application at their Special Meeting held November 28, 2018, and recommend the following: 1.The four existing onsite studio units mitigating for 5 FTEs should be replaced onsite as Category 1 rental units. 2.The balance of the housing mitigation established by the Community Development Department at the time of building permit shall be satisfied via Housing Credits and/or off-site employee housing approved by APCHA at Category 4 or below. 88 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM June 6, 2023 Aspen Historic Preservation Commission c/o Community Development 420 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 517 East Hopkins Avenue amendment to use approval Dear HPC, Please accept this application for 517 East Hopkins Avenue to amend the proposed use of the commercial building. This application is submitted on behalf of owner 517 East Hopkins Aspen LLC, and potential tenant Remedy Place. Remedy Place blends mental and physical wellness through a wide range of treatments, activities, and traditional coworking spaces on the upper and lower level of the new 517 building 517 East Hopkins Avenue is a non-historic property located in the Commercial Core Historic District. The existing three story building houses commercial uses on the basement level and first and second levels. Four Category 1 deed restricted affordable housing studio units are located on the third level. Land use approvals and amendments associated with the redevelopment of this property are summarized below 2016 Original HPC Approval HPC granted demolition and conceptual commercial design review approvals on December 9, 015 via HPC Resolution 31-2015 for a 100% commercial building. Growth Management review was handled during final review. There was some discussion of the second floor becoming City of Aspen offices, but the application represented general commercial space on the second floor. The project was called up by City Council and the HPC approval was upheld. By the time the application for Final approvals was submitted, the City had pivoted away from the discussion that the second floor could potentially be City offices. The project was revised to propose affordable housing on the second floor – six 2- bedroom deed restricted Category 4 units were approved, a portion of which generated affordable housing credits. HPC approved the mixed use project via Resolution 28-1016 on September 14, 2016 and a Development Order was granted on September 2, 2016 that was valid until September 23, 2019. 89 2018 Amendment In response to interest from the City to use the basement and second levels as City of Aspen office space (aka the City Hall annex), a substantial amendment to the growth management approval was requested in 2018 for a mixed use commercial and “essential public facility” building and to revert back to the conceptual approval which proposed affordable housing credits as mitigation rather than onsite units. HPC determined that on-site replacement of the existing affordable housing units was inappropriate due to the site’s physical constraints and recommended approval for affordable housing credits as mitigation (5 FTEs at Category 1). Planning staff agreed with the finding and supported using housing credits as mitigation. The 2018 amendment was contingent on the City purchasing a portion of the building; however, HPC members discussed the desire to allow the approval to remain if the negotiation was not successful (page 5 of 08/01/2023 HPC meeting minutes, and page 6 of 12/12/2018 HPC meeting minutes). Approval was granted via HPC Resolution 11-2018 on August 1, 2018. Voters did not support the City offices in this location during the November 2018 election. An application to convert the City office space into commercial space was submitted and reviewed by HPC in December 2018. The amended 2018 application proposed minor architectural changes, an internal connection between the second floor of 517 East Hopkins Avenue and 204 South Galena Street. Consistent with the decision in August, HPC found that offsite housing mitigation was acceptable due to physical site constraints and approved affordable housing credits as mitigation rather than onsite units. Placing affordable housing on the noisy alley with limited natural light in a shared mixed use building with a range of tenants was viewed as a physical constraint when compared to the livability of offsite housing in a residential neighborhood via housing credits. At the time, MDevelopment represented that a co-working space would occupy the second floor space. The City recommended HPC include the co-work representation in the approval, as Planning Staff felt that HPC was only allowing off- site housing if the second floor was co-working space. Minutes from the December 12, 2018 hearing demonstrate that the condition for co-work space on the second floor was introduced by the ComDev Director and City Attorney, and not requested by HPC (page 6 -7 of 12/12/2018 HPC meeting minutes). HPC voted in favor of Resolution 19-2018 including Section 11: “this includes the representation that co- work space will occupy all of the second floor net leasable space at 517 E. Hopkins and may not be replaced with another use without approval by HPC.” The entire co-work concept which was based on not working from home has significantly changed after the Covid-19 pandemic which required people to work from home. 90 Proposal This application is submitted to HPC in compliance with Section 11 of HPC Resolution 19- 2018 for a new tenant, Remedy Place. Community Development Staff determined that Remedy Place did not qualify as co-work tenant. We request HPC consider Remedy Place to occupy the second floor as allowed in Section 11 of HPC Resolution 19-2018. Remedy Place offers community oriented services similar to co-working space, but with a range of health and wellness options in addition to more traditional working pods. The second floor will be primarily focused on office spaces – both traditional (shared and private) and experiential working pods. The central interior stair linking all levels of the building is proposed to be removed – the lower level and upper level of Remedy Place will be physically separate and the use of each level is distinct with office use on the second floor and service (spa) use on the lower level. The second floor is proposed to have about 84% (4,741 sf) of private and shared work space and about 16% (935 sf) of combined wellness and work space – for example an infrared sauna, ice bath studio, or the “cryo wakeup corner ” The lower level offers primarily wellness oriented services, and the main level is separately leased retail spaces. There is no increase in the approved net leasable space per the 2018 Growth Management approvals. Thank you for your consideration of this tenant. We appreciate your time and look forward to discussing this proposal with you. Kind Regards, Sara Adams, AICP BendonAdams, LLC Exhibits 1 Growth Management Review Criteria 2 Proposal 2.a Remedy Place description 2.b Approved & proposed floor plans 3 HPC Resolution 19-2018 4 Development Agreement 5 HPC meeting minutes 12/12/2018 6 HPC Resolution 11-2018 7 HPC meeting minutes 8/1/2018 8 Pre-application summary 9 Land Use application 10 HOA form 11 Agreement to Pay 12 Authorization to Represent 13 Proof of ownership 14 Vicinity Map 15 Mailing list 91 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM L AND U SE C ODE R EVIEW R EQUIREMENTS G ROWTH M ANAGEMENT R EVIEW 26.470.050. General requirements. A. Purpose: The intent of growth management is to provide for orderly development and redevelopment of the City while providing mitigation from the impacts said development and redevelopment creates. Different types of development are categorized below, as well as the necessary review process and review standards for the proposed development. A proposal may fall into multiple categories and therefore have multiple processes and standards to adhere to and meet. B. General requirements: All development applications for growth management review shall comply with the following standards. The reviewing body shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for growth management review based on the following generally applicable criteria and the review criteria applicable to the specific type of development: 1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Applications for multi-year development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to meet this standard. There is no change to the approved net leasable space per HPC Reso 19-2018. 2. The proposed development is compatible with land uses in the surrounding area, as well as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan. The proposed development is all commercial uses. The surrounding buildings include commercial, residential, and civic uses. There are no regulatory master plans associated with this area. 3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district. No change to the approved development which conforms to the Commercial Core (CC) zone district dimensional requirements. 4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the Planned Development – Project Review approval, as applicable. No change to the approved development which conforms to the Commercial Core (CC) zone district dimensional requirements. 5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60%) of the employees generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection 26.470.100.A, Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide 92 mitigation units at a lower category designation. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate. There is no change to the amount of new net leasable floor area approved in 2018. The allocation of net leasable space per floor has changed slightly as the project was further developed. Existing: The existing building contains 12,756 square feet of net leasable area for a credit of 49.95 FTEs, calculated as follows: Lower Level: 5,490 sf nla (@3.53/1,000) = 19.38 FTEs Main Level: 4,207 sf nla (@4.7/1,000) = 19.77 FTEs Second Level: 3,059 sf nla (@3.53/1,000) = 10.80 FTEs 49.95 FTEs 2018 Approval: The proposed building contains 17,236 square feet of net leasable area for a total generation of 67.96 FTEs, calculated as follows: Lower Level: 5,806 sf nla (@3.53/1,000) = 20.50 FTEs Main Level: 6,099 sf nla (@4.7/1,000) = 28.67 FTEs Second Level: 5,322 sf nla (@3.53/1,000) = 18.79 FTEs 67.96 FTEs Current Plans: The proposed building contains 17,236 square feet of net leasable area for a total generation of 67.96 FTEs, calculated as follows: Lower Level: 5,227 sf nla (@3.53/1,000) = 18.45 FTEs Main Level: 6,331 sf nla (@4.7/1,000) = 29.76 FTEs Second Level: 5,678 sf nla (@3.53/1,000) = 20.04 FTEs 68.25 FTEs Net increase in FTEs: 18.3 Mitigation Percentage Requirement: 60% Required Mitigation: 10.98 FTEs Affordable housing credits equal to 10.98 FTEs at Category 4 are approved - mitigation numbers are to be finalized at building permit and credits are due at permit issuance. 6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty percent (30%) of the additional free-market residential net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may be deed-restricted at any level of affordability, including residential occupied. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of 93 Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.100 Employee/Square Footage Conversion. No residential units are proposed. 7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking and road and transit services. The project is committed to mitigating its proportionate share, as defined by the Aspen Municipal Code, that is generated by the additional commercial net leasable area proposed. 26.470.070.5.2 Requirements for demolishing affordable multi-family housing units. In the event a project proposes to demolish or replace existing deed restricted affordable housing units, the redevelopment may increase or decrease the number of units, bedrooms or net livable area such that there is no decrease in the total number of employees housed by the existing units. The overall number of replacement units, unit sizes, bedrooms and category of the units shall be reviewed by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and a recommendation forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission. (3)Location requirement. Multi-family replacement units, both free-market and affordable, shall be developed on the same site on which demolition has occurred, unless the owner shall demonstrate and the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that replacement of the units on site would be in conflict with the parcel's zoning or would be an inappropriate solution due to the site's physical constraints. When either of the above circumstances result, the owner shall replace the maximum number of units on site which the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the site can accommodate and may replace the remaining units off site, at a location determined acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission, or may replace the units by extinguishing the requisite number of affordable housing credits, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. Four Category 1 rental apartments are currently developed on the top floor of the existing building, housing 5 FTEs (1.25 FTEs x 4 units). The off-site replacement enables this property to be fully utilized for commercial purposes, removes potential conflict between commercial and residential uses, supports the Affordable Housing Credit Program, and provides high-quality living within a residential setting. There is no change to the HPC approved mitigation for these units via 5 Category 1 affordable housing units. HPC found that onsite units would be an inappropriate solution to the site’s physical constraints. In 2018 HPC was consistent in this finding when City offices were proposed for the second level; and made the same finding when the City offices were converted to co-work on the second level. The physical constraint has not changed since 2018, and the proposal to mitigation through housing credits is unchanged. 94 Dr. Jonathan Leary Remedy Place 8305 W Sunset Blvd West Hollywood, CA 90069 drleary@remedyplace.com 401.474.7065 May 24th, 2023 Aspen Historic Preservation Commission City Hall - City Council Chambers 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 Subject: Elevating Aspen's Well-being: Introducing Remedy Place to the Community Dear Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, We are thrilled to present to you an extraordinary opportunity to enhance the well-being of the Aspen community through the introduction of Remedy Place. With a commitment to innovation, approachability, and exceptional service, Remedy Place aims to redefine shared co-working space by balancing working spaces with health and wellness. Remedy Place is a unique approach to healthy physical and mental wellness, it is a transformative space that merges cutting-edge technology, expert guidance, working space and a warm, inclusive environment to create a truly unique and accessible wellness experience. Our mission is to empower individuals to proactively manage their well-being, nurturing a balanced and fulfilling lifestyle. What sets Remedy Place apart is our innovative approach to self-care. We understand that true wellness encompasses both physical and mental aspects, which is why our club offers a diverse range of services and treatments that cater to individual needs. From advanced recovery technologies to rejuvenating therapies, Remedy Place provides a holistic approach to well-being that addresses the demands of modern life. One of our core values is human connection. We believe in bringing people together with high- quality wellness experiences, and cultivating strong social connections. Our expert team of professionals is dedicated to creating a welcoming and inclusive environment where individuals of all ages and abilities can embark on their wellness journey. We strive to foster a sense of of 1 2 95 community, encouraging individuals to connect, share their experiences, and support one another in their pursuit of a healthier lifestyle. At Remedy Place, service is not just a word—it is the foundation of our club. Our knowledgeable staff is committed to delivering personalized attention and support to every guest. From the moment they step through our doors, they are greeted with warmth, compassion, and a genuine desire to help them achieve their wellness goals. Our emphasis on exceptional service extends beyond the physical space, as we also provide educational resources, workshops, and events that empower individuals with the knowledge and tools to take control of their health. By bringing Remedy Place to Aspen, we aim to provide the community with a state-of-the-art wellness hub that offers an unrivaled combination of innovation, approachability, and service. We will not only contribute to the well-being of individuals but also to the collective vitality of the community. We envision Remedy Place as a place where residents and visitors alike can find respite, rejuvenation, and inspiration—a sanctuary that nurtures a healthier, happier, and more connected Aspen. Yours Sincerely, Dr. Jonathan Leary of 2 2 96 DRAWING ISSUE DRAWN BY: PROJECT No:1713 CPF ISSUE 9/18/19 PERMIT 9/19/19 BIMcloud: DJA - BIMcloud Basic for ARCHICAD 22/517 Hopkins/517 Hopkins_ Wednesday, September 18, 2019 10:36 PM517 E. HOPKINS ASPEN CO 81611517 E. HOPKINS AVENUEAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by this drawing are owned by and are the property of David Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use and in conjunction with the specified project. None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose whatsoever without the written authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC. 119 South Spring St. Suite 203 Aspen, CO 81611 970-925-3444 970-920-2186 TEL FAX Z1.05 FAR Sheet No.UPD N 1:124'UP D N DN DNDN1:1215'1:127'-2"3'-91/4"102'-413/16" T.O. SLAB7920'-113/8" 100'-3" T.O.F.F.7918'-95/8"100'-3" T.O.F.F.7918'-95/8" 100'-3" T.O.F.F.7918'-95/8" 100'-3" T.O.F.F.7918'-95/8" 102'-13/16"T.O.F.F.7920'-713/16" PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINETRASH AREA 4 4 C C B B 6 6 E E G G K K L L Q Q 8 8 11 11 12 12 14 14 N N 1 1 A A 7 7 9 9 10 10 13 13 D D M M P P R R S S D.4 D.4 P.5 P.5 T T 2 2 5 5 U U W W H H 3 3 F F J J 81/16"3'-37/8"3'-13/8"14'-4"102'-13/16" T.O.F.F.7920'-713/16" 100'-103/16" T.O.F.F.7919'-413/16" 100'-103/16" 7919'-413/16" 99'-71/2" T.O. STRCUTURAL SLAB7918'-21/8" 100'-7" T.O.F.F.7919'-15/8" 100'-0" T.O. STRUCTURAL SLAB7918'-65/8" 99'-71/2" T.O. STRCUTURAL SLAB7918'-21/8"99'-71/2" T.O. STRCUTURAL SLAB7918'-21/8"99'-71/2" T.O. STRCUTURAL SLAB7918'-21/8" 100'-3" T.O.F.F.7918'-95/8" 100'-0" T.O. STRUCTURAL SLAB7918'-65/8"100'-0" T.O. STRUCTURAL SLAB7918'-65/8" 100'-0" T.O. STRUCTURAL SLAB7918'-65/8" 517 E. HOPKINS 517 OFFICE/ COMMERCIAL 7,453.36 sq ft MECH. CHASE/RM 107 EXIT DISCHARGE 109 FIRE STAIR 105 VESTIBULE 102 ELEVATOR LOBBY 103 ELEVATOR 104 CORRIDOR 106 ATRIUM 101 TENANT A 100 DECK 325.29 sq ft TRASH AREA 108 UPD N UP DN 85'-3"T.O. STRUCTURAL SLAB 85'-6"T.O.F.F. 1 3 2PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE4 4 C C B B 6 6 E E G G K K L L Q Q 8 8 11 11 12 12 14 14 N N 1 1 A A 7 7 9 9 10 10 13 13 D D M M P P R R S S D.4 D.4 P.5 P.5 T T89'-11" T.O. STRUCTURAL SLAB7908'-55/8"89'-11" T.O. STRUCTURAL SLAB7908'-55/8" EXISTING FOUNDATION WALL TO REMAIN NEW FOUNDATION WALL 44'-8"4'-8"4'-8"517 OFFICE/ COMMERCIAL 8,649.96 sq ft MECHANICAL 003 ELEVATOR 005 FIRE STAIR 006 MECHANICAL ROOM 007 TENANT A 001 ATTRIUM 002 COMMON STORAGE 008 JC 004 MEN' S LOCKER ROOM 009 WOMEN' S LOCKER ROOM 010 FAMILY RESTROOM 009 COMMON CORRIDOR 011 CRAWL SPACE 000 2 2 5 5 U U W W H H 3 3 F F J J FLOOR AREA SCHEDULE ZONING:CC NET LOT AREA: 9,025 SF (90’-3” x 100’-0”) ZONING ALLOWANCE: (2:1) 18,050 SF (2 x 9,025 SF)18,050.00 EXPOSED WALL AREA: 0 USE LEVEL AREA FLOOR AREA 517 OFFICE/ COMMERCIAL LOWER LEVEL 8,649.96 0.00 MAIN LEVEL 7,453.36 7,453.36 SECOND LEVEL 6,645.65 6,645.65 DECK (EXEMPTION15% OF ALLOWABLE = 2,707.5 SF ) MAIN LEVEL 325.29 0.00 SECOND LEVEL 883.73 0.00 TOTAL 23,957.99 sq ft 14,099.01 3,950.99 1 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA PLAN PROPOSED 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"-1 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA PLAN PROPOSED 97 DRAWING ISSUE DRAWN BY: PROJECT No:1713 CPF ISSUE 9/18/19 PERMIT 9/19/19 BIMcloud: DJA - BIMcloud Basic for ARCHICAD 22/517 Hopkins/517 Hopkins_ Wednesday, September 18, 2019 10:36 PM517 E. HOPKINS ASPEN CO 81611517 E. HOPKINS AVENUEAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by this drawing are owned by and are the property of David Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use and in conjunction with the specified project. None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose whatsoever without the written authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC. 119 South Spring St. Suite 203 Aspen, CO 81611 970-925-3444 970-920-2186 TEL FAX Z1.06 FAR Sheet No.UPD N UP DN DN PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE4 4 C C B B 6 6 E E G G K K L L Q Q 8 8 11 11 12 12 14 14 N N 1 1 A A 7 7 9 9 10 10 13 13 D D M M P P R R S S D.4 D.4 P.5 P.5 T T 2 2 5 5 U U W W H H 3 3 F F J J 115'-83/8" T.O. CLT7934'-3" 115'-83/8" T.O. CLT7934'-3"115'-83/8" T.O. CLT7934'-3" 115'-23/8" T.O. CLT7933'-9"115'-23/8" T.O. CLT7933'-9" 115'-113/8" T.O.F.F.7934'-6" 517 OFFICE/ COMMERCIAL 6,645.65 sq ft FIRE STAIR 205 ELEVATOR 204 ATRIUM 201 TENANT A 200 DECK 203 DECK 202DECK 424.30 sq ft DECK 459.43 sq ft MECH. CHASE 206 RESTROOM 1 207 RESTROOM 2 208 JC 209 COMMON CORRIDOR 211 FLOOR AREA SCHEDULE ZONING:CC NET LOT AREA: 9,025 SF (90’-3” x 100’-0”) ZONING ALLOWANCE: (2:1) 18,050 SF (2 x 9,025 SF)18,050.00 EXPOSED WALL AREA: 0 USE LEVEL AREA FLOOR AREA 517 OFFICE/ COMMERCIAL LOWER LEVEL 8,649.96 0.00 MAIN LEVEL 7,453.36 7,453.36 SECOND LEVEL 6,645.65 6,645.65 DECK (EXEMPTION15% OF ALLOWABLE = 2,707.5 SF ) MAIN LEVEL 325.29 0.00 SECOND LEVEL 883.73 0.00 TOTAL 23,957.99 sq ft 14,099.01 3,950.99 1 1,467.72 sq ft BELOW GRADE 1,274.95 sq ft BELOW GRADE 1,414.52 sq ft BELOW GRADE 1,275.15 sq ft BELOW GRADE 1 2 3 4UPD N UPDN 1 3 24PROPOSED BELOW GRADE WALL CALCULATIONS WALL LABEL TOTAL WALL AREA ( SQ FT)EXPOSED WALL AREA (SQ FT) 1 1,275.15 0 2 1,467.72 0 3 1,274.95 0 4 1,414.52 0 TOTAL (SQ FT)5,432.34 0 EXPOSED WALL AREA PERCENTAGE 0% 1 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 SECOND LEVEL FLOOR AREA PLAN PROPOSED 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"-1 BELOW GRADE WALL CALCS 0 8'16'32'SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" BELOW GRADE WALL CALCS KEY 98 DRAWING ISSUE DRAWN BY: PROJECT No:1713 CPF ISSUE 9/18/19 PERMIT 9/19/19 BIMcloud: DJA - BIMcloud Basic for ARCHICAD 22/517 Hopkins/517 Hopkins_ Wednesday, September 18, 2019 10:36 PM517 E. HOPKINS ASPEN CO 81611517 E. HOPKINS AVENUEAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by this drawing are owned by and are the property of David Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use and in conjunction with the specified project. None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose whatsoever without the written authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC. 119 South Spring St. Suite 203 Aspen, CO 81611 970-925-3444 970-920-2186 TEL FAX Z1.07 NLA Sheet No.UPD N 1:124'UP D N DN DNDN1:1215'1:127'-2"PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINETRASH AREA 4 4 C C B B 6 6 E E G G K K L L Q Q 8 8 11 11 12 12 14 14 N N 1 1 A A 7 7 9 9 10 10 13 13 D D M M P P R R S S D.4 D.4 P.5 P.5 T T 2 2 5 5 U U W W H H 3 3 F F J J 40'-0"NO OFFICES WITHIN 40 FT OF PROPERTY LINE ON GROUND LEVEL NO OFFICES WITHIN 40 FT OF PROPERTY LINE ON GROUND LEVEL 517 E. HOPKINS MECH. CHASE/RM 107 EXIT DISCHARGE 109 FIRE STAIR 105 VESTIBULE 102 ELEVATOR LOBBY 103 ELEVATOR 104 CORRIDOR 106 ATRIUM 101 TENANT A 100 NET LEASBALE 5,849.22 sq ft TRASH AREA 108 UPD N UP DN PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE4 4 C C B B 6 6 E E G G K K L L Q Q 8 8 11 11 12 12 14 14 N N 1 1 A A 7 7 9 9 10 10 13 13 D D M M P P R R S S D.4 D.4 P.5 P.5 T T MECHANICAL 003 ELEVATOR 005 FIRE STAIR 006 MECHANICAL ROOM 007 TENANT A 001 ATTRIUM 002 COMMON STORAGE 008 JC 004 NET LEASBALE 5,681.00 sq ftMEN' S LOCKER ROOM 009 WOMEN' S LOCKER ROOM 010 FAMILY RESTROOM 009 COMMON CORRIDOR 011 CRAWL SPACE 000 2 2 5 5 U U W W H H 3 3 F F J J NET LEASABLE NET LEASABLE ALLOWANCE: 17,227 USE LEVEL AREA NET LEASBALE LOWER LEVEL 5,681.00 MAIN LEVEL 5,849.22 SECOND LEVEL 5,529.22 TOTAL 17,059.44 1 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL NET LEASABLE PLAN PROPOSED 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"-1 LOWER LEVEL NET LEASABLE PLAN PROPOSED 99 DRAWING ISSUE DRAWN BY: PROJECT No:1713 CPF ISSUE 9/18/19 PERMIT 9/19/19 BIMcloud: DJA - BIMcloud Basic for ARCHICAD 22/517 Hopkins/517 Hopkins_ Wednesday, September 18, 2019 10:36 PM517 E. HOPKINS ASPEN CO 81611517 E. HOPKINS AVENUEAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by this drawing are owned by and are the property of David Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use and in conjunction with the specified project. None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose whatsoever without the written authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC. 119 South Spring St. Suite 203 Aspen, CO 81611 970-925-3444 970-920-2186 TEL FAX Z1.08 NLA Sheet No.UPD N UP DN DN PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE4 4 C C B B 6 6 E E G G K K L L Q Q 8 8 11 11 12 12 14 14 N N 1 1 A A 7 7 9 9 10 10 13 13 D D M M P P R R S S D.4 D.4 P.5 P.5 T T 2 2 5 5 U U W W H H 3 3 F F J J FIRE STAIR 205 ELEVATOR 204 ATRIUM 201 TENANT A 200 DECK 203 DECK 202 MECH. CHASE 206 RESTROOM 1 207 RESTROOM 2 208 NET LEASBALE 5,529.22 sq ft JC 209 COMMON CORRIDOR 211 NET LEASABLE NET LEASABLE ALLOWANCE: 17,227 USE LEVEL AREA NET LEASBALE LOWER LEVEL 5,681.00 MAIN LEVEL 5,849.22 SECOND LEVEL 5,529.22 TOTAL 17,059.44 1 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 SECOND LEVEL NET LEASABLE PLAN PROPOSED 100 GSPublisherVersion 682.99.99.100 DRAWING ISSUE DRAWN BY: PROJECT No:1713 CPF ISSUE 6/1/23 PERMIT 9/19/19 PRICING 1/17/20 /Users/collinfrank/Desktop/517 Hopkins_Steel Frame_.pln Thursday, June 1, 2023 1:29 PM517 E. HOPKINS ASPEN CO 81611517 E. HOPKINS AVENUEAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by this drawing are owned by and are the property of David Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use and in conjunction with the specified project. None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose whatsoever without the written authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC. 119 South Spring St. Suite 203 Aspen, CO 81611 970-925-3444 970-920-2186 TEL FAX Z1.07 NLA Sheet No.UP1:129'-5" 1:1213'-9"1:1213'-1" 1:126'-1" 1:124'-10"1:124'-1" UP DN DNDNDN1:126'1:127'-1"PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINETRASH AREA 4 4 6 6 8 8 11 11 12 12 14 14 1 1 7 7 9 9 10 10 13 13 A A 2 2 5 5 R R C C E E G G H H M M T T 3 3 B B D D F F J J K K N N P P L L Q Q M.75 M.7540'-0"NO OFFICES WITHIN 40 FT OF PROPERTY LINE ON GROUND LEVEL NO OFFICES WITHIN 40 FT OF PROPERTY LINE ON GROUND LEVEL 517 E. HOPKINS MECH. CHASE/RM 107 EXIT DISCHARGE 109 FIRE STAIR 105 VESTIBULE 102 ELEVATOR LOBBY 103 ELEVATOR 104 CORRIDOR 106 TENANT B 101 NET LEASBALE 6,331.44 sq ft TRASH AREA 108 RESTROOM 1 110 TENANT A 100 TENANT C 111 UPDN UPDNPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEMECHANICAL 008 MECHANICAL 009 4 4 6 6 8 8 11 11 12 12 14 14 1 1 7 7 9 9 10 10 13 13 ELEVATOR 005 FIRE STAIR 006 ELECTRICAL ROOM 007 TENANT E 001 NET LEASBALE 5,226.81 sq ft COMMON CORRIDOR 011 CRAWL SPACE 000 WATER RM. 003 A A 2 2 5 5 R R C C E E G G H H M M T T 3 3 B B D D F F J J K K N N P P L L Q Q M.75 M.75 NET LEASABLE USE NET LEASBALE LEVEL LOWER LEVEL MAIN LEVEL SECOND LEVEL AREA 5,227 6,331 5,678 17,236 ft² SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL NET LEASABLE PLAN PROPOSED 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"-1 LOWER LEVEL NET LEASABLE PLAN PROPOSED 0 4'8'16' 101 GSPublisherVersion 682.99.99.100 DRAWING ISSUE DRAWN BY: PROJECT No:1713 CPF ISSUE 6/1/23 PERMIT 9/19/19 PRICING 1/17/20 /Users/collinfrank/Desktop/517 Hopkins_Steel Frame_.pln Thursday, June 1, 2023 1:29 PM517 E. HOPKINS ASPEN CO 81611517 E. HOPKINS AVENUEAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by this drawing are owned by and are the property of David Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use and in conjunction with the specified project. None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose whatsoever without the written authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC. 119 South Spring St. Suite 203 Aspen, CO 81611 970-925-3444 970-920-2186 TEL FAX Z1.08 NLA Sheet No.UPDNUP DN DN 4"8"8"6"PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE4 4 6 6 8 8 11 11 12 12 14 14 1 1 7 7 9 9 10 10 13 13 A A 2 2 5 5 R R C C E E G G H H M M T T 3 3 B B D D F F J J K K N N P P L L Q Q M.75 M.75 FIRE STAIR 205 ELEVATOR 204 TENANT D 200 DECK 203 DECK 202 MECH. CHASE 206 RESTROOM 1 207 RESTROOM 3 208 NET LEASBALE 5,677.54 sq ft JC 209 COMMON CORRIDOR 211 NET LEASABLE USE NET LEASBALE LEVEL LOWER LEVEL MAIN LEVEL SECOND LEVEL AREA 5,227 6,331 5,678 17,236 ft² SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 SECOND LEVEL NET LEASABLE PLAN PROPOSED 0 4'8'16' 102 RECEPTION#: 653319, R: $93.00, D: $0.00 DOC CODE: RESOLUTION Pg 1 of 17, 01/14/2019 at 03:03:56 PM Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO RESOLUTION #1q SERIES OF 2018) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO FINAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, FINAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR 517 E HOPKINS AVENUE, LOTS D, E,AND F, BLOCK 94, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Parcel ID: 2737-073-40-003 WHEREAS, on September 21, 2015 the Community Development Department received an application from 517 E. Hopkins Aspen, LLC (Applicant), for the following land use approvals related to the demolition and replacement of the existing building at 517 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lots D, E, And F, Block 94, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado: Conceptual Commercial Design, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.412; Conceptual Major Development, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.415; Mountain View Plane Exemption, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.435; and WHEREAS, Conceptual approval was granted by the Historic Preservation Commission on December 9, 2015; and WHEREAS, on May 8, 2016, the Community Development Department received an application from 517 E. Hopkins Aspen, LLC for the following land use approvals: Final Commercial Design, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.412; Final Major Development, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.415; Growth Management Review, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.470; Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.540, and; WHEREAS, Final approval was granted by the Historic Preservation Commission on September 14, 2016. A Development Order was issued by the Community Development Director and remains in effect until September 23, 2o19; and WHEREAS, all previous code citation references are to the Aspen Municipal Code in effect on the day of initial application - September 21, 2015, as applicable to this Project; and, WHEREAS, on October 11, 2018,the Community Development Department received an application from 517 E. Hopkins Aspen, LLC, for the following land use approvals to modify the approved building program and design: Historic Preservation Commission Resolution #19,Series 2018 Page 1 of 6 103 Substantial Amendment, Major Development Review, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.415; Substantial Amendment, Commercial Design Review, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.410; Amendment to a Growth Management Development Order, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.475; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director determined the application to be eligible for review as Minor Amendment pursuant to current Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.304.070.A.1, under which a project within the period of pendency may propose a Minor Amendment and be reviewed under the original land use code in effect during the initial approval for the site specific development plan; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.304, Common Development Review Procedures, and Section 26.304.060.B.1, Modification of Review Procedures, all necessary land use reviews, as identified herein, have been combined to be considered by the Historic Preservation Commission at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, such combination of review procedures was done to ensure clarity of review, was accomplished with all required public noticing provided as evidenced by an affidavit of public noticing submitted to the record, and the public was provided a thorough and full review of the proposed development; and, WHEREAS, in preparing a recommendation to the Historic Preservation Commission, the Community Development Department received updated referral comments from City Engineering, Environmental Health, Public Works Department, and APCHA; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Application and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the Application at a duly noticed public hearing on December 12, 2018, during which the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were requested and heard by the Historic Preservation Commission; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on December 12, 2018, the Historic Preservation Commission approved Resolution #19, Series of 2018, by a 7 to 0 vote granting approvals for Substantial Amendment to Final Major Development, Final Commercial Design Review, and Growth Management Development Order with the conditions of approval listed hereinafter, including all relevant conditions contained within the vested approval granted to this project through Resolution #28, Series of 2016. Historic Preservation Commission Resolution #19,Series 2018 Page 2 of 6 104 NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: ApprovalspP_— — Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Historic Preservation Commission hereby grants Substantial Amendment to Final Major Development, Final Commercial Design Review, and Amendment to a Growth Management Development Order for the final design as depicted on Exhibit A attached and as represented through the approval process and subject to the conditions of approval as listed herein, including: 7. Restudy the center module of the north fagade to reduce the scale of the glazing wall in conformance with the design guidelines, for review and approval by staff and monitor. 2. Final materials for the proposed on-site and off-site public amenity spaces shall be approved by staff and monitor. 3. An internal connection between the second floor of 577 E. Hopkins and the second floor of 204 S. Galena is permitted if allowed by Building Code. Section 2: Growth_Management Allotment and Reconstruction Credit The existing development provides 12,756 square feet of net leasable area and may be credited toward the proposed development. Any reconstruction credit shall be valid for one (1) year following issuance of a demolition permit, pursuant to Chapter 26.470.130. Existing and proposed net leasable calculations shall be verified by the Zoning Officer at time of building permit review. Section 3: Employee Generation and Mitiqation The Historic Preservation Commission has determined that on-site replacement of the existing affordable housing is inappropriate due to the site's physical constraints, and the units may be replaced through credits equivalent to 5 FTEs at Category 1. The applicant must mitigate any new net leasable space created above and beyond the reconstruction credit noted in Section 2 through affordable housing credits at Category 4, provided before issuance of the building permit for the project. A redevelopment agreement, per Section 26.470.070.5.6 of the Municipal Code shall be recorded before an application for a demolition permit may be accepted by the City. The approximate increase in net leasable area represented by this approval is 4,471 square feet. Section 4: Public Amenity The project has a 900 sq.ft.(10%) public amenity requirement. A portion of the required Public Amenity (285 sq. ft. or 3.2%) will be provided onsite, located in front of the entrance to the upper and lower levels. The remaining Public Amenity requirement will be mitigated through off-site improvements to the adjacent right-of-way, to be approved by the Parks and Engineering Departments, staff and monitor. The final calculation of existing and proposed Historic Preservation Commission Resolution #19,Series 2018 Page 3 of 6 105 Public Amenity shall be verified by the Zoning Officer at the time of building permit review, in accordance with the Land Use Code. Section 5: Utility, delivery and trash service provision A 300 square foot trash and recycling area, as depicted in the land use application, is approved, pending final review by the Environmental Health Department. A transformer, meeting the requirements of the Public Works Department, shall be provided on the site. The applicant shall revise the plans to ensure that all tenants have access to deliveries as described at Section 26.412.06o.B.8 of the Municipal Code. Section 6: Parking The property currently has no on-site parking spaces, and demolition and replacement of the existing building allows for an equal area of the new building to be exempt from parking requirements up to 12.76 parking spaces. The parking required by the building expansion shall be verified with the Zoning Officer at time of building permit and will require a cash-in-lieu fee, at a rate $30,000 per space. Section : TIA As noted in Sections 2 and 6, above, a credit of 12,756 square feet of net leasable space will be applied to this project, and no parking or TIA mitigation is required for that area. The applicant has provided a preliminary proposal to mitigate 20 new trips through a variety of actions. Final calculation of trip mitigation will be based on the new net leasable space created on the site as verified by the Zoning Officer at the time of building permit review. The Engineering Department will work with the applicant to finalize the TIA ensuring that all proposed TIA measures are appropriate and applicable to the project and that any unmitigated trips will be addressed through a cash in lieu payment. Section 8: Parks Silva cells with tree plantings are required. City Forester will determine species and spacing. Irrigation is required. Electric outlets/stanchions shall not interfere with long term growth of trees. Water line shall run midway between trees to minimize future impacts. Section 9• ACSD A potential location for a grease trap (subgrade) shall be included in the building permit application to allow flexibility for future conversion of the commercial/retail spaces to restaurant. Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Historic Preservation Commission Resolution #19,Series 2018 Page 4 of 6 106 Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. Glycol heating and snow melt systems must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines and within 3 feet vertically below an ACSD main sewer line. Section 10: Vested Rights This approval shall not extend the Vested Rights provided to this development through a Development Order issued by the Community Development Director on September 22, 2016 and expiring on September 22, 2019. Section 11: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department and the Historic Preservation Commission are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. This includes the representation that co-work space will occupy all of the second floor net leasable space at 517 E. Hopkins and may not be replaced with another use without approval by HPC. Section 12• This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section-13- If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Historic Preservation Commission Resolution#19,Series 2018 Page 5 of 6 107 APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 12th day of December, 2018. Approved as to form:Approved as to content: J James R.True, City Attorney G en Gree Chair Attest: Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Attachments:_Exhibit A: Approved final elevations and floor plans Historic Preservation Commission Resolution#19,Series 2018 Page 6 of 6 108 L 1 03'N=dSV M Tom' ll3H393800 N- 0_ 3AV SNINdOH'3 LLS d E SNVId 1 iMVYV 0nend 03SOd0lfd f31'NI SNIMdOH 3 Sig r ool a C o. g 0 W w, z g8 cc a RMIN TI r a w. @ a sg a e s u e M1tlM 3l3NJHOJ S 33 EI CJTNI SNIMdOH 3 MS a d SNIMdO11'3 GlS V 1 9U'0O1 l/ Y I I b w n z w 1- msQILL p x z t r I I K @ 5 I MNM 313NONOO SNIMd-'3CCG y:3 109 ll_ OZ)N3dSV T u 113HS93803 V M O_ 3AV SNINdOH 3 LLS q NVId liMft onand x0013 ON003S i x II I I i a 0 Wm0 OO M O O I I J I I LL aIIN I I p I I I I I1I o I E LMLl 8- 0 k M a N z 0 4 uj O Q LL U 0 J Z m0 UaWNLL lA i O o 8 s 110 V- OO'N3dSV vaeow 113HS V 3WO 3AV SNIAdOH 3 LLS V Q NVld KIS f J'I'NI SMN H3SIS 001 1 1° 1 LU z 1 I s 1 ' cc momEMEMEMEMNN INEWEEMEMEN 110111 I aJ Q 8g 5 ml E fJ'I'NISNI=dOH 3¢S SNOId011 39L9 I Ip ul g "I I I p ma>r3oNaccs 3 111 ll_ 00'N3dSV u_ 113HS43800 Q TDo ba O 3AV SNNdOH*3 L S o Q SNVId 2i001d 13A3183MOI cy J mw a00ga 112 a 0O'N3dStl T y 113HSI3NOO V O 3 V SNINdOH'3 LLS NVId HOOIJ ONno'dg 03SOdOdd i a Y S i W g, tW O CCr7lL 3 e® 4 R g. 113 OO,N3dSV 4 T.-.113HS 932100 Mq Q k J O 3Atl SNINdOH*3 LLS r m, a SNVld 8001A ONOOAS 03SOdOdd I F1 I s Q3 1 ui Q LU I Ct a I I n---4 I I 6® 114 Y r®ran 9 03'N3dSV ro. 113HS93wo s. uwwo QO k O 3AV SMDIdOH'3 LLS up r L V Nbld 40021 03SOdOHd I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I oLUI ccI1 1 I I I I I I N t g I 115 OO'N3dSV r® a T13HS43lW SNI1dOH*3 LLS N „ NOIIVA913 HIHON Q l e e4mtaz r pr r r r b is - b 6 dbX,b ob b b b a g Ila zi t7.r W i cc a Q I F b b<b b == Ca 116 r b 00'N3dSv 113HSV9803 3 V SNINdOH 3 LLS ao. N L NOIltM313 1S`d3 y 3 y i y_ ggf sB @ Ib yb b I, ZI gg W Ni^ r LLr moi- ZIa Cl— d W CC CA. a Q 4 0 117 1• V 03W^dSV T13NSTMW r O 3AV SNI1dOH*3 LIS ro N0= QL NOI1HA3l3 Hinos rua r r i.a• r r tr r z gY gb ,b«bd f' gb i• ail py I Fr 7L a N O N a 3 i E 5 0 s 118 00'N3dStl V n3HS I380 p AAV SNINdOH'3LLS a Aa N NOIIVA3131S3M r r r gr k Zm N a e W h II I1I I I I III I I II I1 II I 1 1I I I I J ui CC I a14 IIIII I IIIIIIII III r I q II f 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 1 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2018 Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Jeffrey Halferty, Nora Berko, Roger Moyer, Bob Blaich, Richard Lai, Sheri Sanzone, Scott Kendrick. Absent was Willis Pember. Staff present: Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk James R. True, City Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Blaich motioned to approve the minutes of November 14th & 28th, Mr. Halferty seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Berko thanked council and staff for putting the work session together. Ms. Garrow agreed that we need to have these sessions with council at least once a year if not more. Ms. Berko said once a month and Ms. Greenwood said twice a year would be good. Ms. Garrow mentioned there will be a new council in June, so it would be good to connect with them. Mr. Halferty thanked staff and the board for the work on preservation over the past year. He said it’s been an excellent year with a lot of learning experiences. He thanked staff for the meeting with council and wished everyone happy holidays. Mr. Blaich seconded. Ms. Sanzone thanked staff for the gifts. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT: Ms. Sanzone said she is conflicted on 517 E. Hopkins. PROJECT MONITORING: Aspen Meadows Reception Center Amy Simon Ms. Simon said this was continued from the site visit and the previous meeting. Ms. Simon and Mr. Curtis have met, and they have agreed that the window being changed to a door is not original. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Jeff Berkus of Jeffrey Berkus Architects, Jim Curtis. Mr. Berkus said they presented two options in the field. There is an option to keep the existing door as is with the addition of two and half inches to the panel to meet code. We would have to hinge it on the left side and cut out about 6 inches of wall, which would pull it out of alignment with the T. He shares some concern on this. It would not be its original size or configuration. That is not their preferred solution, but instead they want to take the window and door assembly done in 1993 and mirror it to the other corner by hinging the door on the left side and adding a side panel. It would maintain the integrity of the window assembly’s running across the side of the building and would maintain Herbert Bayer’s three-foot module. Ms. Berko asked for a visual of the first option. Mr. Berkus said the door panel is too small for egress. We didn’t show a proposal where we would keep the door and add a new door adjacent to it. In his mind, that would look a little foreign. The patterning 144 2 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2018 would be a little awkward and would be kind of a lot going on there. Ms. Greenwood said the conflict seems to come with removing some of the original Herbert Bayer detail. You could egress out of it to the right of the door and then everyone has what they want. Mr. Halferty said that his concern was the rhythm of the door. It is not in rhythm with the 1993 addition. Ms. Simon said staff prefers the widened door and not completely reconstructing it. It does open up as we are standing on the site. We do have examples of Victorian buildings where an original wooden door has been expanded. Ms. Greenwood suggested a stainless-steel panel around it would be code legal and still showcases the historic door. Ms. Sanzone said the door itself has to increase in size and asked about the integrity of it. Mr. Berkus said the door itself is pretty much a mess and the integrity of the door has been compromised. We would advocate for rebuilding it. If we push the door to meet code, we’d take the structural “T” out, so we would be restructuring that. If we put the door in a new frame, it’s possible to keep it more in line. Mr. Lai asked if it’s possible to have an accurate rendering or model of the frame and said he doesn’t know whether his vision is the same as everyone else’s, so he’d like to see a detailed rendering. Mr. Berkus said it would look exactly like the other door assembly because we don’t need it looking like a third thing. It would look exactly like the door to the right with a solid panel adjacent to it. Ms. Greenwood thinks that would look appropriate because it’s historic. Mr. Berkus thinks it will look awkward and Ms. Berko said it already looks awkward, so it will probably look the same. Mr. Curtis said he understands the door is not in the best shape. There have been so many manipulations to the south elevation over time, so we would prefer to match the storefront. The storefront was done in 1965 by Benedict and Bayer. Having consistency in the store front is more accurate with the overall façade of the building. The functionality and use of the building has evolved over time. Matching 1965 and 1993 pulls the whole building together. There are three windows upstairs and it’s reasonable to see that one was done in 1958 and one in 1993 so the building has changed so much. Ms. Simon said she doesn’t think it’s a good idea to think that way because there has been so much done already, we shouldn’t just keep going down that road. It’s one of the few buildings designed by Benedict and Byer together and it’s such an interesting combination of their ideas. It would be a shame to lose a section of this wall. We shouldn’t second guess Bayer’s reasoning for this. It is not an easily made decision, so we need to stick to preservation being our goal. Our real position is that we want to add to the door and keep a minimal amount of work to the stone and deal with staff and monitor. Mr. Moyer said he concurs with staff. Mr. Blaich said he’s worried about the function of the door. We saw the condition and it won’t get better, so we should be assured that whatever we do to it, fixes the problem. Mr. Kendrick said he doesn’t like losing all the stone and supports staff as well. Mr. Lai said we should keep as much stone as possible. Ms. Berko said the whole building has changed, and she hears that. She’s been around too long, and this door is all that is left for her. If there is a way of reusing it, she would love to see it stick around. If we can bring this door into the 21st century, let’s do it. 145 3 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2018 Mr. Halferty said he doesn’t love either solution. By the time you picture frame it, you’re losing some of the modernist feel of the wall. He thinks there’s a better internal solution. He mentioned keeping the door as a primary person instead of a third-class citizen and make the egress work. He wants to make it work for the owners. It is an important façade for the building and is seen by a lot of people. The width is a problem, but there isn’t an easy clean-cut solution. Ms. Sanzone asked if it is possible to replace the door with the store front style and not add the sidelight. Mr. Berkus said the second option was just to have the door without the sidelight. Ms. Greenwood said the board is generally agreeing with staff. Ms. Simon said that everyone would like to see a drawing of what this really is. We can assign a monitor or come back to the next HPC meeting. Ms. Greenwood said a monitor could work. Mr. Berkus said what is on the screen is exactly what this will look like. We won’t be able to come back and show anything different. Mr. Curtis reminded everyone that the request from the Aspen Institute is to be ADA compliant for patrons in wheelchairs, so they can get in and out of this building. We don’t always have access to the other doors when separate events are going on. The room layout was shown on screen. Ms. Greenwood said that as a board, we can say no, we don’t allow it, or we follow staff to give the applicant some room to maintain some of the historic fabric and give the institute what they want. Or third, we give the applicants what they want by doing a storefront design to match what was done in 1993. Mr. Berkus said he has spent 15 years respecting Herbert Bayer’s work on this campus and has worked for many years to maintain Mr. Bayer’s work, so he’s very conflicted about this. A clean, clear voice is what Mr. Bayer always strove for. Ms. Greenwood said she respects what he has done. Ms. Greenwood asked to take a straw vote on option #3. Mr. Blaich and Ms. Sanzone voted in favor of option #3 to make it match and with an all new door. Ms. Greenwood called for a straw vote of option 2, which is staff’s recommendation. Ms. Greenwood, Mr. Lai, Ms. Berko, Mr. Moyer, Mr. Pember and Mr. Halferty were in agreement for option #2. Ms. Greenwood and Mr. Halferty volunteered to be the monitors and Mr. Berkus will send the design to Ms. Simon and share with them. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon said thank you to the board and she hopes they enjoy the gift from the Community Development department. She mentioned the Christmas party on Friday night at the Limelight at 6:30. The Colorado preservation conference will be in February as usual in Denver and in the past, we’ve had a few members join. They’ve changed it a little this year as it will no longer be in the convention center and they also changed the days of the week. It is now a Monday to Thursday thing, instead of towards the end of the week. It will be February 4th - 7th. One member should attend, so please email her with interest. Also, the National Trust conference will be in Denver in October. It is a big deal. She will send out an email reminder. There are professional education credits available for AIA. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. 146 4 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2018 PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Simon handed to Mr. True. CALL UPS: None. Ms. Sanzone exited the meeting. NEW BUSINESS: 517 E Hopkins Amy Simon This is for a proposed demolition and replacement from a 2016 approval. What you are discussing tonight is for a proposed amendment. In August, we discussed an annex for City Hall. That was approved, but not by the voters. A number of architectural changes to the front and rear façades discussed at that time and are basically the same. The site plan approval was shown on screen. The public amenity has not changed. The street façade was shown on screen. The store front moved up closer to the street, we lost a bridge/deck. It created a two-story glazing wall, so HPC established a condition which is included in tonight’s resolution. They will be enlivening the façade with a lot more windows. This design is acceptable and will contribute to the alley scape, but it may need to be revised. The main change is the programming in the building. The approval that HPC granted was commercial in basement, commercial on the main floor and affordable housing occupying the entire second floor. There are currently four studio apartments in the building and they are occupied. The applicant had intended to replace the four units and add a few more to generate affordable housing credits. On the right is what is proposed, which is all commercial net leasable space and all of the affordable housing replaced with credits. APCHA has submitted a referral comment. Staff feels that the four existing housing units need to be replaced on site. We feel this is important to address city goals of the housing deficit. We don’t want to miss any opportunities to address this issue. Affordable housing credits are great and have helped, but we need other solutions. We are recommending approval once we solve the issue of mitigation with the following conditions: 1. Center module needs some design to reduce the scale 2. Material for the public amenity space needs further definition 3. Repeating the previous agreement that 285 sq. ft. of the public amenity is on site and the rest is on the streetscape 4. Applicant gets credit for the existing building. 12,756 sq. ft. of net leasable space. The commercial space will have some mitigation 5. Five full time employees living in this building, so these FTE’s must be replaced at category 1. Staff wants onsite units. 6. Applicant will have to mitigate for any new net leasable space beyond the credit at a category 4. 7. Parking- credit – can mitigate via cash in lieu 8. Trash, delivery, transformer – alley. The applicant will work with engineering to mitigate any new trips. Bus passes for employees, etc. 9. Automatic three years of vested rights, which protects them from changes in the code. This project was approved under the pre-moratorium code. When the city plan was here in August, it was considered an essential public facility and there was no housing. The city was going to provide all credits because it was a unique opportunity to create a city hall annex space right across the street. Ms. Garrow said there were different review standards for that request for an essential public facility. There were also criteria related to waiving mitigation 147 5 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2018 requirements from council to promote civic uses and broader community goals, which created a unique opportunity to for city offices in a campus-like situation. Mr. Halferty asked if staff is suggesting that the city can play by different rules than a private applicant when it comes to employee housing. Mr. True said yes, there are different review standards, which the code provides and different rules. Ms. Garrow said the city was going to use its own credits. This aspect hinges on the location requirement standards, which is why the specific language was pulled for this presentation. It is absolutely within HPC’s authority to find that credits are appropriate here and is within HPC’s purview. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Chris Bendon of Bendon Adams, Mark Hunt & Chris Bryan of Garfield & Hecht Mr. Bendon thanked HPC for their service to preservation. He showed the conceptual approval on screen and mentioned that Mr. Hunt is the largest credit holder of housing credits currently. The approval for retail and city offices was just given with the housing mitigation offsite on August 1st. The proposal for tonight is for retail and offices. There is a new exciting tenant he wants to talk about that we have leased up for the space. The roof would be the same and the façade would be more lively and we can work with staff and monitor on this aspect. The retail and city offices were required to meet the multi-family replacement standards. In addition, it was required to meet the essential public facility. With retail and non-city offices, we have to meet those first three criteria: HPC, commercial design review and a multi-family replacement. Both projects had to address this standard. He showed on screen the requirements for demolishing affordable multifamily housing units, which references section 26.470.070.5.2. The location requirement is important – he read to the board. The importance of this is that the city had to address this same standard. The recommendation you see in front of you tonight is for denial under this standard. Staff and APCHA do not support the use of credits. The growth management criteria have not been met according to staff. We did go to the APCHA board and they previously recommended the use of credits for the city project, so we were thinking they would recommend approval for an all commercial project. We are getting a transcript of the meeting and have some suspicion around a couple of members and their possible bias. There was one member who was upset because he used to live in one of these units. We think he made his decision based on this and another woman commented on the change in the retail environment downtown and suggested we don’t need more retail pop up stores. We were caught off guard by this. He ran through APCHA’S approval for the city project. He feels they have already demonstrated compliance with the same criterion which the city met with its project. We think as community members, you can be proud of this project. He mentioned HanaHaus in Silicon Valley as an amazing shared workspace. There is a huge buzz surrounding this and is a retail and commercial shared workspace. We have a tenant currently on board with this same idea and we don’t currently want to say exactly who it is. They have their own marketing and roll out plan, but it’s a signed deal and they are ready to come with it. We are very excited about this space and it is actually one of city council’s top 9 goals. #5 is to look at shared work spaces. Mr. Hunt said they were really excited to work with the city. Recently, he felt a little blindsided and surprised with some of the recommendations coming through. We’ve always put our best foot forward and tried to do the right thing, not just in a vacuum on a single property, but regarding offices, housing, retail, local, etc. It’s an important mix. Shortly after the election, towards the end, we had some discussions for this type of use. Maybe things happen for a reason. A huge challenge was natural light 148 6 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2018 and he is proud of the work that was done with the city to find solutions for this to make a compelling development. This is truly dynamic and opens up opportunities to all of us. The problem, for him, regarding housing units, is that they are taking the only wall that gets the southern light and creating subpar housing in the alley right above the trash and also makes subpar commercial space. We believe this tenant is perfection for this town and truly is dynamic. There are shared spaces, delis, café, a bar, health and fitness classes. They will open their doors to anyone who wants a shared work space. Office space like this is such a shortage and it’s a real opportunity. There’s very little commercial space in the downtown area. He truly puts forward what he thinks is right for the community. We will end up with a bank or pharmacy in this space if not and it’s a miss to the community. This is something we want and is truly the last piece of property in town where something like this can happen. We are going above and beyond and asking for your help and support. Mr. Bendon mentioned that David Johnston Architects have been a key element for the transition of this building and have been instrumental in turning the light on to the shared office space and vision. Collin Frank is here representing David Johnston Architects. This is a fully mitigated project and we are not side stepping anything. It’s our position that it meets the same standard as the city. The project relies on having the solar light down through the center of the building. Mr. Kendrick said Aspen isn’t Palo Alto; it’s much smaller and less people to drawn from to make a project like this successful. How do we make sure that going forward, we aren’t giving up housing for this space to be turned into retail 5-10 years down the road? Mr. Bendon said he agrees, this isn’t Silicon Valley, but he just started his own business and he would have appreciated a collaborative space to have in lieu of initial startup costs when anyone is starting a business. Will it be here forever? Maybe not, but there is a lot of change in retail that we are all seeing. Mr. Kendrick said he doesn’t want to see more high-end retail. Tell us about the offsite housing. Mr. Bendon mentioned the Base Lodge and said there is one approval there they would like to convert to affordable housing for 22 units. We see this as a fabulous opportunity to rehouse tenants. Ms. Greenwood said she recollects that this board made statements toward the end of the approval for this building, that they would allow you to maintain your approvals with all commercial. She felt the board agreed to that. Ms. Simon said the resolution said the exact opposite. Ms. Greenwood said the board generally felt that they should be able to keep their approvals. She said it was in the meeting minutes. A level of fairness was where the board was coming from. Ms. Garrow said that if HPC likes this idea and it’s exciting and thinks it’s appropriate, you could use the location requirement standard and you can make that finding that the housing is an inappropriate solution due to physical constraints. Our recommendation is that you hold the applicant to this representation and that in section 11, that there be added language about a co-work space on the second floor but hold the applicant to the representation to address the location requirement. Mr. Moyer said they didn’t address the large two-story fenestration. Mr. Bendon said when they went through for the City project, there was concern about that needing more refinement and would be worked out with staff and monitor. He is assuming it is still staff’s position that it still needs more refinement. We would still like to connect into 204 as we wanted to with the annex, so we have the same desire to align these floors and connect them. 149 7 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2018 Mr. Blaich asked about the potential tenant and if they are interested in the additional space. Mr. Hunt said yes, they would need that space including the Kitchen space. There are two requirements for the tenant, the natural light and square footage. Ms. Berko said the city does play by different rules whether we like it or not, so she is having trouble understanding the comparison of the previous approval and their current approval. Ms. Greenwood said the city had the same criteria for being able to satisfy the housing need off site as the applicants are proposing. Mr. Bendon said that is correct. Ms. Garrow said that is not correct along with Mr. True because their presentation was made as an “essential public facility”, which allowed HPC to waive the requirements due to providing civic services. Mr. Bendon said we are not subject to the essential public facility standards, but we are subject to the multifamily replacement standards instead. If it’s good enough for the city, it’s good enough for us. Mr. True said we want to focus on this and resolve this because I believe you are ok with the provision within the proposed resolution that would recognize the commitment to the proposal that Mr. Hunt spent time explaining. That would perhaps allow more consideration of the onsite property being an inappropriate solution due to the site’s physical constraints. The way Mr. Hunt has described the physical constraints, they do not contemplate affordable housing. We want to make sure that representation carries forward. Ms. Garrow said we would want this to be very specific because we’ve all seen this property a few times. We’ve talked a lot about what is happening in this building, so if HPC finds that the location requirement shouldn’t be met with onsite housing, we want you to include specific language that it is for this co-work space and that a future change would need to be reviewed. Ms. Greenwood said staff can help us with the language if it goes that direction. MOTION: Mr. Blaich motioned to extend the meeting past 7:00 p.m., Ms. Berko seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT: Peter Fornell There are some compelling points about this mitigation. The City of Aspen has a 120 million dollar a year budget and we all benefit from this budget. The lion’s share of our tax base comes from the commercial core. We rely on these dollars for all things that we all utilize and take benefit from. A thousand square feet of affordable housing produces $300 a year in property taxes. A thousand square feet of free market commercial produces $15,000 a year in property taxes, including taxes for housing. The five people that we are considering housing, will benefit 5 people. Moving the affordable housing to an offsite location, will till benefit the 5 people and the building will additionally assist all of us in the community. Those of us going in to use this building with the five FTE’s is very limited. The likelihood of many of us going in to use the second floor of this building as commercial space, is very likely. The certificate program needs the support of the commercial developer. I hope you guys all see the wisdom and have our residential housing be in a residential area. We still have room to build more affordable housing. Let’s use the available space for this purpose of co-work space. 150 8 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2018 Andrew Sandler: Mr. Sandler said he wants to underscore what Mr. Fornell said. When we sit in this room, he finds that often we suffer from paralysis by analysis in this room. We overanalyze the code and make the best decision for the city, but we have to just go off instincts and fundamentals. There are always exceptions to these rules and situational. We need to look at the cost vs benefit. The shared spaces and shared thinking, whether in Palo Alto or here, is a feather in our caps. This will highlight and complement the rest of the town. It helps the surrounding businesses as well. Let’s look at the opportunity of cost vs benefit and don’t kick the can down the road. We have to think about the now. He urges the board to think about the tax base and everyone in the community. Matt Brown: Mr. Brown said he has been in front of HPC for his project at 834 Hallam. He said the two speakers in front of him, said what he wanted to come up with. They did a great job. I felt like my conversations with APCHA, was really supportive of finding more dedicated sites for housing. I didn’t know the plans or potential vendors for this building either, but he does believe Mr. Hunt when he says he’s invested in building dedicated sites for affordable housing for the larger picture. We have to look at the time and place of this and the particular circumstance. Let’s focus on offsite housing. This was not their objective, they would prefer things offsite. From a tax base and vibrancy, this is compelling to him. Bill Small: Mr. Small said his company is Zenith Realty Advisors. He has personally been involved in commercial real estate for 30 years. He has personally been responsible for many of the leases in downtown Aspen. The unique aspect I bring to this is that he wants to speak about the shared offices. Quality shared office facilities are the fastest growing in the United States. There really is a huge demand for this kind of thing. The whole way we use office space, is changing. Companies are changing. Independent contractors, etc. here in Aspen, have come to him to get a single office space, so there is a strong demand for this type of thing. We need office space for the next generation of millennials. It’s an exciting office amenity. This kind of thing is a catalyst to service this new part of the population. Montrose shared office facility is very vibrant and energetic. Great amenity. Bill Stirling: Mr. Stirling said he appreciates the tug of war and the balancing of the issues. Mr. Stirling is a big proponent of option A in the election and the people did speak pretty clearly about the alternative. He said he has no engagement with the applicant in any way, whatsoever, but he has some thoughts to share. Two years ago, limits were put on chain stores in downtown Aspen. Ms. Garrow confirmed that this took place in 2015, but she mentioned that this property is exempt. The idea was to create more locally owned businesses downtown and to change the oxymoron, which is affordable commercial into something that it could be, like affordable housing, which is not an oxymoron. The purpose was to bring back the concept of locally owned businesses and affordable commercial space. The spirit of what this proposal has is in line with this idea. The one try downtown for this incubator approach, was over where the old state street theater used to be, but they couldn’t manage the finances. The city proposed the old art museum for this concept, instead, but was resisted by neighbors and didn’t pan out. I think the purpose of this project is, in spirit with what the town is after. Affordable housing shouldn’t only be in residential areas. There is still a lot downtown and it doesn’t have to be one way or the other. In long 151 9 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2018 term interest of the community, let’s work on a compromise. This is a legitimate concern and we do need to keep a wonderful mix and the messy vitality that is Aspen. Toni Kronberg: Ms. Kronberg said the very first time she spoke in front of a group 40 years ago, was when Bill Stirling was mayor. She said the question before him at the time was regarding whether they were going to build a rec center or build something for the arts and the arts won out. It took 20 years to get a recreation center. Ms. Kronberg went on to say that she wants to support the all commercial building. A lot of other places benefit from the tax revenues generated in the commercial core. If it’s affordable housing, they won’t generate the sales tax. As you were told tonight, it’s within your purview to approve this request. One of the things she heard loud and clear in the election, is that people didn’t want to lose the retail space. This building really does have a constraint in it and you would really diminish the work space if affordable housing were added. She said she wanted to echo all of the other speakers and points they have made. Is affordable housing really an appropriate use for this property? We would like to have quality of life and having a unit in an alley isn’t great. You would really be satisfying the younger generation for shared office space. It’s a win win condition for everyone. It’s funny how it all circles around. Chris Bendon read a letter from Linda Manning and was entered into the public record. Mr. Bendon quoted Ms. Manning as saying that this is exactly the type of business which Aspen needs to support our business community. It will deliver just what is needed and is providing vitality and benefit to the entire community. It should receive the same support as previous application received. Ms. Greenwood said her daughter lives in San Francisco and she’s in a shared office space and has allowed she and her friends to interact and become an entrepreneur. She loves this idea and mentioned that she works out of the Elks building and said it’s affordable office space, but currently have a waiting list of 30 people. She said there isn’t enough affordable office space in the city. This would be a win win for developers to have these grand spaces. She knows this alley very well and it’s super busy and is not suitable for living. Trucks are always running and it’s very dark. She doesn’t feel like we’d be losing any housing and would be an excellent concept for our town to tie the approval to it. This is an exciting and important project and she would like to see this building be all commercial and tie this to and affordable housing situation. This has really worked in San Francisco for her daughter because ideas are exchanged and its life changing. It’s much more vital than affordable housing for this site. She hopes that we can agree to do this as it would be an excellent ending to this building. Mr. Moyer said he agrees in this situation, that the building should be all commercial. He would like to be able to demand a third floor for employee housing. He’d also like to demand employee housing in the Kitchen building, but he doesn’t think we can do that at this time, but maybe something to look into for the future. The design on the two-story can be handled by a monitor. We do need a clause that there will be a guarantee that they will provide housing in or close to the core. Mr. Blaich said he supports this project. We approved this design before and he doesn’t know why they would want to change it. The shared work space is a national and international trend. He said he was party to starting this in 1964 with Herman Miller, when they invented the “action office”. It was an open plan concept and it was the start of this breaking down the walls of a traditional office. He said he 152 10 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2018 subscribes to a design magazine, Metropolis, and in almost every issue, they are dealing with this subject. This isn’t just in Palo Alto, but all over the country. I think it’s a very healthy step and I’ve always supported affordable housing, but he doesn’t feel it’s appropriate in this building. Because of the environment of the alley, he thinks the project stands on its own. Mr. Kendrick said he does really like the idea of having the startup businesses having a place to operate out of. He’s still a little concerned about how it operates and being able to fill it with local people and not other corporations coming in and using up the space. He thinks it’s worth giving it a shot. He would like to see the affordable housing built somewhere near the town core. You have to trust people and he knows that Mr. Hunt will be in front of HPC again and that he will do what he says. I would stand in favor of the full commercial. Mr. Halferty said he supports the application. He said the applicant has been very patient. The city government vs the private sector has always been complex. What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander, so he thinks it’s perfectly appropriate. Whoever the tenant is, is a great collaboration for the space. He was working a lot just to pay for his space, when he started his own office in 1995. The front façade and alley can be handled by staff and monitor. The housing credits are more than sufficient. The applicant has shown his commitment to employee housing and is well prepared to move this offsite. Overall, he said he is in complete support of this project. Ms. Berko said that any of us who are connected with young people, know that work space is really a challenge. We all know people who live and work in these spaces. Theoretically, she believes in on site housing, but feels it’s a difficult situation. She is fine leaving the facades and alley to staff and monitor. She thanked the public commenters for all of the input and thinks it was really helpful. She would like some sort of clause on the use as the others have mentioned. She’s in favor of this project. Mr. Lai said he will make it unanimous as he is also in favor of the project. He said he’d like to speak a little bit as a former academic. He said that James Jacobs is always talking about the necessity of having housing to inject “exuberant vitality” into an area. If you walk around downtown Aspen, even at one or two a.m., the last thing we have is quiet, so we don’t need to have the exuberant diversity that housing brings because we have so much already. We don’t need to have affordable housing on the alley either. Ideally, he’d like to have affordable housing in the downtown, but that is really against the market. There is a strong current towards having incubator commercial space, so it is something we need to try. He agrees with the cautionary tale from Ms. Berko, that we need to have a clause for the future. He said he was personally disappointed with the vote as he liked the idea of having city offices right across the street from city hall. He likes the design, but the façade he’d like to hold off on. Generally, he likes it. Ms. Greenwood summed it up and said it’s unanimous for the building being commercial. Ms. Garrow said that staff has two suggestions for the resolution. The first is in section 3 related to employee generation and mitigation. The first paragraph has been edited to read, “the historic preservation commission has determined that existing affordable housing has been replaced through housing credits equivalent to 5 FTE’s at a Category 1”. Mr. True said that section also needs to have a finding pursuant to the code that HPC determines that the units on site are an inappropriate due to the sites physical constraints. The physical constraints were made regarding what is proposed there. The second change would add at the end of section 11 to address the representations which create those physical constraints. Ms. Garrow read the amended section as, “HPC has determined that the replacement is inappropriate due to the site’s physical constraints and the existing affordable housing may be replaced 153 11 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2018 through credits at 5 FTE’s at category 1. Material representations and commitments. This would include the “representations that co work space will occupy all of the second-floor net leasable space and will not be replaced with another use unless approved by HPC”. Ms. Garrow mentioned adding to section 1, a subsection 1.3, which says a connection between 517 and 204 would be permitted pursuant to the representation. Mr. Bendon agreed this is fine. MOTION: Mr. Lai motioned with the amendments, Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Kendrick, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Lai, yes. 7-0, motion carried. Ms. Simon said they will do the year in review at the first meeting in January. MOTION: Mr. Kendrick motioned to adjourn, Mr. Halferty seconded. All in favor, motion carried at 7:53 p.m. Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk 154 RESOLUTION NO. 11 SERIES OF 2018) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO FINAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, FINAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR 517 E HOPKINS AVENUE, LOTS D, E, AND F, BLOCK 94, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Parcel ID: 2737-073-40-003 WHEREAS, on September 21 , 2015 the Community Development Department received an application from 517 E. Hopkins Aspen, LLC (Applicant), for the following land use approvals related to the demolition and replacement of the existing building at 517 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lots D, E, And F, Block 94, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado (the "Subject Property"): Conceptual Commercial Design, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.412; Conceptual Major Development, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.415; Mountain View Plane Exemption, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.435; and WHEREAS, Conceptual approval was granted by the Historic Preservation Commission on December 9, 2015 via HPC Resolution No. 31 , Series 2015; and WHEREAS, on May 8, 2016, the Community Development Department received an application from 517 E. Hopkins Aspen, LLC for the following land use approvals: Final Commercial Design, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.412; Final Major Development, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.415; Growth Management Review, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.470; Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.540, and; WHEREAS, Final approval was granted by the Historic Preservation Commission on September 14, 2016 via HPC Resolution No. 28, Series 2016. A 1111111111111111111111111111111 111111 Historic Preservation Commission RECEPTION#: 650171, R: $103.00, D: $0.00 Resolution #_,Series 2018 DOC CODE: RESOLUTION Page 1 of 7 Pg 1 of 19,09/07/2018 at 09:59:51 AM Janice K.Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO 155 Development Order was issued by the Community Development Director and remains in effect until September 23, 2019; and WHEREAS, all previous code citation references are to the Aspen Municipal Code in effect on the day of initial application - September 21 , 2015, as applicable to this Project; and, WHEREAS, on July 11 , 2018, the Community Development Department received an application from 517 E. Hopkins Aspen, LLC, for the following land use approvals to modify the approved building program and design: Substantial Amendment, Major Development Review, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.415; Substantial Amendment, Commercial Design Review, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.410; Amendment to a Growth Management Development Order, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.475; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director determined the application to be eligible for review as Minor Amendment pursuant to current Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.304.070.A.1 , under which a project within the period of pendency may propose a Minor Amendment and be reviewed under the original land use code in effect during the initial approval for the site specific development plan. This determination is only applicable to the extent that the project is an essential public facility, with the building primarily devoted to City of Aspen offices and associated uses; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.304, Common Development Review Procedures, and Section 26.304.060.B.1 , Modification of Review Procedures, all necessary land use reviews, as identified herein, have been combined to be considered by the Historic Preservation Commission at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, such combination of review procedures was done to ensure clarity of review, was accomplished with all required public noticing provided as evidenced by an affidavit of public noticing submitted to the record, and the public was provided a thorough and full review of the proposed development; and, WHEREAS, in preparing a recommendation to the Historic Preservation Commission, the Community Development Department received updated referral comments from City Engineering, Environmental Health, Public Works Department, and APCHA; and, Historic Preservation Commission Resolution #_,Series 2018 Page 2 of 7 156 WHEREAS, the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Application and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the Application at a duly noticed public hearing on August 1 , 2018, during which the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were requested and heard by the Historic Preservation Commission; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on August 1 , 2018, the Historic Preservation Commission approved Resolution No. 11 , Series of 2018, by a 7 to 0 vote granting approvals for Substantial Amendment to Final Major Development, Final Commercial Design Review, and Growth Management Development Order with the conditions of approval listed hereinafter, including all relevant conditions contained within the vested approval granted to this project through Resolution No. 28, Series of 2016. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Approvals Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Historic Preservation Commission hereby grants Substantial Amendment to Final Major Development, Final Commercial Design Review, and Recommends City Council Approve an Amendment to a Growth Management Development Order for the final design as depicted on Exhibit A attached and as represented through the approval process, including representation of the project as an essential public facility, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed herein, including: 1 . Develop some variety in material or features on the alley facade, for review and approval by staff and monitor. 2. Restudy the center module of the north fagade to reduce the scale of the glazing wall in conformance with the design guidelines, for review and approval by staff and monitor. 3. Final materials for the proposed on-site and off-site public amenity spaces shall be approved by staff and monitor. The applicant acknowledges that this Amendment has been approved in contemplation of the City of Aspen's ("City") potential purchase of a portion of the Subject Property for use as an Essential Public Facility. If the contract between the City and the Applicant for the City's purchase of a portion of the Subject Property is terminated for any reason, or the applicant or City chooses to end the Historic Preservation Commission Resolution#_,Series 2018 Page 3 of 7 157 contract negotiations prior to the expiration of Vested Rights for the project as approved per HPC Resolutions 31 , Series of 2015 and 28, Series of 2016, the approvals granted by this resolution will be null and void and applicant will retain the right to submit a complete building permit application for the approvals granted by HPC Resolutions 31 , Series of 2015 and 28, Series of 2016 until Vested Rights expire on September 22, 2019. Section 2: Growth Management Allotment and Reconstruction Credit The existing development provides 12,756 square feet of net leasable area and may be credited toward the proposed development. Any reconstruction credit shall be valid for one (1 ) year following issuance of a demolition permit, pursuant to Chapter 26.470.130. Existing and proposed net leasable and essential public facility calculations shall be verified with the Zoning Officer at time of building permit. The project includes a total of 19,582 sq ft of space, broken down as follows for the purposes of GMQS allotments: 2,250 sq ft of commercial net leasable space and 17,332 sq ft of essential public facility space. Section 3: Employee Generation and Mitigation The Historic Preservation Commission has determined that the Employees Generated, pursuant to Land Use Code Sections 26.470.100 and 26.470.070.5, is 31 .24 FTEs (5 FTEs required for Multi-Family Replacement, and 26.24 generated by the essential public facility space). The rate of affordable housing mitigation required for the new development is determined by the City Council. The mitigation shall be provided with credits from existing housing that the city has in its inventory and has not been assigned to other projects. The Historic Preservation Commission recommends an employee audit for the essential public facility space be provided to the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) at least twice within ten (10) years after Certificate of Occupancy for the building (preferably at 5 and 10 years after CO). A baseline of current City of Aspen employees - full- and part-time - will be provided to APCHA prior to building permit issuance. The audit shall include all employees - full- and part-time - working out of the building. The hours would be added and then divided by 2,080 to get the FTE count. If the audits show additional employees above the baseline, additional mitigation shall be required. Mitigation can be satisfied by utilizing existing deed restricted units provided by the City housing credits. APCHA shall request the audit from the City. Failure to request the audit shall not render any of the approvals invalid. The City shall provide the Housing Authority and the Community Development Department with the audit report. The Housing Authority and Community Development Department shall forward the audit to the Housing Board and/or City Council for review, as applicable. Any costs for the audit shall be paid by the applicant. Historic Preservation Commission Resolution #_,Series 2018 Page 4 of 7 158 Section 4: Public Amenity The project has a 900 sq. ft. (10%) public amenity requirement. A portion of the required Public Amenity (285 sq. ft. or 3.20) will be provided onsite, located in front of the entrance to the upper and lower levels. The remaining Public Amenity requirement will be mitigated through off-site improvements to the adjacent right- of-way, to be approved by the Parks and Engineering Departments, staff and monitor. The final calculation of existing and proposed Public Amenity shall be confirmed by the Zoning Officer at the time of building permit review, in accordance with the Land Use Code. Section 5: Utility, delivery and trash service provision A 215 square foot trash and recycling area, as depicted in the land use application, is approved. A transformer, meeting the requirements of the Public Works Department, shall be provided on the site. Section 6: Parking The property currently has no on-site parking spaces, and demolition and replacement of the existing building allows for an equal area of the new building to be exempt from parking requirements up to 12.76 parking spaces. The parking required by the building expansion of 6,826 square feet is to be established, varied or waived as deemed appropriate by HPC based on applicable review criteria for an essential public facility. HPC has determined that payment of a cash-in-lieu fee for 6.83 parking spaces at $30,000 each, as would be required of any other office use in the Commercial Core is appropriate. The cash-in-lieu fee will be paid at the time of building permit. Section 7: TIA As noted in Sections 2 and 6, above, a credit of 12,756 square feet of net leasable space will be applied to this project, and no parking or TIA mitigation is required for that area. In addition, the proposed removal and off-site replacement of the existing affordable housing units reduces trip generation to the site. TIA mitigation is only required for new space. 25.11 trips are generated. The applicant has provided a preliminary proposal to mitigate 20.61 trips through a variety of actions, and to pay a cash-in-lieu fee for 4.51 unmitigated trips. The Engineering Department will work with the applicant to finalize the TIA at the time of building permit, ensuring that all proposed TIA measures are appropriate and applicable to the project and that any unmitigated trips will be addressed through a cash in lieu payment. Section 8: Parks Historic Preservation Commission Resolution#_,Series 2018 Page 5 of 7 159 Silva cells with tree plantings are required. City Forester will determine species and spacing. Irrigation is required. Electric outlets/stanchions shall not interfere with long term growth of trees. Water line shall run midway between trees to minimize future impacts. Section 9: ACSD A potential location for a grease trap (subgrade) shall be included in the building permit application to allow flexibility for future conversion of the commercial/retail spaces to restaurant. Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. Glycol heating and snow melt systems must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines and within 3 feet vertically below an ACSD main sewer line. Section 10: Vested Rights This approval shall not extend the Vested Rights provided to this development through a Development Order issued by the Community Development Director on September 22, 2016 and expiring on September 22, 2019. Section 11: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department and the Historic Preservation Commission are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. Section 12: Historic Preservation Commission Resolution #_,Series 2018 Page 6 of 7 160 This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 13: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 1st day of August, 2018. Approved o orm: Approved as to content: A drea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Gret en Green Chair Nicole Henning, Deputy dity Clerk Attachments: Exhibit A: Approved final elevations and floor plans Historic Preservation Commission Resolution #_,Series 2018 Page 7 of 7 161 L v OO'N3dSV TI3HS23800 O 3AH SNINdOH*3 L15 U C 133HSd3AOO M M 99 o ate., rF 7Vi t, W S Soh nn d d d ddddddn W4i _z W r R HUI W Q S g ik W 3 Ill r LO 31 I I R i Hu o W WL 0 a HM 162 Y m. ECMYI b O0'N3dSV V T13HS43803 A X400 N t O° 3AVSNIHdOH'3LIS SNVId ALINMV Oiisnd 0MW08d 7I NI SNINAOH'3 StS OINN D n\ 3 a[y2 s e xf 3d S w Y r0 S mt a g yQQj 3 g E 3 Y1VM 3l3tl0NO0 Z Ea f0'I'NI SNIMdOH 3E6 YI SNddp13 CIS y 00001 C II b W k Z 6 Z a I I S? 4 I 3 it ?Ol I S I L m ml M VIA 313tlONOO g SN-04 3M 163 03'N3dSV 113HS S 3ZI03 CM 3AV SNINdOH'3 LLS a NYId J,lIN3WH 011Bfld a001d ON003S p v LU I I rd19II I I I I I I I I I I I I Fa I I U ay LL I I y t I O I I I I I I I I I I I I Io C3 O LvJ E 50 Q F QZOWOSJ O J Zr m OUILWNLL fA0 s 164 LL. r 03'N3dSV 113HS S 31107 O i 3AVSNINdOH'3US o NVId 31IS 1'0'1'X)SNIHdOH'3 Sly 7pl 1 1' 13 I J 4 Wg 1 << I 1 s 1 ml 3W q 01N1SNIMdON3fk5 fYe 4 7 i o S STpii 1 SN°Id,'I11 3 S°S o a t z J r a 1 LU1 e z J ePFI E 1 I N LL a I I1 E15 I _ o I L-- ------------------------ t-- ==Jjl e MW.313N WO d arN>IdoHacm e. o 165 s. E.n. F. 0O'N3dStl ll3HSV3800 Q z aa rn O 3AdSNIHdOH'3LIS SNVId 800IJ 13A3183MOI s e o a e O 8 V r J hhW 99 u o nn s J O T I I 1' / 1 o.N S W II ; \ II @a LLLL II v„s v T---------- N g W yz17.2 a" .fie UMIT IML ifi s 166 OO'N3dSV n3HS T 38M BAV SNI)4dOH'3 LLS NVld HOOIJ GNno8903SOdO8d IN)--E-0- 0 I TN) I lk R S2 uLLL El ON F I ol o- 167 L 00'N3dSV 113HS 9 32M VO O_ 3AV SNINdOH'3 L 19 r SNVId HOOId ON003S 03SOdOHd j I t 2!I t O 000 U Y I L o !® I su II I w LL e i LL O I I s a ia I i 168 lL a 00'N3dSV 4 73HS S 32100 unar u< O O_ 3AV SNINdOH*1 tlS CV) Q NVId JOOH 03SOdOdd I I / I I 1 I I 1 I I I I / I I I I / I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 169 O'J'N3dStl n3HS 4 3800 0 3AV SNINdOH 3 LIS N Q NOUVA313 HiHON s< dy5 ig il5 e . dYG[ E Y kL1 L I r i I i R s 1 yy + r Q ry m m` LLb 170 M.N3dSV u n3HS 4 3800 3AV SNIHdOH*3 LIS N NOIlVA313 H1f10S y e tBC b a ea T W e 171 e,N3d_ E ate, o; 0} A@»'!3 NO vin2IS3 172 4u m 00'N3dStl MRS 1 3wo C) 3AV SNNdOH'3 LIS yb N NOI.LVA3131S`d3 A 5 r rr r r r r b Q O Z u 1 I t yl I TI I F li I a- 4 t S 173 1 SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 01, 2018 Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Jeffrey Halferty, Nora Berko, Scott Kendrick, Bob Blaich, Roger Moyer, Richard Lai, Sherri Sanzone. Absent was Willis Pember. Staff present: Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Moyer moved to approve the draft minutes of July 11th, Mr. Halferty seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Mr. Halferty said he’s been biking up to Ashcroft a lot lately and going past the Marolt buildings and Zupancis lot and it looks amazing. Ms. Greenwood said she also biked up this weekend and it looked really good. Mr. Halferty agreed and said it looks really beautiful and said everyone should go take a look. Ms. Simon said they did a beautiful job and when they had their hoedown in June, they did some tours of the inside. She could probably ask for a site visit for HPC sometime. They are moving into a fundraising phase to figure out how to restore and interpret the interior. The Historical Society and the city are still in a partnership for renovating the inside. Ms. Greenwood encouraged everyone to become a member if they are not already. DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT: Ms. Sanzone said she will be stepping down for 517 E. Hopkins. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon said she has a fence to show Mr. Blaich at the end of the meeting. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon thanked everyone for fitting this special meeting in. CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Bryan has all noticing needed for 303 E. Main and needs the remaining items for 517 E. Hopkins. CALL UPS: None. NEW BUSINESS: 303 E. Main Amy Simon Ms. Simon said this building is a National Registry listed miner’s cottage on Main Street that was renovated in 1996, which added an addition on the east side and a full basement under the site. Matsuhisa is now the primary occupant of the site along with some residential units. The applicant is here to deal with some ventilation issues. They are mostly concerned with improving circulation into the dining area and they would like to do an airlock. The first part of the application is to create the airlock and is not easily visible from the street. Airlocks are encouraged in the code for energy reasons and this would be permanent. This would not change the structure of the historic building. Staff supports the installation of the airlock. The applicant also wants to emphasize the functionality of the main door and change the side door into a window and staff is also in support of this and think it’s an opportunity to open a corner of the porch back up. We’d like to see the last panel of the porch removed. We have provided the board with a resolution. 174 2 SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 01, 2018 APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Allison Agley of Rowland and Broughton. Ms. Agley pointed out that she is here representing Michael Goldberg and Matsuhisa LLC, their clients. She said they are proposing two entry changes as discussed. This project was originally to be cosmetic to the upper bar area, but as we studied the mechanical issues, we found issues with temperature as well. As REG helped with the mechanical issues, we realized by changing anything mechanical on the roof, we were in the view plane of Hotel Jerome so this opened a can of worms. We thought the sizing of the different items needed to stay small. If we make the two proposed changes, this will support better energy and better functionality for the patrons. The two changes for the airlock are for a regular steel window. We are in favor of working with staff to figure out the best remedy to the porch situation. It is an opportunity to look at how we can get that end of the porch looking the most congruent with the other changes. We are proposing adding two new windows to the end and matching the white windows that are already out there. Ms. Greenwood asked if there is a porch on the back of the structure and Ms. Simon said yes, on the back of the historic structure, there was a porch that was enclosed in 1996. On page 13 there is a glimpse of the open porch and you also see the door that will be replaced. Mr. Kendrick asked for them to elaborate on opening this up more. Ms. Simon directed them to look at page 13 at the plan view of the door where the window is sitting. On the west face of the porch, we would suggest taking the glazing out and we can study with the applicant to see what is best. We would like to remove any infill elements that are no longer needed. Ms. Greenwood asked if they are trying to replicate what was there before and Ms. Simon said no, but they will do some additional studies with staff and monitor. Mr. Blaich said you can see the addition on the rear and that was a big issue when this originally came up when he was chair of P&Z. There were reasons not to approve it, but it was approved. Ms. Simon said when the project was built, it was under significant property rights at the time. It feels like a lot around the historic structure, it was a compromise because the tower was in the view plane, which they got an exception for. Ms. Simon directed the board to page 52 for a view of the porch enclosure. Ms. Agley said two windows would fit where the door is now so they are questioning one or two windows and we are open to suggestions. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. Mr. Moyer said he concurs with staff, Mr. Kendrick agreed, Mr. Blaich agreed and Mr. Halferty agreed. Ms. Greenwood said they are all in agreement with staff comments and direction. MOTION: Mr. Moyer moved to approve, Mr. Blaich seconded. Roll call vote: Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. Kendrick, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Lai, yes. 7-0, motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: 517 E. Hopkins Amy Simon Ms. Simon said this is a request for substantial amendment to a granted approval in 2016. They have until 2019 to build what HPC previously approved. From the first conceptual meeting, it was thought 175 3 SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 01, 2018 the city might occupy a part of the building and we’re now back to talking about the city sharing this space. Council had a work session last night about acquiring part of 517 E Hopkins and 204 S Galena where the Kitchen is. This is an opportunity to add needed space for the city close to City Hall. When HPC reviews a substantial amendment, we want to focus on what is on the table for change. This app was made before the code amendments of the moratorium and there is lots of discussion in the memo about that. Architecturally, the applicant is making minor changes to the rear and front façades. The front façade comes closer to the sidewalk than before and the alley façade extends back further to the alley. The bridge has been deleted and there has been an addition of a large rooftop skylight to light up the building all the way to the basement. There are minor window and door changes on the rear. WE will also discuss trash storage, transformers, transportation impacts, parking and growth management. When the project first came in, the whole thing was to be commercial net leasable. For the city to maximize the usable space, the affordable housing would now be office space and use credits. We’ve created a new memo format, which I hope you find to be helpful. You will find all of our responses to the review criteria. The conditions of approval are: 1. Once the bridge is removed from the front of the building, it leaves a two-story wall of glazing so they feel some work needs to be done on this to break up the floors. 2. Study of materials and windows on the alley, which enliven the building. 3. Public amenity – they must have 900 square feet of onsite amenity. They are providing 258 square feet mostly in a courtyard on the northeast corner of the site. HPC asked for more information on materials and planting. The applicant is providing trash storage and a utility area along the alley and environmental health is in support of it. They have provided a transportation impact analysis. We’ve suggested a condition of approval that every trip is mitigated and they would pay a cash in lieu fee. The parks department is still on board with the street plantings. The sanitation department still wants a grease trap installed underneath the building incase another restaurant takes over. We don’t want to deaden the street with our offices so that’s why we have retail space. The property currently has no onsite parking spaces. The previous idea was they would pay a cash in lieu fee for the parking impact. Let’s discuss what is appropriate because there needs to be more dialogue about what is necessary on the site. The proposal is that the city will pay the cash in lieu fee, but you do need to talk about whether there are adequate facilities around the site, etc. Finally, there will discussion of growth management. This building is larger than what is on the site now. Every new square foot of development will require affordable housing mitigation. Your role here is to agree to a mathematical calculation depending on which floor you’re talking about. We provided the math calculations in the memo. There is a need to provide housing for 26.2 more new employees and a need to replace the five apartments. The city has about 90 FTE credits to use for this project. Ms. Berko asked about the 26.2 employees and mentioned them being scattered all over town. You’re not really adding employees, they are just scattered. Ms. Simon said that HPC’s role is to agree with the math in the code and you will make a recommendation to city council. We will fully mitigate for employees. Ms. Greenwood asked if the city is buying the entire building and Ms. Simon said the applicant should answer that and explain the contract details. There are five studio units that need to be dealt with and if removed, they must be replaced and the city would use its bank of affordable housing credits to do that. 176 4 SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 01, 2018 Ms. Greenwood said she thinks it’s odd. Ms. Simon said she doesn’t know much about the transaction itself and she’s trying to focus on what HPC is reviewing. Ms. Simon said the suggested conditions of approval start on page 68. There are three related to architectural design, your verification of calculations, public amenity, parking, parks and sanitation district. Most of these are carry forwards from the previous approval. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Chris Bendon of Bendon Adams alongside Mark Hunt, representing the ownership and the applicant, 517 LLC. Mr. Bendon said there is a contract to sell the majority of the building to the city. Mr. Hunt would retain ownership of the three retail shops in the front. You’ll hear reference to 204, which is 204 S. Galena where the Gap used to be and is now Lululemon and The Kitchen is up on the second floor. The conceptual approval was for an all commercial building. At the time, Mr. Hunt was interested in facilitating a city hall annex at this location, but the city wasn’t very interested in this at the time. At the time, Mr. Hunt did not have a need for the second floor and during the final approval, the second floor was converted to affordable housing. They are now approaching this as an essential public facility. There is ongoing discussion about the use of 204 and connecting that to 517 so we are fine with the city using this as a public facility. The demising walls could somewhat vanish and Mr. Hunt would retain the flexibility in this space. There is an atrium that draws light in all the way to the basement. There was reference to transformer and trash area, which environmental health is in support of. There are two scenarios, both of which, have a transformer on property. If the purchase for the city is just 517 square feet, Liz Chapman in Environmental Health, is ok with 215 square feet of trash space and if its combined with 204, she would like 300 square feet of trash space. Mr. Bendon mentioned the restudy of the center module and restudy of the alley façade. Both items can be dealt with staff and monitor and we’re happy with these. Regarding the TIA, we’ve worked with engineering on transportation impact analysis and there will be some final specking with bike racks, etc. The onsite parking scenario eats up a lot of space and we can’t do underground parking. The footprint of parking, ends up consuming so much of the program, so from our perspective, the cash in lieu is perfect for the parking issue. He showed some slides from David Johnston architects that were shown at council. If the 204 plan goes forward, we will connect the interior. If this isn’t objectionable, we’d like to hear about this from HPC. The backup plan, if the contract between Mr. Hunt and the city doesn’t go forward, this application would still be in and submitted and come back to discuss. Mr. Bendon showed a rendering of 517 and 204 together and what this would look like. Ms. Greenwood asked why they decided not to have a bridge when that might serve a nice purpose. Mr. Bendon said the bridge is on the cusp of having little value. In discussion since, we asked what its purpose was and Mr. Hunt liked it, but he thinks the city wants to get as much space as they can. She asked Mr. Bendon to go over the public amenity between what was approved and what is now proposed. Mr. Bendon said it’s nearly identical. It’s 285 square feet in both scenarios, it’s just allocated differently. Mr. Blaich asked about the oval shape and Mr. Hunt said the oval is more current and a lot of this came from meetings with the city to maintain openness and light. Mr. Blaich asked about how they would confront sound problems in such an open space. Mr. Bendon said this is the city’s design and they have 177 5 SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 01, 2018 provided the footprint, which can be square or circular. As the city develops their design, they will go through a more detailed analysis to make sure this works as far as sound and other issues. It will be somewhat similar to the way the new county building works, but they haven’t gotten to that level yet. Mr. Kendrick asked if there will be any mechanicals on the roof and Mr. Bendon said yes. We didn’t include a roof plan in the presentation, but there is an area in the back third of the roof reserved for mechanical equipment. Mr. Kendrick asked if they will use gas or electric and Mr. Bendon said that has not yet been decided. It wouldn’t be seen from the street and wouldn’t interfere with any view planes. Mr. Hunt said the building is ten feet shorter than what is there today. Mr. Moyer mentioned that if the city doesn’t go with this option, they would like to go back to the original plan and Ms. Simon said yes, they can build the approved plan and we can craft some language with the city attorneys for the resolution that this is a moving thing. Ms. Simon said she wants to be careful moving into other scenarios that aren’t presented in the packet tonight. She doesn’t want them to predetermine their opinion about 204. PUBLIC COMMENT: Steve Marcus - Owns the building that Kenichi is in. He thinks this is a wonderful improvement for the street and he doesn’t think you can do any better, in his humble opinion. Toni Kronberg – She took a walk through the new building today and feels it is a wonderful asset. What is there now at 517 is definitely an eyesore and to bring this building up to a spectacular design, would be awesome. She just thinks it’s a good modern design and is very similar to the open layout of the new county building. This is really exciting. Public comment closed. Mr. Bendon said he wanted to speak to the backup plan and had a conversation with Ms. Garrow about keeping their current approval. We have an approved project and have put those plans aside to have this conversation with the city. If this doesn’t move through and Mr. Hunt is left with nothing, that won’t work for him and that would be worse case scenario. If the negotiation falls apart, this app would still be active for the 100 percent commercial building. Ms. Simon said there is a timeframe of due diligence of about 30 days and in section 1 of the resolution, we can clarify this. Ms. Greenwood agreed and said we definitely should comment on that because it’s a fairness issue. Ms. Greenwood clarified the conditions as breaking up the large façade, the alley materials, being ok with the minor change in the public amenity and the parking discussion and we should comment on what we think about maintaining the original approvals. She likes this building and thinks it’s a good home for the city. She has always liked this development and is a strong statement and a really great project. She feels that breaking up the large façade can be handled with a monitor and staff. The picture being proposed is nice. It would be nice for the staff and monitor to work on the alley side as well and create a more interesting alley facade. She feels it’s important to encourage applicants to look at their building from all four sides. This is a definite winner and a good experience for the city. We need to allow the original approvals as we have a busy agenda and we don’t need to go back through this. Mr. Halferty said he thinks it’s an excellent project. He likes the more private/public development and said it’s is a good thing. Mr. Hunt is conscientious and knows what he’s doing. He is totally in favor of 178 6 SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 01, 2018 what is recommended by staff. He is fine with the public amenity and the trash is fine. The parking is fine and he feels that staff and monitor can handle the back alley and glazing on the front façade. What Mr. Hunt has done here in Aspen is commendable and this would be a welcome addition. He is in full support. Mr. Blaich thinks the glass façade is an asset even for office space. It brings in light and is positive to have this glass. He is fine leaving the final details for staff and monitor and agrees with Mr. Halferty’ s comments. Ms. Berko is also in agreement and is happy to see this coming forward in potential. Mr. Lai said this is his first time seeing the project and thinks it’s wonderful and there are several things he likes. He likes the diverse commercial on the main façade and said it’s a real asset. He likes the idea of putting light all the way to the basement from the roof. He concurs with Mr. Blaich, having the glazing on the top floor would improve the interior considerably. He likes the public space on the corner as it adds some prominence to the public function. To give this entry prominence is a good idea and he hopes that council moves to approve this. Mr. Moyer thinks it’s a great project and likes the public/private aspect. We need more messy vitality in the alleys. He encouraged Mr. Hunt to put an entrance/exit in the alleyway. Ms. Greenwood agreed and said the nice thing is the public/private partnership as it offers more vitality. MOTION: Mr. Moyer moved to approve just as staff has written with conditions 1, 2, 3 and 4. The applicant has the right to move back to the original approval. The lawyers and staff will work on the appropriate language for the resolution, Mr. Blaich seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. Kendrick, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Lai, yes. Mr. Halferty will be the project manager. Mr. Hunt mentioned to the board that they have all been working on these projects together and are now making them come to life. He would like to show them a rundown and portfolio of what the plan is moving forward and show some of the buildings, which HPC approved, that we are all a part of. He would love to show them where they are today or at the bare minimum, meet with the monitors on these different projects. He is excited to show them the Crystal Palace. The board expressed interest in seeing these projects. MOTION: Mr. Moyer motioned to adjourn, Ms. Greenwood seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk 179 CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Amy Simon, Planning Director, amy.simon@aspen.gov DATE: May 26, 2023 PROJECT: 517 E. Hopkins Avenue, Substantial Amendment to a Major Development Approval, GMQS Review, Amendment to a Development Agreement REPRESENTATIVE: Sara Adams, BendonAdams, sara@bendonadams.com DESCRIPTION: 517 E. Hopkins Avenue received Final HPC Major Development approval for a full redevelopment of the site in 2016, and a subsequent Substantial Amendment approval in 2018. Vested Rights for the project expired on September 23, 2019, but the approval is currently sustained by the submittal of a complete building permit (0015-2019-BCOM), which is under active review. The developer has approached Community Development with a request to amend Section 11 of HPC Resolution 19, Series of 2108, which reads: Section 11: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department and the Historic Preservation Commission are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. This includes the representation that co-work space will occupy all of the second floor net leasable space at 517 E. Hopkins and may not be replaced with another use without approval by HPC. A proposed tenant for the second floor net leasable does not operate a co-working business and the property owner would like to request approval to replace co-working with another use. Amendments to HPC approved projects are either deemed Insubstantial (an Administrative Review) or Substantial (an HPC Review) per Land Use Code Section 26.415.070.E. Because HPC Resolution #19, Series of 2018 stated than an amendment to representations related to co-work space requires HPC approval, the process will be a Substantial Amendment. No exterior changes to the project have been proposed, therefore design review is not anticipated, but Growth Management review must be repeated. This Amendment review will be conducted according to the land use code in place at the time the original application for redevelopment of 517 E. Hopkins was deemed complete, in September 2015. Approval would generate a new Development Order, but would not establish a new expiration date of the Development Order. The applicant must be aware that, even during pursuit of this amendment, active 180 response to the pending building permit review is required, consistent with the regulation and policies of the Building Department, in order for the 2018 approval to remain valid. The HPC review is a one-step hearing, meaning that all details of the proposal will be presented to HPC in one application. Staff will evaluate the project and make a recommendation to HPC, and HPC will make a decision to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposal. If HPC’s decision is approval, the matter will be brought to Council as an Amendment to the Development Agreement, a document which was required as part of the Growth Management Review (Section 26.470.070.5.6). The Agreement states at Article 3.5 that any amendments to the agreement itself or to HPC Resolution #19, Series of 2018 may only occur “by written instruments executed by all parties hereto that are affected by the proposed amendment.” City Council, by virtue of the Mayor’s approval of the Development Agreement, is an affected party. A written notice from the applicant to James R. True, City Attorney, will advance review of the proposed amendment to Council. The amendment may not proceed unless HPC’s findings on the review criteria are accepted by Council. Below are code citations requiring response, and a list of information needed to submit an application. Archived land use code sections will be provided by email. Relevant Land Use Code Section(s): 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.415.070.E Amendments, Insubstantial and Substantial 26.470.070.5 Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi-Family Housing 26.490.050 Development Agreements Review by: Staff for completeness and recommendations, HPC for Substantial Amendment and GMQS decision, Council for acceptance of amendment to Development Agreement Public Hearing: Yes Neighborhood Outreach: No Referrals: APCHA Planning Fees: $1,950 for 6 billable hours of staff time. (Additional/ lesser hours will be billed/ refunded at a rate of $325 per hour.) Referral Agencies Fee: $325, 1 hour deposit for APCHA (Additional hours will be billed at a rate of $325 per hour.) Total Deposit: $2,275 Please email the following as one pdf to amy.simon@aspen.gov. The fee will be requested after the application is deemed complete. Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement. Pre-application Conference Summary (this document). Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application. 181 Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. HOA Compliance form. An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. List of adjacent property owners within 300’ for public hearing. Proposed floor plans and existing and proposed net leasable space calculations A written and graphic explanation of the proposal and how it complies with the review standards relevant to the application as well as the material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the existing development approvals whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department and the Historic Preservation Commission. 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 182 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 April 2020 LAND USE APPLICATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTIVATIVE: Description: Existing and Proposed Conditions Review: Administrative or Board Review Lodge Pillows Free Market dwelling units Affordable Housing dwelling units Essential Public Facility square footage FEES DUE: $ Pre-Application Conference Summary Signed Fee Agreement HOA Compliance form All items listed in checklist on PreApplication Conference Summary Name: Address: Phone#: email: Address: Phone #: email: Name: Project Name and Address: Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) Have you included the following? Required Land Use Review(s): Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) required fields: Net Leasable square footage 183 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT April 2020 City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 Homeowner Association Compliance Policy All land use applications within the City of Aspen are required to include a Homeowner Association Compliance Form (this form) certifying the scope of work included in the land use application complies with all applicable covenants and homeowner association policies. The certification must be signed by the property owner or Attorney representing the property owner. Property Owner (“I”): Name: Email: Phone No.: Address of Property: (subject of application) I certify as follows: (pick one) □This property is not subject to a homeowners association or other form of private covenant. □This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvementsproposed in this land use application do not require approval by the homeowners association orcovenant beneficiary. □This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvementsproposed in this land use application have been approved by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. I understand this policy and I understand the City of Aspen does not interpret, enforce, or manage the applicability, meaning or effect of private covenants or homeowner association rules or bylaws. I understand that this document is a public document. Owner signature: date: Owner printed name: or, Attorney signature: date: Attorney printed name: 5/31/23 Mark Hunt 184 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 April 2020 Agreement to Pay Application Fees Please type or print in all caps Representative Name (if different from Property Owner) Contact info for billing: e-mail: Phone: I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No. 30, Series of 2017, review fees for Land Use applications and 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. $. flat fee for . $. flat fee for $. flat fee for . $. flat fee for 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 no-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 and 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. $ deposit for hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. $ deposit for hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. City of Aspen: Phillip Supino, AICP Community Development Director City Use: Fees Due: $ Received $ Case # Signature: PRINT Name: Title: An agreement between the City of Aspen (“City”) and Address of Property: Property Owner Name: Billing Name and Address - Send Bills to: 1300 4 185 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM May 31, 2023 Amy Simon Planning Director City of Aspen 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 517 East Hopkins Avenue; Aspen, CO Ms. Simon: Please accept this letter authorizing BendonAdams LLC to represent our ownership interests in 517 East Hopkins Avenue, and act on our behalf to request a substantial amendment to the project approvals regarding co-work space on the second floor. If there are any questions about the foregoing or if I can assist, please do not hesitate to contact me. Property – 517 East Hopkins Avenue; Aspen, CO 81611 Legal Description – Lots D, E, and F, Block 94, City and Townsite of Aspen Parcel ID – 2737-073-40-003 Owner – 517 East Hopkins Aspen, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company Kind Regards, Mark Hunt, Manager 517 East Hopkins Aspen LLC 516 East Hyman Avenue, 2nd floor Aspen, CO 81611 186 57010668.1 730 East Durant Avenue, Suite 200, Aspen, CO 81611 Telephone: 970.925.6300 shermanhoward.com Curtis B. Sanders Sherman & Howard L.L.C. Direct Dial Number: 970.300.0114 E-mail: csanders@shermanhoward.com June 4, 2023 City of Aspen Community Development Department 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 517 East Hopkins Aspen, LLC; Certificate of Ownership Dear Sir or Madam: I am an attorney licensed by the State of Colorado to practice law. This letter shall confirm and certify that 517 East Hopkins Aspen, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, is the owner of certain improved real property located at 517 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611, and legally described as follows (the "Subject Property"): Lots D, E and F, Block 94, City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. The Subject Property is subject to the following matters of record: 1. Reservations and exceptions as set forth in the Deed from the City of Aspen recorded in Book 59 at Page 219 and 278. 2. All minerals underlying the subject property as conveyed by Deeds recorded in Book 98 at Page 476, Book 98 at Page 481, Book 98 at Page 515, Book 105 at Page 129 and Book 106 at Page 482. 3. Multipurpose Easement Agreement granted to the City of Aspen et. al., recorded September 16, 1976 in Book 316 at Page 701. 4. Those terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Restrictive Covenants recorded April 9, 1984 in Book 464 at Page 319. 187 2 5. Improvement Survey, recorded December 8, 2000 in Plat Book 54 at Page 93. 6. City of Aspen Resolution No. 31 (Series of 2015), recorded December 21, 2015 at Reception No. 625749. 7. City of Aspen Resolution No. 28 (Series of 2016) recorded September 29, 2016 at Reception No.632597. 8. City of Aspen Resolution No. 11 (Series of 2018) recorded September 7, 2018 at Reception No. 650171. 9. City of Aspen Resolution No. 19 (Series of 2018) recorded January 14, 2019 at Reception No. 653319. 10. Redevelopment Agreement recorded March 15, 2019 at Reception No. 654590. 11. Temporary Construction Easement Agreement dated April 16, 2021 and recorded June 1, 2021 as Reception No. 677104 This letter shall further confirm that as the owner of the Subject Property, 517 East Hopkins Aspen, LLC has the right and authority to file and pursue land use applications, variance requests, and other requests with the City of Aspen with respect to the Subject Property. Sincerely, Curtis B. Sanders 188 530 1/2 507 511 532 1/2525 422 121 130 630 630 630 630 630 630 602 602 602 602 602 620 600 620 620 620 600 620 620 600 600 620 620 600 601 600 600 601 600 620 600 601 620 600 600 601 620 600 630 620 630 627 623 620 627 611 616 630 534 630 625 620 627 615 610 620 302 517 505 304 517 520 203 510 520 517 204 520 205 534 515 520 520 520 205 520 520 520 520 205 520 209 520 532 204 516 210 501 530 517 514 533 119 625 533 605 Aspen Fire Protection District Headquarters #62 The Residence Hotel S Galena StConner Memorial Park Clapper Park Aspen Armory E H o p k i ns A ve S Galena St E Hyman A v e SHunterStAspen Elks Lodge No. 224 E H y m a n A v e S HunterStE M a i n St E H o p k ins A v e S Hunter St Date: 5/18/2023 Geographic Information Systems This map/drawing/image is a graphical representation of the features depicted and is not a legal representation. The accuracy may change depending on the enlargement or reduction. Copyright 2023 City of Aspen GIS 0 0.01 0.020.01 mi When printed at 8.5"x11" 4 Legend City of Aspen Parcels Scale: 1:1,128 Vicinity Map Esri Community Maps Contributors, City of Aspen GIS, Pitkin County, ©189 Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. The information maintained by the County may not be complete as to mineral estate ownership and that information should be determined by separate legal and property analysis. Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or data obtained on this web site. This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the margins such that they no longer line up on the labels sheet. Print actual size. From Parcel: 273707340003 on 06/06/2023 Instructions: Disclaimer: http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com 190 204 S GALENA ST LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 625 E MAIN ST UNIT 102B #401 308 HUNTER LLC DENVER, CO 80218 490 N WILLIAMS ST 419 AH LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 4068 419 EAST HYMAN AVENUE LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 625 E MAIN ST UNIT 102B #401 420 EAST HYMAN CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 420 E HYMAN 426 EAST HYMAN AVE LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 4068 514 AH LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 514 E HYMAN AVE 516 EAST HYMAN AVENUE LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 625 E MAIN ST UNIT 102B #401 530 HOPKINS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 530 1/2 E HOPKINS 601 EAST HOPKINS CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 601 E HOPKINS AVE 602 EAST HYMAN AVE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 602 E HYMAN AVE 610 EAST HYMAN LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 610 E HYMAN AVE 616 E HYMAN AVE LLC WILMINGTON, DE 19807 251 LITTLE FALLS DR ALH HOLDING LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 435 E MAIN ST ALPINE BANK GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 2200 GRAND AVE ALPINE BANK ASPEN GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 2200 GRAND AVE AMORPHOUS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 312 AABC #D ARCHDIOCESE OF DENVER DENVER, CO 80210 1300 S STEELE ST ART MUSEUM LLC OAKBROOK , IL 60522 PO BOX 5256 ASPEN CLARKS REAL ESTATE LLC AUSTIN, TX 78704 1711 S CONGRESS AVE #200 ASPEN CORE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 535 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ASPEN, CO 81611 420 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN PLAZA LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 1709 AUSTIN LAWRENCE CONNER LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 532 E HOPKINS AVE BASS CAHN 601 LLC BOCA RATON, FL 334343288 20155 BOCA WEST DR #C102 BELLA SUNRISE LLC PALM BEACH, FL 33480 401 WORTH AVE #301 BIG HOPKINS LLC BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 421 N BEVERLY DR #300 BLAU JEFF T NEW YORK, NY 10023 60 COLUMBUS CR 19TH FL BPOE ASPEN LODGE #224 ASPEN, CO 81611 510 E HYMAN AVE 3RD FL BPOE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 510 E HYMAN AVE THIRD FLOOR 191 BRAND BUILDING CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 205 S GALENA ST BRAND BUILDING LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 205 S GALENA ST CICUREL FAMILY INVESTMENT TRUST CHICAGO, IL 60610 9 W WALTON #1703 CICUREL TERI A CHICAGO, IL 60610 9 W WALTON #1703 CITY OF ASPEN ASPEN, CO 81611 427 RIO GRANDE PL COLLINS BLOCK LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 205 S GALENA ST CONNER CABINS & LOFTS CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 530 E HOPKINS AVE COTTONWOOD VENTURES I LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 419 E HYMAN AVE COTTONWOOD VENTURES II LLC DALLAS, TX 75367 PO BOX 670709 COX ANTHONY E LIVING TRUST CAPITOLA, CA 95010 1260 41ST AVE #O DOWNTOWN 420 LLC CALABASAS, CA 91302 23622 CALABASAS RD #200 GELD LLC ASPEN, CO 81612-1247 PO BOX 1247 GODIVA HOLDINGS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 435 E MAIN ST HINDERSTEIN FAM REV TRUST GREENBANK, WA 98253 4415 HONEYMOON BAY RD HORSEFINS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 601 E HOPKINS AVE HUNTER & HOPKINS PROF BUILDING CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 600 E HOPKINS AVE HUNTER SQUARE LLC SONOMA, CA 95476 PO BOX 2 JURINE LLC SONOMA, CA 95476 PO BOX 2 KANDYCOM INC ARCADIA, CA 91006 766 SINGING WOOD DR LEVY ASPEN RESIDENCE TRUST MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140 5959 COLLINS AVE MARIPOSA REAL ESTATE II LLC MIAMI BEACH, FL 331397318 500 S POINTE DR #240 MJB MOUNTAIN PROPERTIES LLC GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49544 2345 WALKER AVE MOCKINGBIRD INTERESTS ASPEN LLC DALLAS, TX 75205 47 HIGHLAND PARK VILLAGE #208 MYSKO ASPEN HOLDINGS ASPEN, CO 81611 615 E HOPKINS AVE NZC CO LLC DARIEN, CT 06820 865 HOLLOW TREE CT PALADINO LISA ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 2314 PARAGON BUILDING CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 419 E HYMAN AVE PARAGON PENTHOUSE LLC BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 9950 SANTA MONICA BLVD PDR ASPEN LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 625 E HYMAN #201 PITKIN CENTER CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA E HYMAN AVE 192 PITKIN CENTER CONDO OWNERS ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 517 W NORTH ST PITKIN COUNTY BANK LEXINGTON , KY 40555 PO BOX 54288 SALT PARKS WEST LLC SARATOGA SPRINGS , NY 12866 19 RAILROAD PL #301 SILVER SLAM COMMERCIAL LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 1373 TROYER TROUSDALE TOWNHOMES CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 611 E HOPKINS AVE VICTORIAN SQUARE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 601 E HYMAN AVE VICTORIAN SQUARE LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 8485 WHEELER BLOCK BUILDING LLC COLUMBIA, MO 65203 211 N STADIUM BLVD STE 201 WOODS FAMILY LP ASPEN, CO 81611 514 TWINING FLATS RD 193 Mike Sear From: Alexandra George <alex@agaspen.com> Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2023 4:40 PM To: Kim Raymond; Riley Warwick; p.fornell@comcast.net; Amy Simon; Public Comment; barbpitchford@gmail.com; Kirsten Armstrong Subject: HPC Meeting on 8.23.2023: Strong Support for Applicant's Request at 517 E Hopkins Attachments: 517_E_Hopkins_Substantial _Amendment _ Growth_Management_HPC_memo.pdf, 517 _E_Hopkins_Substantial_ Amend ment_Growth_Management_Resolution.pdf, Aspen HPC Agenda 082323.pdf; 517 E Hopkins Public Notice.png Dear Members of HPC, As you prepare for the upcoming HPC meeting scheduled for August 23rd, I am writing to extend my full support for the applicant's proposal to amend the conditions for 517 E Hopkins. Over the years since the initial HPC approvals were granted in 2016, numerous factors have evolved, supporting a reevaluation of the project's parameters. A significant change in the landscape of the downtown commercial core has been the emergence of several co -working spaces within Aspen. Notable among these are ALT Aspen, The Aspen Office, Here House, and other potential spaces (GravityHaus) in development. This growing availability of co -working alternatives underscores the evolving nature of our business community. Furthermore, it's important to note that WeWork, which was part of the original conversation surrounding the approvals, is now believed by many to have significant fears surrounding a possible bankrutctcy, further supporting your willingness to consider amending these approvals to be more in line with the landscape and factors that exist today. It is my firm belief that amending the conditions as proposed is not only responsive to the evolving business dynamics but also emphasizes your dedication to nurturing the vibrancy and expansion of our local community. By allowing this expanded use, you will be opening avenues for increased job creation and contributing to the diversification of activities in the heart of our town, aligning more effectively with Aspen's present-day needs. In consideration of these reasons, I encourage HPC to deliberate upon and grant the applicant's request to modify the conditions pertaining to 517 E Hopkins. This decision will be in direct recognition of the changing landscape and your willingness to adapt to the current times and needs of our downtown core. My apologies to those whose emails I do not have; if you wouldn't mind sharing with the others, it would be greatly appreciated. Warm regards, Alexandra George A G Alexandra George 970.452.1946 (o) 304.561.876o (m) ASPEN lex corn aww.a as n.. ►ym LUXURY REAL ESTATE BY ALEXANDRA GEOROE r Mike Sear From: jesse smith <jesse.s.4747@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 4:37 PM To: Public Comment Subject: HPC Meeting 8/23 re 517 E Hopkins Dear HPC Please keep your original ruling in regards to the upper level being a community co -working space. The developer clearly made a good case for the community benefit, enough for HPC to rule to relocatle and temporarily displace local residents that are living there. The fact they are changing their minds in order to put in a tenant that is targeted at luxury clientele and very clearly not a coworking business, undermines the credibility of the entire 2018 ruling. Thanks for your consideration Mike Sear From: Mike Sear <mike.sear@aspen.gov> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 4:56 PM To: City Council Cc: Public Comment; Amy Simon Subject: FW: Comment on 517 E Hopkins for HPC From: Christina Debono <csdebono@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 4:47 PM To: Public Comment <publiccomment@aspen.gov> Subject: Comment on 517 E Hopkins for HPC Hi HPC I am writing to offer my opinion of about 517 E Hopkins that is up for discussion today. The applicant is suggesting their tenant, Remedy Place, fit the notion of "co -working". Unless Remedy is planning to completely change their entire business scope for an Aspen specific franchise, it is not a "co -working" business. Remedy is akin to a luxury wellness spa where of course, business conversations could happen but in no way can their business be considered a co -working space. It is not designed for someone to set up a workspace, sit for hours, take video calls, print documents or conduct business meetings, unlike other local businesses such as Here House, The Aspen Office and our Pitkin County Library. It is also very unlike the nature described in the original application granted by HPC. I am working to open a local business with a broad range of similarities to Remedy Place, including some very similar if not identical core services. We have visited both locations of Remedy Place, spoken with their sales agents about purchasing equipment (they are also an equipment distributor) and also have spoken with some of their former staff. From a first hand experience, no interaction has been in the nature of co -working. We, of course, would prefer Remedy Place to focus their expansion efforts on larger metropolitan areas, as has appeared to have been their plan since their only other locations are Los Angeles and New York but understand that is unfortunately just wishful thinking. There is no doubt that the demise of local businesses and the uprising of 'Aspen' branded locations of national an dmulti-national businesses here in Aspen has greatly hampered our town's character, but that is a different matter than the one in question. Thanks for your consideration Also, I would appreciate it if my name could be kept out of any public readings. It's a small town and I don't want to be subject to any backlash for sharing my opinion. Thanks so much Chrissy