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.20241002.special
AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 2, 2024 4:30 PM, City Council Chambers - 3rd Floor 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 I.ROLL CALL II.MINUTES III.PUBLIC COMMENTS IV.COMMISSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS V.DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI.PROJECT MONITORING VII.STAFF COMMENTS VIII.CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT ISSUED IX.CALL UP REPORTS X.SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS XI.SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT XI.A 300-312 E. Hyman Ave., Formerly know as the Crystal Palace Substantial Amendment Application XII.OLD BUSINESS XIII.NEW BUSINESS - SPECIAL MEETING - Staff Memo.300_312 E Hyman.pdf Exhibit A - PreApplication.pdf Exhibit B - Revised Application 9_25_24.pdf Exhibit C_Original Preservation Plan.pdf 1 1 XIV.ADJOURN XV.NEXT RESOLUTION NUMBER TYPICAL PROCEEDING FORMAT FOR ALL PUBLIC HEARINGS (1 Hour, 15 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 (10 minutes for minor development; 20 minutes for major development) 4. Board questions and clarifications of applicant (5 minutes) 5. Staff presentation (5 minutes for minor development; 10 minutes for major development) 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. Prior to vote the chair will allow for call for clarification for the proposed resolution. Please note that staff and/or the applicant must vacate the dais during the opposite presentation and board question and clarification session. Both staff and applicant team will vacate the dais during HPC deliberation unless invited by the chair to return. Updated: March 7, 2024 2 2 Page 1 of 7 427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | aspen.gov Memorandum TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Ben Anderson, Community Development Director MEETING DATE: October 2, 2024 – Special Meeting RE: 300-312 E. Hyman, previously known as the Crystal Palace Substantial Amendment, PUBLIC HEARING Applicant/Owner: 312 East Hyman, LLC, 625 E. Main Street, Unit 102B, #401, Aspen, CO 81611 Representative: BendonAdams, LLC Address: 300-312 E Hyman Ave. Legal Description: Crystal Palace Subdivision, formerly: Lots K, L, M, Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen Parcel Identification Number: 2737-073-38-009 Current Zoning & Use: CC - Commercial Core – Approved as a 20-room lodge with a restaurant. Summary: The applicant requests to revise the exterior façade of 300/312 E. Hyman through a substantial amendment to previous HPC approvals. Most notable are proposals for an alternative treatment of the remaining portion of the historic west wall and a significantly redesigned architecture. Additional changes are proposed for the upper level – fenestration and materials, and floor plan, and minimal changes to the internal programming in the lodge and restaurant spaces. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends continuation of the substantial amendment review. Staff additionally suggests that HPC provide specific direction in response to the proposed amendment in relationship to previous approvals. Figure 1. Current Conditions at 300-312 E. Hyman. 3 Page 2 of 7 427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | aspen.gov BACKGROUND: Like many aspects of Aspen, the former Crystal Palace building in this location holds a great deal of romantic significance for both residents and visitors. It was an important building in terms of the town’s architectural fabric, but this sentiment was further extenuated by the great memories of the activities that happened inside the building. Additionally, the Owl Cigar mural is an iconic graphic that remains in the collective imagination of Aspen’s past and present. When the most recent redevelopment of this property was approved in 2017, there was a strong desire – expressed in the approvals (listed below and attached as exhibits) to do as much as possible to preserve and incorporate the remaining historic fabric into the new building. A significant construction project in the 1970’s had transformed the original Victorian-era building. The previously approved Preservation Plan (included as Exhibit C) provides images of this transformation and described the plan for treatment of the historic material. The 2017 approvals used the information that was held at the time in creating an assumption that the south and west façade both had extensive elements and materials from the original building. The east and north facades were clearly a product of the 1970’s and were approved for demolition and reconstruction. Soon into construction, it became evident that historic materials on the south façade (along Hyman) were substantially absent. It was allowed to be demolished and construction based on Building Permit 0092-2017-ACBK (issued in June 2019) proceeded as approved to its current state. The 2017 approvals clearly described the treatment of the remaining portion of the west façade. As construction advanced, further investigation of the west wall identified concerns with this façade: 1) a portion of the wall was located in City right-of-way; 2) the sandstone foundation was not suitably stable; 3) the wall itself – both brick and mortar showed signs of instability. These conditions were observed by City HP staff and by 3rd party experts hired by the applicant. Additionally concerning, closer examination of the brick and mortar showed evidence of both Victorian and 1970’s material and method mixed throughout the wall. There is no disagreement between the applicant and staff on these aggregate concerns related to the west wall. While the building permit remains active and in good standing, substantial progress on completing the building has stalled. There are a few reasons for this, but certainly prominent is a need to identify an alternative treatment for the west wall. Historic preservation outcomes must be navigated and appropriate solutions identified, but it should also be considered that this partially completed construction project inhabits a very prominent location in the heart of downtown Aspen. Acknowledging the complex path that this redevelopment project has been on, staff and the applicant are unified in desiring to find solutions in moving the project forward. 4 Page 3 of 7 427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | aspen.gov History of Land Use Approvals and Building Permits Ordinance #15, Series of 2015 – Limited to a lot merger that created the 9000sf lot that defines the project. HPC Resolution #9, Series of 2016 – HPC Major Development – Conceptual HPC Resolution #4, Series of 2017 – HPC Major Development – Final HPC Resolution #7, Series of 2017 – HPC Growth Management Approval Notice of Approval, 2020 – An Insubstantial Amendment that approved interior changes and exterior architectural modifications that were approved by the monitoring committee. The result of this approval contains the “approved” exterior architecture. Building Permit – 0092-2017-ACBK; This permit is a “core and shell” permit that typically allows for the excavation, foundation, structural frame, floor plates and roof, and mechanical rough-ins. Often this goes as far as “white box” condition on the interior. This permit remains active and in good standing. REQUESTS OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) HPC is asked to review the application (revised application from September 25, 2024) as a Substantial Amendment – 26.415.070.E.2. PROPOSED AMENDMENT: The following changes are proposed by the application: 1) The deconstruction (demolition?) of the remaining portion of the West Wall. As proposed, salvaged and stable bricks would be reconstructed into a central panel on the first level of a new west wall. The mural would be replicated within this reconstructed panel. 2) A unified architectural treatment across the south and west facades that differs significantly from the approved design. This includes new architectural design features including significant changes to fenestration. Approved Design – South Facade Proposed Design – South Facade 5 Page 4 of 7 427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | aspen.gov 3) A change at the northwest corner of the building that removes an inset portion of the exterior wall. In the existing approvals, this inset intended to demarcate the extent of the original west wall from new construction. See the approved and proposed design of the west façade, above. 4) Changes to the elements of the top-most level of the building. While the changes are likely insignificant, compliance with the approved height of the building (which is 12 Approved Design – South Facade Proposed Design – South Facade Rendering – Proposed Design 6 Page 5 of 7 427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | aspen.gov feet taller than now allowed by the current code) has been a frequent topic of review as the project has moved through different design iterations and building permit issuance. 5) Minor changes to the interior layout. As a consequence of these minor programing changes and the floor area related to the inset described above in #3, there would be minimal changes to interior floor area calculations (commercial, lodge net livable, etc.). On initial evaluation, these dimensions appear to be consistent within the parameters of previous approvals and would be verified during further building permit review. STAFF COMMENTS: The situation that this project finds itself in – and that current staff and HPC find themselves involved in is far from ideal. A designated property in the district was given a thorough vetting under previous approvals with well-intentioned preservation outcomes that navigated the realities understood at the time. Some of those realities have shifted the project even further away from the desired outcomes as we came to understand more about the building and the integrity and quality of the remaining historic material. The question is: “What do we do from here?” Treatment of the West Wall Staff and the applicant are in agreement that the west wall that remains as the only remaining element from the Crystal Palace requires an alternative treatment than that described in their existing approvals. Portions of the wall are in the right-of-way, and the foundation and wall have significant issues related to structural integrity. These conditions must be given a path to resolution. In staff’s view, the proposed treatment of the west wall in the amendment application is not consistent with the letter or intent of previous approvals. There is a fair conversation to be had about the remaining Victorian-era integrity of the wall. Absent a determination (through an approval granting Demolition or a full Delisting of the property) that the wall is no longer a designated structure, the intentions of the previous approvals should be maintained. Put simply: • As much of the original brick and foundation should be maintained in as close to its current location as is possible. • The approved linear extent of the wall should be maintained – with interior brick or new brick used as necessary to complete the extent of the wall. 7 Page 6 of 7 427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | aspen.gov • The current wall is three wythes thick, staff supports a thickness of one wythe in the final condition of the rebuilt wall to acknowledge that some quantity of the brick is not usable, nor historic. • The mural should remain in its current location. It is painted with lead paint and it is realized that it will be disrupted and will need to be re-established as necessary. New Architectural Design As a standalone design, absent previous consideration and approval, the proposed building would be a fine addition to Aspen’s downtown. Staff agrees that it references other patterns found in the District (particularly neo-classical forms and elements) and broadly meets Historic Preservation Design Guidelines for new construction and Commercial Design Guidelines. However, staff has a few concerns: • The previously approved architecture very intentionally created design distinction in the new construction between the western most element and that of the eastern two-thirds of the front façade. The fenestration and material arrangement was meant to connect to and compliment the west façade – and generally reference proportions of earlier construction. By having a unified architecture across the project, this distinction is completely lost. Staff certainly understand the architectural intentions of the proposed design but feels that it drifts from this clear aspect of earlier approvals. • Previously mentioned, the approved design used an inset in the wall plain on the northern corner of the west façade to indicate and accentuate the extent of the remainder of the historic wall. The proposed design loses this distinction. • On close view of the floor plans, it appears that a few “windows” are not windows in a normal understanding of windows – in that they do not actually create openings into the interior. If a project has features that appear as windows, they should also function as windows. Staff needs more information to understand this condition more fully. • On the east façade, that is new construction, and has been approved as new construction, staff needs more information on the exterior treatment. While only a small portion of the façade is visible above the adjacent building (the former Mother Lode), the design is unclear. • On the roof, and the top level of the building, changes are proposed. It may be just a case of imprecise drawings, but several elements appear to have gotten taller and more of the rooftop features appear to pop up above the maximum height. Under no case are new, proposed elements of the building allowed to exceed the approvals and stipulations in the land use code. Staff needs more information on these changes. 8 Page 7 of 7 427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | aspen.gov Internal programming changes and floor area adjustments Staff finds these to be consistent with previous approvals and does not have concerns on this topic. RECOMMENDATION: Staff strongly recommends that HPC continue the hearing to a future date certain – after providing the applicant with clear direction on the proposed amendment and a path forward. Staff believes there are a few possible outcomes, including: 1) Support for new the proposed architecture and treatment of the west wall as included in the application. In this case, staff does believe that findings on the criteria for Demolition or Delisting would be necessary to justify this decision. 2) Support for the new proposed architecture but require an alternative to the proposed treatment of the west wall and mural. The applicant would need specific direction on what HPC would be willing to support. Depending on the direction, demolition may still be a consideration. 3) Support the previously approved architecture but allow for the alternative treatment of the west wall as described in the Staff Comments section above. All things being equal, this is the option that staff most supports. 4) Support the previously approved architecture but allow for the elimination of the inset on the west wall and the alternative treatment of the west wall as described in the Staff Comments section above. For all four of these options (or other possible options), staff would need additional information – identified above – before offering support. **Staff has intentionally not provided a Resolution as it is staff’s view that regardless of HPC’s direction, additional information is needed to fully build out the components of a draft document. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – PreApplication Summary – this provides additional clarity on the history and status of the project Exhibit B – Revised Application – dated September 25, 2024 – good narrative and important attachments Exhibit C – Preservation Plan associated with original approval – details initial preservation elements 9 PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PRE-23-124 DATE: November 7, 2023 PLANNER: Amy Simon, Planning Director, amy.simon@aspen.gov REPRESENTATIVE: Sara Adams, BendonAdams, sara@bendonadams.com PROJECT LOCATION: 300 E. Hyman Avenue PARCEL ID: 2737-073-38-009 REQUEST: Substantial Amendment to a Major Development Approval, Relocation DESCRIPTION: In 2017, 300 E. Hyman Avenue was approved for Final Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) Major Development, per HPC Resolution #4, Series of 2017, with the intent to preserve remaining elements of the 19th century structure on the west side of this landmarked site, tie those authentic elements into a representative reconstruction of the Victorian era commercial building, and abut that construction with contemporary architecture on the east and north sides of the property. The end use of the project is a hotel. During the construction process, some limited areas of the south face of the building, which had been thought to retain historic integrity, were re-evaluated and determined to have been heavily altered. These areas were approved by staff and HPC project monitors to be replicated with new construction. This resulted in the retention of the west wall as the sole remaining historic fabric. A similar question about the integrity of the west wall was later raised by the property owner. In response, the City’s Historic Preservation Officer conducted an assessment of the wall in 2021 (attached) and determined that it is a composition of 19th century and 1970s masonry and mortars. The 300 E. Hyman property owner has privately commissioned a study, which staff has not reviewed, that apparently reaches similar conclusions. This report, or other guidance from professionals, has created concern for property owner with the logistical challenges of preserving the wall intact and tying it into the new structure. The representations made during HPC project review regarding preserving a portion of the west wall and its associated murals were key to the HPC approval, and to the encroachment license that was granted by Engineering along Aspen Street and Hyman Avenue, which impacted the community for many months. Staff’s understanding of this pre-application request is to provide a process to approach HPC to preserve less of the west wall, focusing on the area with murals. Staff has indicated to the owner that a request for full removal or dismantling and reconstructing of the wall would arguably be deemed Demolition. This could result in a de-listing of the property as historic landmark and a new Major Development review. Full demolition does not appear to be the owner’s intended path. It has been suggested that the preserved wall area will be “sandwiched” in place then lifted, temporarily relocated for foundation repair, and then re-installed. The question has arisen whether the existing encroachment onto public right-of-way should be corrected in the process. Staff does not have sufficient information to guide a response, at this time. The application can address the benefits of this action, however, bear in mind that moving the location of the wall is arguably another factor that diminishes integrity. Clarification as to the treatment of the existing sandstone foundation wall will be needed. 10 Amendments to HPC approved projects are either deemed Insubstantial (an Administrative Review) or Substantial (an HPC Review) per Municipal Use Code Section 26.415.070.E. A Substantial Amendment application to HPC is defined as one which materially modifies the location, size, shape, materials, design, detailing or appearance of the building elements as originally depicted. In the pre- application conference, the possibility of requesting changes to architectural features or materials on the areas of new construction was raised. This can be included in the Substantial Amendment application, however bear in mind that code language related to Common Development Procedures sets some boundaries to amendments to projects vested in older land use code and changes to the “inherent nature, use, massing, character, dimensions, or design of the project” could be determined to be so significant as to require full re-review of the project. This Substantial Amendment review will be conducted according to the land use code in place at the time the original application for redevelopment was made in November 2015, though staff has not identified any subsequent changes to the relevant code language. Approval would generate a new Development Order but would not establish a new expiration date of the Development Order. The HPC review is one-step, meaning that all details of the proposal will be presented in one application which will be discussed at a public hearing. Staff has determined that Neighborhood Outreach is required, as described at Land Use Code Section 26.304.035. Enhance Public Information is to be provided by the applicant and must include action to inform interested members of the general public about the project, one of the stated purposes of Neighborhood Outreach. After receipt of the application, staff will evaluate the requests and make a recommendation to HPC, and HPC will make a decision to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposal, all of which will be based on the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and Land Use Code Sections applicable to this project. Relocation review is subject to Notice of Call Up at City Council. If HPC approval is granted for Relocation, Council has the authority to remand the decision back to HPC for further consideration. Like all HPC decisions, a change to the current approval is also appealable by any person with a right to appeal as defined at Land Use Code Section 26.314. Recently, the City has contacted the applicant with concerns about progress on constructing the development. Per a letter dated October 27, 2023 from Bonnie Muhigirwa, Chief Building Official, to Mark Hunt, the identified ownership representative, new applications for revisions to land use approvals will be treated separately from the activity required to maintain 0092.2017.ACBK in good standing. While the requests addressed in this pre-application summary may be pursued, review of amendments to land use approvals and historic preservation requirements will not permit suspension of construction activity. A clear explanation of the owner’s perceived challenges of carrying out the project representations must be provided for the Substantial Amendment review. The cost of carrying out the scope is not the concern of the City, but an explanation of technical feasibility is important, and any reports or professional opinions to be taken into consideration in HPC’s findings must be provided in the application. 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. 11 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM July 31, 2024 City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Stuart Hayden, Historic Preservation Office RE: 300/312 East Hyman – Substantial Amendment Dear HPC and Stuart: We respectfully request consideration of a Substantial Amendment to revise the exterior façade of 300/312 East Hyman Avenue, aka Crystal Palace. New information regarding historic material and overall integrity of the building from a historic preservation perspective prompts us to reconsider the most appropriate pathway forward for the project. A summary of past approvals, documentation of the existing building during construction, and the proposed substantial amendment is provided below. 300/312 East Hyman is a designated historic landmark located within the Commercial Core Historic District. Figure 1: Photograph by John Bowman, courtesy Aspen Historical Society showing the subject property anchoring the left (west) corner of the block and the Wheeler Opera House anchoring the right (east) corner of the block. History 300/312 East Hyman was originally built in 1891 by S. B. Clark as a wholesale produce house. Similar to many AspenVictorian commercial buildings, the structure was adapted and changed over time as a function of its occupants. After the wholesale produce operation, the business was changed to Aspen Commission Company and after many years vacant became the beloved dinner theatre the Crystal Palace until 2008. 12 Page 2 of 6 300/312 East Hyman Substantial HP Amendment – 7/31/2024 Physical inspection of the existing building by Historic Preservation Staff (Amy Simon, Natalie Feinberg Lopez, Sarah Yoon) revealed that there is basically no historic material remaining. Even the west wall with the repainted Owl Cigar mural was rebuilt over time and is not entirely original to the building (please reference Exhibit K for technical reports). In 2016, 300 and 312 West Hyman Avenue merged into a single 9,000 sf lot (Ordinance 19-2015, plat Bk 115, Pg58). Subsequently, in 2017 a Development Order was granted for the redevelopment of the property into a three story lodge with 20 hotel rooms and a commercial restaurant on the main level pursuant to HPC Resolutions 9-2016, 4-2017, 7-2017.1 Vested rights for the project expired on April 4, 2020. In 2020, an insubstantial amendment to the approvals was granted for minor modifications including a reduction in average lodge room size, a 3% increase (683 sf) of total floor area and lodge floor area, and exterior changes that were approved by the Historic Preservation Monitoring committee. The dimensional requirements approved by the insubstantial amendment are as follows: Table 1: 2020 Approved dimensions via administrative approval Total project floor area 21, 931 sf Lodge floor area 17,121 sf Commercial floor area 4,810 sf Commercial net leasable 3,137 sf Lodge net livable 8,981 sf Average lodge room size 449 sf The 2020 amendment did not change the number of lodge rooms and conditions of approval required a minimum occupancy of two guests per room. A core and shell permit (0092.2017.ACBK) was issued on June 10, 2019. The structural framing for the entire building, including the third story, is completed. 1 The original land use application was submitted on November 10, 20216. Figures 2 & 3: Existing conditions - south east corner pictured at left, and southwest corner pictured at right. 13 Page 3 of 6 300/312 East Hyman Substantial HP Amendment – 7/31/2024 Proposal Exterior Changes During demolition the absence of historic material was discovered. This calls into question the appropriateness of the current façade approval, as the representations made during the 2016 and 2017 approvals focused on preservation of existing materials and restoration through a detailed historic preservation plan. The building has been inspected by numerous City of Aspen Historic Preservation staff and assigned Historic Preservation Commission project monitors to approve the removal of non-historic material that was previously assumed to be original. Reconstruction is not a preservation approach included in the Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines as Aspen takes a strict approach to not become a living museum; therefore, we turn to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties 2 which addresses reconstruction as a treatment that can “be justified only rarely.” The Standards state “When a contemporary depiction is required to understand and interpret a property’s historic value (including the re- creation of missing components in a historic district or site); when no other property with the same associative value has survived; and when sufficient historical documentation exists to ensure an accurate reproduction, Reconstruction may be considered as a treatment.” There are arguably other protected and intact properties within the Commercial Core Historic District that have the same associative value as Victorian-era Commercial as 300 East Hyman including 100 South Mill, 432 East Hyman, and 428 East Hyman. We request a reconsideration of the façade by HPC based on this new information about historic material. A new façade using the same materials as the approval is designed to relate to the historic district, comply with Commercial Design Standards, and be a product of its own time. The proposed façade uses the approved (and already constructed) footprint and reconfigures window openings and architectural details to relate to the district and be a product of its own time. Brick is the primary building material with metal details and windows. The south façade references the Wheeler Opera House through the vertical grouping of windows, three half round windows proposed on the upper floor in the center of the building, and the division of the front façade into three vertical segments. Similar to the configuration of windows on the secondary street facing façade of the Wheeler, the secondary west elevation of 300/312 has rows of windows in a similar pattern facing Monarch Street, and the brick extends all the way to the alley as show on the next page. 2 The Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines are based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties principles (per page 11 of the Design Guidelines) and as required by History Colorado to qualify as a certified local government. Figure 4: Photograph of Wheeler Opera House on opposite end of the block. 14 Page 4 of 6 300/312 East Hyman Substantial HP Amendment – 7/31/2024 There are a few minor floor plans changes shown in the drawing set which do not significantly impact the exterior appearance of the building. Footprint changes include removing the slight setback on the west elevation that expressed the historic length of the building, and on the second floor an approved outdoor terrace is converted into interior space. This area faces the alley and is not visible from street level. A comparison is shown below. Figures 9 & 10: approved second floor outdoor terrace along alley (left), proposed change (right) Figures 5 -8 : Approved south elevation (top left) and proposed south elevation (top right); approved west elevation (bottom left) and proposed west elevation (bottom right). 15 Page 5 of 6 300/312 East Hyman Substantial HP Amendment – 7/31/2024 Table 2: Comparison of 2016 and 2024 CC Zone District to Project 2016 CC Zone District 2024 CC Zone District Approved project per NOA 11/2020 Issued permit 0092.2017.ACBK Proposed dimensions Lot size 9,047 sf Height 38 - 40 ft. 28 ft. 40 ft. 40 ft. No change Total project floor area 2.75:1 24,750 sf 2.25:1 20,250 sf 2.66:1 21,931 sf 2.33:1 21,113 sf 2.38:1 21,538 sf Lodge floor area 2.5:1 22,500 sf 1.5:1 13,500 sf 1.90:1 17,121 sf 1.77:1 15,936 sf 1.91:1 17,275 sf Commercial floor area 2:1 18,000 sf 2.25:1 20,250 sf 0.53:1 4,810 sf 0.57:1 5,177 sf 0.47:1 4,263 sf Commercial net leasable n/a n/a 3,137 sf 2,859 sf 2,437 sf Lodge net livable n/a n/a 8,981 sf 9,403 sf 9,492 sf Number of lodge rooms n/a n/a 20 20 No change Average lodge room size Less than 500 sf Less than 500 sf 449 sf 470 sf 475 sf West Wall and Mural Numerous project monitoring items have been reviewed over the years as demolition uncovered non-historic elements of the building beyond what was initially expected. Nationally recognized building conservators have been brought to Aspen to review the remnants of the west wall and produce technical reports. These reports, attached as Exhibit K, conclude that the foundation underneath the west wall is not structurally sound, the composition of the west wall indicates that it is not original 19th century construction, and the repainted Owl Cigar mural has lead paint. Removal of the west wall and the lead paint is required at the very least to proceed with the project. The west wall cannot feasibly be lifted in place and relocated back to its current location based on the structural stability of the wall, and furthermore, the technical reports demonstrate that there is a mix of repaired historic and new brick and mortar throughout the wall supporting the hypothesis that the wall has been rebuilt over time. The exterior wythe of brick is slightly more intact than the interior wythe but still has modern infills and repairs. Five technical reports are included for a comprehensive analysis of existing materials. The Owl Cigar mural has cultural significance to the community, and is among a limited number of 19th century murals found downtown. The mural is proposed to be deconstructed and rebuilt using any reusable brick, and repainted to match using existing and historic photographs. The mural is shifted to the center of the west façade. 16 Page 6 of 6 300/312 East Hyman Substantial HP Amendment – 7/31/2024 We look forward to hearing your thoughts on the revised design. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Sara Adams, AICP BendonAdams LLC sara@bendonadams.com 970.925.2855 Exhibits: A Review Criteria B. Land Use Application C. Pre-application summary – [COA to add to application when ready] D. Authorization to represent E. Proof of ownership F. Agreement to Pay G. HOA form H. Vicinity Map I. Mailing list J. Past approvals J.1 Ordinance 19-2015 J.2 Subdivision Plat Bk 115, Page 58 J.3 Development Order issued April 20, 2017 J. 4 HPC Resolution 9-2016 J.5 HPC Resolution 4-2017 J.6 HPC Resolution 7-2017 J.7 NOA dated November 10, 2020 J.8 Preservation plan K. West wall technical reports L. Architectural details - Material cut sheets M. Drawing set with renderings and context images 17 Exhibit A Review Criteria Exhibit 1 Page 1 of 8 Commercial Design and HP Design Reviews 26.415.060.B.2 The City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, as amended, which are on file with the Community Development Department, will be used in the review of requests of certificates of no negative effect or certificates of appropriateness. Conformance with the applicable guidelines and the common development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304 will be necessary for the approval of any proposed work: Please find an analysis of the Commercial Core Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines. Commercial Design Standard Review uses the same design guidelines for the Commercial Core Historic District and the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. As described below, the project conforms with the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines/ Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines. 26.412.040. Commercial Design Procedures for Review. E. Consolidation of applications and combining of reviews. If a development project includes additional City land use approvals, the Community Development Director may consolidate or modify the review process accordingly, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.B of this title. If a proposed development, upon determination of the Community Development Director in consultation with the applicant, is of limited scope, the Director may authorize the application to be subject to a one-step process that combines both conceptual and final design reviews… 26.412.060 Review Criteria. An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: A. Guidelines and Standards 1. The Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines are met as determined by the appropriate Commission. The Standards and Guidelines include design review criteria that are to be used to determine whether the application is appropriate. 2. All applicable standards in the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines shall be met unless granted a variation pursuant to Section 26.412.040.D. 3. Not every guideline will apply to each project, and some balancing of the guidelines must occur on a case-by-case basis. The applicable Commission must: a. determine that a sufficient number of the relevant guidelines are adequately met in order to approve a project proposal. b. weight the applicable guidelines with the practicality of the measure. 18 Exhibit A Review Criteria Exhibit 1 Page 2 of 8 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines – General Chapter 1.1 All projects shall provide a context study. • The study should include the relationship to adjacent structures and streets through photographs, streetscape elevations, historic maps, etc. Response – Streetscape elevations are included in the drawing set. 1.2 - 1.6 Not applicable. 1.7 Develop alley facades to create visual interest. • Use varied building setback and/or changes in material to reduce perceived scale. Response – The alley façade is revised to better relate to the historic district through simplified windows openings and brick as the primary building material. Brick detailing is proposed to add visual interest and proportion to the façade. 1.8 – 1.9 Not applicable. 1.10 – 1.21 Not applicable – refer to HP specific design guidelines below. 1.22 Complete and accurate identification of materials is required. • Provide drawings that identify the palette of materials, specifications for the materials, and location on the proposed building as part of the application. • Physical material samples shall be presented to the review body. An onsite mock-up prior to installation may be required. 1.23 Building materials shall have these features: • Convey the quality and range of materials found in the current block context or seen historically in the Character Area. • Convey pedestrian scale. • Enhance visual interest through texture, application, and/or dimension. • Be non-reflective. Shiny or glossy materials are not appropriate as a primary material. • Have proven durability and weathering characteristics within Aspen’s climate. • A material with an integral color shall be a neutral color. Some variation is allowed for secondary materials. 1.24 Introducing a new material, material application, or material finish to the existing streetscape may be approved by HPC or P&Z if the following criteria are met: • Innovative building design. • Creative material application that positively contributes to the streetscape. • Environmentally sustainable building practice. • Proven durability. Response – Brick is the primary material proposed for the entire building with metal details. The material palette and material application relate to traditional materials found throughout the historic district. All proposed materials have proven durability in our environment. 19 Exhibit A Review Criteria Exhibit 1 Page 3 of 8 1.25 Not applicable. 1.26 The design of light fixtures should be appropriate to the form, materials, scale and style of the building. Response – New light fixtures will be proposed through the insubstantial amendment process. 1.27 - 1.29 Not applicable. 1.30 Mechanical equipment, ducts, and vents shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or co-located on the roof. 1.31 Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Response – Mechanical equipment is co-located on the roof or inside the building similar to the approved project. Screening is proposed to shield the equipment from view. 1.32 - 1.37 Not applicable. Commercial Core Historic District 2.1 Maintain the alignment of facades at the property line. Response - No change to building footprint. 2.2 Consider a 45-degree chamfer for corner lots where appropriate. Response – No change to building footprint. 2.3 Development should be inspired by traditional late 19th-century commercial buildings to reinforce continuity in architectural language within the Historic District. Consider the following design elements: form, materials, and fenestration. Pick two areas to relate strongly to the context. Response – The proposed façade references traditional commercial buildings in Aspen’s historic district through the flat roof form of the building and brick as a primary building material. Windows and architectural details relate to the surrounding historic district, and iconic Wheeler Opera House, but using a contemporary application of a traditional feature. The proposed building anchors the corner, and demarcates the boundary of the Commercial Core Historic District, while not overshadowing the iconic Wheeler Opera House at the opposite end of the block. 2.4 Respect adjacent iconic historic structures. Response – The proposed building references the windows and façade configuration of the Wheeler Opera House, but in a contemporary application. Vertical columns, half round windows, and a cornice all reference the Wheeler as an iconic historic structure. 2.5 The massing and proportions of a new building or addition should respond to the historic context. 20 Exhibit A Review Criteria Exhibit 1 Page 4 of 8 Response – The new building appropriately responds to the historic context of the historic district, and the surround historic landmarks through traditional materials, form, and contemporary application of traditional architectural elements – for example, a brick cornice is proposed. 2.6 One story buildings on lots larger than 6,000 sf are discouraged. Response - No change to building mass. 2.7 Buildings on lots larger than 6,000 sf should incorporate architectural features that break up the mass. Response – Building mass is broken into three modules on each façade as expressed through brick details, window placement and window shape. 2.8 Composition of the façade, including choices related to symmetry and asymmetry, should reflect the close readings of patterns established by the 19th century structures. Response – The window groupings reference the typical 30’ modules reflective of the traditional townsite grid. Both symmetry and asymmetry can be found on both street facing facades, similar to larger 19th century commercial, civic, and lodge buildings. 2.9 Recessed entries are required. Response – The new design proposes a single recessed entry on Hyman Avenue as opposed to two recessed entries. A metal and glass awning is proposed to define the entry. 2.10 Secondary recessed entrance are required for buildings on lots larger than 6,000 sf, and on the secondary street for corner lots. Response – Not applicable – no change to entries on Monarch Street. A secondary entry was not approved and is not proposed at this time. 2.11 Maintain a floor to ceiling height of 12 to 15 feet for the first floor and 9 feet for the second floor. Response – Not applicable – no change to ceiling heights. 2.12 Maintain an architectural distinction between the street level and upper floors. 21 Exhibit A Review Criteria Exhibit 1 Page 5 of 8 Response – Metal detailing is proposed between the first and second floor to distinguish between floor levels. Window sizes are smaller on upper floors to reflect the intended lodge use. Larger windows on the first floor reference traditional storefront windows found throughout the historic district. 2.13 – Street level commercial storefronts should be predominately transparent glass. Response – Larger windows on the first floor reference traditional storefront windows found throughout the historic district. The proposed windows with vertical mullions are a product of their own time, and brick is proposed at the base of the ground floor windows to reference, but not imitate, the traditional kick plate common to historic landmarks in the district. 2.14 Architectural details should reinforce historic context and meet at least two of the following qualities. • Color or finish traditionally found downtown. • Texture to create visual interest, especially for larger buildings. • Traditional material: brick, stone, metal and wood. • Traditional application: for example, a running bond for masonry. Response – Traditional materials and application are proposed for this building – primary materials are brick with metal windows and architectural accents. Metal accents are proposed as shown on Sheet A31. Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Chapter 1 – Site Planning and Landscape Design: Not applicable as there are no changes to site plan or landscape. Chapter 2 – Building Materials 2.1 Preserve original building materials. • Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place. • Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices, pediments, steps and foundations, should be preserved. • Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired in place. Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity. 22 Exhibit A Review Criteria Exhibit 1 Page 6 of 8 • Original AspenModern materials may be replaced in kind if it has been determined that the weathering detracts from the original design intent or philosophy. Response – A portion of the west masonry wall contains some historic brick. The foundation is failing and needs to be replaced, and the masonry needs to be repaired. Technical reports are attached that analyze the level of deterioration on this wall and the decision to request approval to rebuild the wall after constructing a new foundation. The Owl Cigar mural has been repainted over time. The mural is proposed to be deconstructed and rebuilt using any reusable brick, and repainted to match using existing and historic photographs. The mural is shifted to the center of the west façade. 2.2 The finish of materials should be as it would have existed historically. • Masonry naturally has a water-protective layer to protect it from the elements. Brick or stone that was not historically painted shall not be painted. • If masonry that was not painted historically was given a coat of paint at some more recent time, consider removing it, using appropriate methods. • Wood should be painted, stained or natural, as appropriate to the style and history of the building. Response – The brick of the west wall mural will match existing in color and composition. The mural is proposed to be repainted if requested by HPC. 2.3 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary surfaces. • If the original material is wood clapboard for example, then the replacement material must be wood as well. It should match the original in size, and the amount of exposed lap and finish. • Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only those should be replaced, not the entire wall. For AspenModern buildings, sometimes the replacement of a larger area is required to preserve the integrity of the design intent. Response – The west wall brick where the mural is proposed will match existing historic brick. 2.4 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for original building materials. • Original building materials such as wood siding and brick should not be replaced with synthetic materials. Response – Synthetic materials are not proposed. 2.5 Covering original building materials with new materials is inappropriate. • Regardless of their character, new materials obscure the original, historically significant material. • Any material that covers historic materials may also trap moisture between the two layers. This will cause accelerated deterioration to the historic material which may go unnoticed. Response – Original building materials are not covered. 23 Exhibit A Review Criteria Exhibit 1 Page 7 of 8 2.6 Remove layers that cover the original material. • Once the non-historic siding is removed, repair the original, underlying material. Response – Original material is not covered. Chapter 3 – Windows Not applicable Chapter 4 – Doors Not applicable Chapter 5 – Porches and Balconies Not applicable Chapter 6 – Architectural Details Not applicable Chapter 7 – Roofs Not applicable Chapter 8 – Secondary Structures Not applicable Chapter 9 – Excavation, Relocation, Foundations Not applicable Chapter 10 – Building Additions Not applicable Chapter 11 – New Buildings on Landmarked Properties Not applicable Chapter 12 – Accessibility, Architectural Lighting, Mechanical Equipment, Service Areas, & Signage 12.3 Exterior light fixtures should be simple in character. • The design of a new fixture should be appropriate in form, finish, and scale with the structure. • New fixtures should not reflect a different period of history than that of the affected building, or be associated with a different architectural style. • Lighting should be placed in a manner that is consistent with the period of the building, and should not provide a level of illumination that is out of character. • One light adjacent to each entry is appropriate on an Aspen Victorian residential structure. A recessed fixture, surface mounted light, pendant or sconce will be considered if suited to the building type or style. • On commercial structures and AspenModern properties, recessed lights and concealed lights are often most appropriate. Response – A lighting plan and fixtures are requested to be approved by staff and monitor as part of the building permit review. 12.5 Awnings must be functional. • An awning must project at least 3 feet, and not more than 5 feet from the building façade. • An awning may only be installed at a door or window and must fit within the limits of the door or window opening. • Awnings are inappropriate on AspenModern properties unless historic evidence shows otherwise. 24 Exhibit A Review Criteria Exhibit 1 Page 8 of 8 Response – The proposed awning dimensions are 5’ x 25’7” and are installed at the entry to the building. The awning extends to include the door and the window on either side of the entry. A detail is provided on Sheet A31. 12.6 Signs should not obscure or damage historic building fabric. • Where possible, install a free standing sign that is appropriate in height and width. Consolidate signage for multiple businesses. • Mount signs so that the attachment point can be easily repaired when the sign is replaced. Do not mount signage directly into historic masonry. • Blade signs or hanging signs are generally preferred to wall mounted signs because the number of attachment points may be less. • Signs should be constructed of wood or metal. • Pictographic signs are encouraged because they add visual interest to the street. Response – A sign permit will be submitted with compliant signage for staff and monitor review. 12.7 Sign lighting must be subtle and concealed. • Pin mounted letters with halo lighting will not be approved on Aspen Victorian buildings. • The size of a fixture used to light a sign must be minimized. The light must be directed towards the sign. If possible, integrate the lights into the sign bracket. Response - A sign permit will be submitted with compliant signage for staff and monitor review. 12.8 Locate signs to be subordinate to the building design. • Signs should be located on the first floor of buildings, primarily. • Signs should not obscure historic building details. Response - A sign permit will be submitted with compliant signage for staff and monitor review. 25 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 Required Land Use Review(s): Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) required fields: Net Leasable square footage Lodge Pillows Free Market dwelling units Affordable Housing dwelling units Essential Public Facility square footage Have you included the following? FEES DUE: $ Pre-Application Conference Summary Signed Fee Agreement HOA Compliance form All items listed in checklist on PreApplication Conference Summary Name: Address: Phone#: email: Address: Phone #: email: Name: Project Name and Address: Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) 312 East Hyman Avenue 2737-073-38-009 312 East Hyman Avenue, LLC M Dev, 625 East Main St. Unit 102B, #401, Aspen CO 81611 312-479-2050 mhunt@mdevco.com 300 S. Spring St., #202, Aspen CO 81611 970-925-2855 x2 sara@bendonadams.com A substantial amendment is requested for a 3 story lodge and commercial building currently under construction .Please reference the cover letter for complete history of project approvals and the requested changes. HPC 0 0 0402,437 sf BendonAdams Exhibit B 26 PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PRE-23-124 DATE: November 7, 2023 PLANNER: Amy Simon, Planning Director, amy.simon@aspen.gov REPRESENTATIVE: Sara Adams, BendonAdams, sara@bendonadams.com PROJECT LOCATION: 300 E. Hyman Avenue PARCEL ID: 2737-073-38-009 REQUEST: Substantial Amendment to a Major Development Approval, Relocation DESCRIPTION: In 2017, 300 E. Hyman Avenue was approved for Final Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) Major Development, per HPC Resolution #4, Series of 2017, with the intent to preserve remaining elements of the 19th century structure on the west side of this landmarked site, tie those authentic elements into a representative reconstruction of the Victorian era commercial building, and abut that construction with contemporary architecture on the east and north sides of the property. The end use of the project is a hotel. During the construction process, some limited areas of the south face of the building, which had been thought to retain historic integrity, were re-evaluated and determined to have been heavily altered. These areas were approved by staff and HPC project monitors to be replicated with new construction. This resulted in the retention of the west wall as the sole remaining historic fabric. A similar question about the integrity of the west wall was later raised by the property owner. In response, the City’s Historic Preservation Officer conducted an assessment of the wall in 2021 (attached) and determined that it is a composition of 19th century and 1970s masonry and mortars. The 300 E. Hyman property owner has privately commissioned a study, which staff has not reviewed, that apparently reaches similar conclusions. This report, or other guidance from professionals, has created concern for property owner with the logistical challenges of preserving the wall intact and tying it into the new structure. The representations made during HPC project review regarding preserving a portion of the west wall and its associated murals were key to the HPC approval, and to the encroachment license that was granted by Engineering along Aspen Street and Hyman Avenue, which impacted the community for many months. Staff’s understanding of this pre-application request is to provide a process to approach HPC to preserve less of the west wall, focusing on the area with murals. Staff has indicated to the owner that a request for full removal or dismantling and reconstructing of the wall would arguably be deemed Demolition. This could result in a de-listing of the property as historic landmark and a new Major Development review. Full demolition does not appear to be the owner’s intended path. It has been suggested that the preserved wall area will be “sandwiched” in place then lifted, temporarily relocated for foundation repair, and then re-installed. The question has arisen whether the existing encroachment onto public right-of-way should be corrected in the process. Staff does not have sufficient information to guide a response, at this time. The application can address the benefits of this action, however, bear in mind that moving the location of the wall is arguably another factor that diminishes integrity. Clarification as to the treatment of the existing sandstone foundation wall will be needed. 27 Amendments to HPC approved projects are either deemed Insubstantial (an Administrative Review) or Substantial (an HPC Review) per Municipal Use Code Section 26.415.070.E. A Substantial Amendment application to HPC is defined as one which materially modifies the location, size, shape, materials, design, detailing or appearance of the building elements as originally depicted. In the pre- application conference, the possibility of requesting changes to architectural features or materials on the areas of new construction was raised. This can be included in the Substantial Amendment application, however bear in mind that code language related to Common Development Procedures sets some boundaries to amendments to projects vested in older land use code and changes to the “inherent nature, use, massing, character, dimensions, or design of the project” could be determined to be so significant as to require full re-review of the project. This Substantial Amendment review will be conducted according to the land use code in place at the time the original application for redevelopment was made in November 2015, though staff has not identified any subsequent changes to the relevant code language. Approval would generate a new Development Order but would not establish a new expiration date of the Development Order. The HPC review is one-step, meaning that all details of the proposal will be presented in one application which will be discussed at a public hearing. Staff has determined that Neighborhood Outreach is required, as described at Land Use Code Section 26.304.035. Enhance Public Information is to be provided by the applicant and must include action to inform interested members of the general public about the project, one of the stated purposes of Neighborhood Outreach. After receipt of the application, staff will evaluate the requests and make a recommendation to HPC, and HPC will make a decision to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposal, all of which will be based on the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and Land Use Code Sections applicable to this project. Relocation review is subject to Notice of Call Up at City Council. If HPC approval is granted for Relocation, Council has the authority to remand the decision back to HPC for further consideration. Like all HPC decisions, a change to the current approval is also appealable by any person with a right to appeal as defined at Land Use Code Section 26.314. Recently, the City has contacted the applicant with concerns about progress on constructing the development. Per a letter dated October 27, 2023 from Bonnie Muhigirwa, Chief Building Official, to Mark Hunt, the identified ownership representative, new applications for revisions to land use approvals will be treated separately from the activity required to maintain 0092.2017.ACBK in good standing. While the requests addressed in this pre-application summary may be pursued, review of amendments to land use approvals and historic preservation requirements will not permit suspension of construction activity. A clear explanation of the owner’s perceived challenges of carrying out the project representations must be provided for the Substantial Amendment review. The cost of carrying out the scope is not the concern of the City, but an explanation of technical feasibility is important, and any reports or professional opinions to be taken into consideration in HPC’s findings must be provided in the application. 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. 28 Relevant Land Use Code Section(s): 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.304.035 Neighborhood Outreach 26.415.070.E Amendments, Insubstantial and Substantial 26.415.090 Relocation 26.415.120 Appeals, Notice to City Council and Call-Up For your convenience – links to the Land Use Application and Land Use Code are below: Application Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Municipal Code Review by: Staff for completeness and recommendation, HPC for Substantial Amendment and Relocation, Council for Notice of Call Up if Relocation is granted Public Hearing: Yes Neighborhood Outreach: Yes Referrals: Engineering 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 Engineering (Additional hours will be billed at a rate of $325 per hour.) The Building Department will also be asked to provide an informational referral comment, with no fee. 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 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 29 A revised site plan Revised scaled elevations Representations of building materials and finishes Photographs and other exhibits to illustrate the proposed changes 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 Relevant assessments of the subject wall A written explanation of the type of relocation requested (temporary, on-site or off-site) A written report from a licensed engineer or architect regarding the soundness of the building, structure or object, its ability to withstand the basement excavation, and any rehabilitation needs related to the work Evidence of the financial ability to undertake the excavation safely, preservation and repair of the building, structure or object; site preparation and construction of necessary infrastructure through the posting of bonds or other financial measures deemed appropriate 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. 30 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM July 17, 2024 Ben Anderson Community Development Director City of Aspen 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 300 – 312 East Hyman Avenue Mr. Anderson: Please accept this letter authorizing BendonAdams LLC to represent our ownership interests 300- 312 East Hyman Avenue and act on our behalf on matters reasonably associated in securing land use approvals for a substantial amendment to the previous HPC approval and relocation of the west wall/owl cigar mural. If there are any questions about the foregoing or if I can assist, please do not hesitate to contact me. Property – 300 - 312 E. Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 Legal Description – Crystal Palace Subdivision, formerly Lots K, L, M, Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen. Parcel ID – 2737-073-38-009 Owner – 312 East Hyman Avenue, LLC Kind Regards, 312 East Hyman Avenue, LLC 625 East Main Street, Unit 102B #401 Aspen, CO 81611 Exhibit D 31 58988492.1 730 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 July 14, 2024 City of Aspen Community Development Department 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 312 East Hyman Avenue, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; 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 312 East Hyman Avenue, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, is the owner of certain improved real property located at 300 and 312 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611, and legally described as follows (the "Subject Property"): Crystal Palace Subdivision, according to the Plat thereof recorded September 7, 2016 in Plat Book 115 at Page 58, and as Reception No. 631971, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. 312 East Hyman Avenue, LLC’s ownership of the Subject Property is subject to the following matters of record: 1. Exceptions and mineral reservations as contained in Patent to Aspen Townsite recorded March 1, 1897 in Book 139 at Page 216 as Reception No. 60156. 2. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Notice of Historic Designation by City of Aspen recorded January 13, 1975 in Book 295 at Page 515 as Reception No. 172512. 3. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in City of Aspen, Historic Designation recorded in Book 307 at Page 909. 4. Easement reserved by Modern Method Corporation as grantor in the Deed to Virginia M. Metcalf recorded May 12, 1960 in Book 190 at Page 487 as Reception No. 109667. Exhibit E 32 2 58988492.1 5. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Multipurpose Easement Agreement Electric and Communication Utilities between William R. Shaw Estate and Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company and Micro Cable Communications Inc. recorded June 15, 1976 in Book 313 at Page 277 as Reception No. 184652. 6. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Resolution of The Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Approving an application for Minor Development Located at 312 E. Hyman Avenue recorded June 3, 1999 as Reception No. 431812. 7. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Agreement for Easement and Access recorded July 25, 2001 as Reception No. 456846 8. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in the Crystal Palace Subdivision Plat recorded September 7, 2016 in Plat Book 115 at Page 58, and as Reception No. 631971. 9. City of Aspen Notice of Approval dated November 10, 2020 and recorded November 16, 202 as Reception No. 670571. 10. Deed of Trust, Assignment of Leases and Rents, Security Agreement and Fixture Filing dated as of May 19, 2022 between Deutsche Bank AG, New York Branch and 312 East Hyman Avenue, LLC, and recorded May 25, 2022 as Reception No. 687787, as amended by Amendment to Deed of Trust, Assignment of Leases and Rents, Security Agreement and Fixture Filing dated May 17, 2024 and recorded May 17, 2024 as Reception No 702486. 11. Assignment of Leases and Rents dated as of May 19, 2022 between Deutsche Bank AG, New York Branch and 312 East Hyman Avenue, LLC, and recorded May 25, 2022 as Reception No. 687788. 12. UCC-1 Financing Statement of Deutsche Bank AG, New York Branch recorded May 25, 2022 as Reception No. 687789. Sincerely, Curtis B. Sanders 33 City of Aspen Community Development Department Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet City of Aspen | 130 S. Galena Street. | (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March, 2020 City Use: Fees Due: $ Received $ Agreement to Pay Application Fees An agreement between the City of Aspen (“City”) and Property Phone No.: Owner (“I”): Email: Address of Billing Property: Address: (Subject of (send bills here) application) I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No., Series of 2011, 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: Property Owner: Phillip Supino, AICP Community Development Director Name: Title: 312 East Hyman Avenue, LLC lmanning@mdevco.com 300-312 East Hyman AvenueAspen, CO 81611 M Dev625 East Main Street, Unit 102B #401Aspen, CO 81611 325 1 Mark Hunt Manager, 312 East Hyman Avenue, LLC 724.422.1303 Exhibit F 34 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: Owner printed name: or, Attorney signature: date: Attorney printed name: date: 7/17/2024 312 East Hyman Avenue, LLC lmanning@mdevco.com 724.422.1303 300-312 East Hyman AvenueAspen, CO 81611 Exhibit G Mark Hunt 35 0 0.01 0.030.01 mi F Legend City of Aspen Historic Sites Historic Districts Parcels Roads Zoomed Out Roads Zoomed In Source: City of Aspen GIS Vicinity Map Exhibit H 36 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: 273707338009 on 07/17/2024 Instructions: Disclaimer: http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com Exhibit I 37 1000 EAST HOPKINS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 1650 W BUTTERMILK RD 201 EH INVESTMENTS LLC LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 10877 WILSHIRE BLVD #2300 210 COOPER 1D LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 400 E HYMAN AVE #A202 210 COOPER 2A LLC DENVER, CO 80237 8181 E TUFTS AVE #600 210 COOPER CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 210 E COOPER AVE 210 COOPER LLC DENVER, CO 80237 8181 E TUFTS AVE #600 210 E COOPER LLC GREENWICH, CT 06831 PO BOX 4184 215 MONARCH LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 4539 301 E HOPKINS AVE BORROWER LLC OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73134 14301 CALIBER DR #300 305-7 MILL STREET LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 625 E MAIN ST UNIT 102B #401 308 EAST HOPKINS CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 308 E HOPKINS AVE 314 EAST HYMAN UNIT 101 LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 625 E MAIN ST #102 B401 315 E HYMAN AVE HOLDINGS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 625 E MAIN ST UNIT 102B #401 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE HOLDINGS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 625 E MAIN ST #102 B401 360 HEXAGON LLC OVERLAND PARK , KS 66210 9401 INDIAN CREEK PKWY STE 800 400 BUILDING LLC BOCA RATON, FL 33432-3933 306 N PLAZA REAL 400 EAST HYMAN LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 400 E HYMAN AVE # A202 400 HYMAN LLC ASPEN, CO 816112118 1010 E HYMAN AVE 400 HYMAN LLC RIFLE, CO 816500351 PO BOX 351 401 HYMAN AVENUE LLC SCOTTSDALE, AZ 852558712 25189 N 108TH WY 407 HYMAN LLC GLENWOOD SPRINGS , CO 81601 51027 HWY 6 & 24 #100 AJAX JMG INVESTMENTS LLC LOS ANGELES, CA 90020-4820 418 S MCCADDEN PL ASPEN MILL 228 LLC CENTENNIAL, CO 80112 9615 E COUNTY LINE RD #B-396 ASPEN STREET LODGE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 730 E DURANT AVE #200 BATES NATHANIEL B TRUST ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 9909 BEST ASSPEN CABIN LLC LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 88 EMERALD BAY BOGIN ROBERT M ORANGE , CA 928685623 1110 W TOWN AND COUNTRY RD #462 BRINING ROBERT ASPEN, CO 81611 215 S MONARCH ST #203 BRINING ROBERT D ASPEN, CO 81611 215 S MONARCH #203 BUSH ALAN DAVID ASPEN, CO 81611-3342 0046 HEATHER LN 38 CARRIGAN RICHARD A JR OSWEGO, IL 60543 5453 ROUTE 71 CHALET SHANELLE LLC DALLAS, TX 75205 3415 LINDENWOOD AVE CHRISTY 2017 LP DALLAS, TX 75201 325 N ST PAUL ST #4300 CITY OF ASPEN ASPEN, CO 81611 427 RIO GRANDE PL CLARK LOIS P REV TRUST SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 PO BOX 5815 CLARKS ASPEN LLC BASALT, CO 81621 501 SOPRIS CRK RD COHEN FRANK R DENVER, CO 802092374 1001 E BAYAUD AVE #605 COLLINS BLOCK CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 204 S MILL ST COLLINS BLOCK LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 205 S GALENA ST DAVIDSON ARIAIL SCOTT ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 5141 DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED ASPEN, CO 81611 215 S MONARCH #104 DCBD2 LLC DALLAS, TX 75201 2100 ROSS AVE #550 DESOTO LINDA JANE LIVING TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 155 LONE PINE RD #9 DOLE MARGARET M ASPEN, CO 816111989 400 E HYMAN AVE #302 ELK MOUNTAIN HOSPITALITY LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 328 E HYMAN AVE ELLIOTT ELYSE A TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 610 NORTH ST FOOTLOOSE MOCCASIN MAKERS INC CANON CITY , CO 812129484 44 SILVERADO CT G & K LAND CO LLC CARBONDALE, CO 81623 0167 WILLOW LN GOODING NANCY A ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111 4800 S HOLLY ST GORDON BRIAN S BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 645 W BROWN ST GRAND SLAM HOLDINGS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 215 S MONARCH ST #101 GUTNER TODDI L GST DESC TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 235 PUPPY SMITH ST #4804 HART GEORGE DAVID & SARAH COTOPAXI, CO 812238897 245 BRANDING IRON HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP INC PHOENIX, AZ 85016 2710 E CAMELBACK RD #200 HOFFMAN JOHN L & SHARON R TRUST KANSAS CITY, MO 64108 411 E 63RD ST HUNT4ASPEN LLC EVERGREEN, CO 80439 28526 EVERGREEN MANOR DR JOHNSON PETER C & SANDRA K ASPEN, CO 81611-1008 51 OVERLOOK DR JPS NEVADA LLC GEORGETOWN, TX 78626 109 W 7TH ST #200 KANTZER TAYLOR FAM TRST #1 MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266 216 SEVENTEENTH ST KATIE REED PLAZA CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 301 E HOPKINS AVE 39 KELLY GARY ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 12356 KIEFFER LAWREN SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94122 1435 48TH AVE LARRABEE DONALD C JR COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80909 1417 POTTER DR STE 105 LEAR STEFANIA ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 3394 LEATHERMAN ROBERT D ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 11930 LEE FRANCIS A III MOORESVILLE, NC 28117 706 NORMANDY LIMELIGHT ASPEN LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 117 ASPEN BUSINESS CENTER LIMELIGHT SUB/PUD ASPEN, CO 81611 E HYMAN AVE LORING PETER & ELIZABETH S BOSTON, MA 02110 230 CONGRESS ST MAJESTIC VALLEY LLC LONGWOOD, FL 32791 PO BOX 915589 MCDONALD FIONA ASPEN , CO 81611 210 E HYMAN AVE #4 MH ASPEN LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 215 S MONARCH #202 MH ASPEN LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 411 LACET LN MILL STREET PLAZA ASSOC LLC ASPEN , CO 81611 602 E COOPER #202 MOJO ASPEN LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 215 S MONARCH #G102 MOTHER LODE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 314 E HYMAN AVE MOTHER LODE CONDO ASSOC INC DALLAS, TX 75225 5956 SHERRY LN STE 1500 MOUNTAIN GETAWAY PROPERTIES LLC MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139-1343 9 ISLAND AVE # 2103 NEWMAN KERRY J & RICKI R NEWBURGH, IN 47630 617 PRINCE DR ORR ROBERT L GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 2700 G ROAD #12A P & C COOPER STREET LLC EVERGREEN, CO 80439 32723 UPPER BEAR CREEK RD PARK CENTRAL 201/202 LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 625 E HYMAN AVE #201 PARK CENTRAL CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 215 S MONARCH ST STE 203 PARK CENTRAL POWDER DAY LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 113 ASPEN GROVE RD PARK CENTRAL WEST CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 210 E HYMAN AVE PCU-5 LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 2563 PITNER N KATHRYN ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 11930 PLACE BRADLEY E JR REV TRUST LITTLETON, CO 80121 5701 S COLORADO BLVD PLACE PENNY L REV TRUST LITTLETON, CO 80121 5701 S COLORADO BLVD PLUMERIA PARTNERS LLLP ASPEN, CO 81611 925 CHATFIELD RD 40 POLETTO STEPHEN SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94122 1435 48TH AVE PROSPECTOR FRACTIONAL OWNERS ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 301 E HYMAN AVE ROCKIES ACQUISITION CO I LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 730 E DURANT AVE #200 ROCKIES ACQUISITION CO II LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 760 E DURANT AVE #200 SCULL JAMES E ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 2051 SEDOY MICHAEL ASPEN, CO 81611 308 E HOPKINS AVE #301 SEGUIN BUILDING CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 304 E HYMAN AVE SHADOW MOUNTAIN BAY LLC FORT WORTH, TX 76116 4041 SHADOW DR SHENNAN MELISSA A REV TRUST CHICAGO, IL 60610 1242 N LAKE SHORE DR #4S SHVACHKO NATALIA ASPEN, CO 81611 308 E HOPKINS AVE #301 SMITH NATHANIEL THOMAS MOORESVILLE, NC 28117 706 NORMANDY TOM THUMB BUILDING CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 400 E HYMAN AVE TORRE ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 2230 TRUE JAMES R ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 2864 WELLS FARGO BANK CARLSBAD, CA 92018 PO BOX 2609 WENDELIN ASSOC PITTSFORD , NY 14534 1173 PITTSFORD VICTOR RD #250 WHEELER SQUARE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 315 E HYMAN AVE #305 WHITMAN FINE PROPERTIES ASPEN, CO 81611 210 E HYMAN AVE #101 WHITMAN WENDALIN ASPEN, CO 81611 210 E HYMAN AVE #101 WHITMAN WENDALIN ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 472 YOUNG BARBARA A ASPEN, CO 81611 210 E HYMAN #9 YOUNGS RICHARD B & JACQUELINE L TRUST BROOKLYN, MI 49230 3940 MARSH RD 41 Exhibit J.1 42 43 44 45 Exhibit J.2 46 Exhibit J.3 47 48 Exhibit J.4 49 50 51 Exhibit J.5 52 53 54 Exhibit J.6 55 56 57 Exhibit J.7 58 59 60 61 62 300 East Hyman PreservaƟ on Plan The building located at 300 East Hyman Avenue, aka the Crystal Palace, has been heavily altered over Ɵ me. The applicant is commiƩ ed to restoring the building based on historic photographs. A preliminary preservaƟ on plan is proposed to outline the methodology and documentaƟ on available and to idenƟ fy areas that need further study in the fi eld aŌ er removal and demoliƟ on of non-historic elements. Methodology: Historic photographs, visual site inspecƟ on and onsite discussion with the Aspen Historic PreservaƟ on Offi cer were used to produce this plan. History: This structure is a typical brick commercial building constructed as the town’s prosperity grew. Brick provided greater fi re protecƟ on than wood, and indicated a sense of “permanence.” The oldest part of the building (the western part) was built by S.B. Clark in 1891. Named the Clark Commission Company, it was uƟ lized as a wholesale produce house. In the early 1900s, E. M. Cooper bought the business and changed the name to Aspen Com- mission Company. The building was later vacant for a period of years, unƟ l bought by Mead Metcalf, who operated a dinner theater, “The Crystal Palace,” there from 1959 unƟ l 2008. The building has had numerous alteraƟ ons, including addiƟ ons to the east and rear which obscure the original character. All windows have been replaced and new storefronts have been constructed across the enƟ re south facade. www.aspenvictorian.com Summary: The building is proposed to be accurately restored using available historic photographs. QuesƟ ons about the original confi guraƟ on of the storefront are unanswered. Comparing historic photographs to the current condiƟ on raise uncertainty about the original height of the Owl Cigar mural and the original height of upper fl oor window openings. Onsite mock-ups of brick details, as noted, are proposed for review by Staff and monitor during the construcƟ on process. Other items for Staff and monitor include verifi caƟ on of historic elements during demoliƟ on. Exhibit J.8 63 South ElevaƟ on/ Front Façade Brick: The upper fl oor of the front façade has been enƟ rely reconstructed. In addiƟ on at ground level, the eastern most column of the historic building has been reconstruct- ed. The eastern most column was originally 3 and a half bricks wide. It was extended to probably accomodate the shed roof form. The corner column and the center col- umn match original dimensions in the photographs, and appear to have original brick; however, past repoinƟ ng used a grey mortar color typical of repairs over the past de- cades that did not match original mortar color common to Aspen in the 19th century. Proposal: Remove the second fl oor (including the brick corbel) and the unoriginal col- umn during demoliƟ on. Preserve and protect the corner and middle column on the south elevaƟ on. Reconstruct brick column to match historic photograph dimension of three and a half bricks wide. Determine in the fi eld the authenƟ city of the brick di- rectly above the storefront aŌ er the non-historic wood cornice above the storefront is removed. Reconstruct upper fl oor with bricks to match fi rst fl oor west elevaƟ on, sub- ject to Staff and monitor approval prior to installaƟ on. Color, dimension, mortar style and color to match typical historic commercial buildings in Aspen, subject to Staff and monitor approval prior to installaƟ on. A mock up onsite is recommended to confi rm appropriate technique and applicaƟ on. Brick corbel: The brick corbel detail above the storefront was added to the front façade and is carried around to the west façade. Proposal: Remove the brick corbel and replace with a fl at conƟ nuous wall plane to match historic photographs. B&W photograph at top: Close up view of building pre- 1930s. Color photographs (leŌ to right): Current condiƟ on of columns; current detail of brick corbel, current building. Next page: Collage of photographs used to verify dimensions, dated 1971 and 1966. 1900s current currentcurrent 64 19711971 1966 1966 65 Cornice: A decoraƟ ve cornice caps the enƟ re building. The end brackets and corner pendant of the upper cornice matches the original photographs. As the build- ing was expanded, the cornice was replicated to extend the length of the building on the west and south elevaƟ ons. The authenƟ city of the denƟ l molding needs fi eld verifi caƟ on. The storefront also has a decoraƟ ve cornice that completes the storefront. The end bracket of the cornice atop the storefront matches historic photographs; how- ever, the profi le of the cornice molding appears to have been replaced or parƟ ally replaced when the cornice was extended to accomodate the addiƟ on to the building. Comparing the 1950s and 1966 photographs to the 1971 photographs shows that a fl at back was added to the end bracket. The 1950s photograph shows only one end bracket. It is assumed that the other bracket was lost, possibly when the roof collapsed. Proposal: Work with Staff and Monitor to replicate the original cornice for the top of the building and the original cornice above the storefront (which appears to be fairly simple molding) using historic photographs and informaƟ on gathered during demoliƟ on. Examine the decoraƟ ve corner brackets of the cornice above the storefront to determine authenƟ city as they may have been part of the original cornice that was salvaged and reused during a previous remodel. Work with Staff and Monitor to determine an appropriate molding for the cornice atop the storefront. Retain all material determined to be original. 1971 current LeŌ to Right: 1971 photograph with altered storefront cornice - note the backing behind the end bracket. The upper cornice is most likely original; Current photograph of upper cornice. Next page (clockwise): 1950s photograph showing one end bracket for storefront cornice and more depth to cornice molding above storefront; 1966 photograph aŌ er Crystal Palace improvements are made; Current photograph of end bracket and upper cornice; 1971 photograph of storefront cornice. 66 1971 1950s 1966 current 67 Upper fl oor windows: During the 1960/70s remodel, an addiƟ onal window was added to the upper fl oor for a total of 5 windows instead of the original 4 windows. The height of the window openings was reduced at some point - verifi ed by counƟ ng bricks in the historic pre-remodel photographs. The upper fl oor double hung windows were replaced with casement style. The delicate brick detailing above the windows was replaced with a faux-Romanesque brick design. The window sills, originally pink sandstone, were replaced with what appears to be cast stone or machine cut sandstone. Proposal: Restore 4 double hung windows, centered across the front façade and above storefront openings, to match historic photographs. All upper fl oor windows proposed to be wood and rectangular with wood fi lling in the curved opening to match historic condiƟ on. The 1971 photographs show the window openings to be about 31 bricks tall (current condiƟ on is about 23 bricks to the boƩ om of the exaggerated arch). Height of the windows in relaƟ onship to the storefront is unclear based on the angles and resoluƟ on of historic photographs. We propose to work with Staff and Monitor to conƟ nue to research and refi ne window height and relaƟ onship to storefront. Replace cast stone window sills with sandstone window sills - color to match typical sandstone of the era, subject to Staff and monitor approval. Replicate the delicate brick detailing around the upper fl oor windows to match historic photographs. An on-site mock-up is proposed to verify brick detailing with Staff and Monitor. Storefront: The storefront has evolved over Ɵ me as tenants changed hands. The original confi guraƟ on and height is hard to idenƟ fy in historic photographs; however close-up views of high resoluƟ on aerial photographs seem to show the two openings between brick columns are divided into two entrances/windows. On the other hand, the 1893 aerial shows a centered entrance with windows on either side and no verƟ cal division of the bay. When the Midnight Mine occupied the building from the mid-1930s to 1951, the far right bay was a garage to house and service trucks and store equipment. The current height of the storefront may be shorter than the original condiƟ on (the blurry historic photographs make it hard to count bricks and verify height). Field verifi caƟ on aŌ er removal of the cornice atop the storefront will hopefully provide some answers. The intent is to restore the storefront to the original height and proporƟ on. Proposal: A wooden storefront is proposed. The entrance is proposed to the far leŌ similar to the current condiƟ on. The right bay is proposed to be a large storefront window. Considering the uncertainty around the original appearane of the storefront, the proposed storefront is similar to the current confi guraƟ on. LeŌ : 1893 Bird-eye view detail of building. Next page (clockwise): Right bay is converted to a garage door as part of the Midnight Mine operaƟ on; current storefront; garage bay is removed; store- front confi guraƟ on prior to sliding barn door. 1893 68 1950s current 1900s 1962 69 West ElevaƟ on/Monarch Facade Brick: Similar to the front elevaƟ on, the upper fl oor brick has been enƟ rely reconstructed, and the building has been extended to the rear, as evidenced by the change in foun- daƟ on material from sandstone to concrete. Proposal: Remove the second fl oor (including the brick corbel) during demoliƟ on. Preserve and protect the historic porƟ on of the ground fl oor including the Owl Cigar Mural during construcƟ on. Reconstruct upper fl oor with bricks to match fi rst fl oor west elevaƟ on including the American/common brick bond course evident on the ground level of the west elevaƟ on, subject to Staff and monitor approval prior to installaƟ on. Color, dimension, mortar style and color to match typical historic commercial buildings in Aspen, subject to Staff and monitor approval prior to installaƟ on. A mock up onsite is recommended to confi rm appropriate technique and applicaƟ on. Owl Cigar Mural: The historic mural harkens back to the original tenant of the building – the Clark Commission Company – a wholesale produce house. The historic mural was repainted in 1977 by RP Evans according to the signature at the base of the mural. The height of the Owl mural may have been changed as evidenced by its relaƟ onship to the storefront height in historic photographs vs. current condiƟ on. Around 66 verƟ cal bricks are counted on the historic photograph and about 61 verƟ cal bricks are counted onsite today. The unoriginal brick corbel may have resulted in a shortened historic mural. As noted above, the storefront height may have been changed as well. Proposal: Protect the mural during construcƟ on. No change proposed. Cornice: see discussion above. Remove brick corbel from west elevaƟ on. LeŌ : Current relaƟ on- sip of mural to store- front cornice. Right: 1966 relaƟ on- ship of mural to store- front cornice. 1966current 70 Photographs clockwise: 1971 photograph showing mural hiƫ ng the upper fl oor window sills; current photograph showing gap between win- dow sills and mural; 1962 photograph showing mural hiƫ ng the upper fl oor window sills. current 1971 1962 71 Upper fl oor windows: During the 1960/70s remodel, the grouping and number of upper fl oor windows was signifi cantly altered from the original 6 equally spaced double hung windows. The height of the upper fl oor windows, verifi ed by counƟ ng bricks, was also reduced. The 1971 photographs show the window openings to be about 31 bricks tall (current condiƟ on is about 23 bricks to the boƩ om of the exaggerated arch). The upper fl oor double hung windows were replaced with casement style. The delicate brick detailing above the windows was replaced with a faux-Romanesque brick design. The window sills, originally pink sandstone, were replaced with what appears to be cast stone or machine cut sandstone. Proposal: Restore 6 double hung windows. All upper fl oor windows proposed to be wood and rectangular with wood fi lling in the curved opening to match historic condiƟ on. Window openings to match historic dimensions. Spacing of the windows is slightly diff erent than historic photographs to accommodate the proposed use of the building. A slightly diff erent spacing is a subtle way to show that this elevaƟ on was reconstructed and is not original. Replicate original window height based on historic photographs. Re- place cast stone window sills with rough cut sandstone window sills - color to match typical sandstone of the era, subject to Staff and monitor approval. Replicate the delicate brick detailing around the upper fl oor windows to match historic photographs. Ground level openings: SomeƟ me aŌ er 1962, ground level doors and window openings were bricked in. Luckily there are clear ghost shadows indicaƟ ng the locaƟ on and dimension of these openings. Proposal: Restore openings with wood windows or doors to match historic photographs and exisƟ ng shadow lines. Work with Staff and Monitor to detail these elements prior to construcƟ on and installaƟ on. The openings are not proposed to be operable. Steps and coal shoot: The remnants of a possible coal shoot and three concrete steps exist toward the rear (alley) of the west elevaƟ on, and sit within the right of way. The steps do not align with the ghost images of bricked in entrances and were probably shiŌ ed over Ɵ me. Proposal: Store concrete steps off -site during construcƟ on and replace in front of restored entrances at rear of west wall pending approval from Engineering via an encroachment license. The “coal shoot” is not proposed to be replaced. Photographs (leŌ to right): Current photograph to show ghost image of original door locaƟ on; current photograph to show concrete steps and “coal shoot”. Next page (clockwise): 1971 photograph detail of original window openings, sandstone sill, and delicate brick detail; current photograph of cast stone window sill; current photograph of upper fl oor windows; 1893 drawings of west elevaƟ on showing openings; 1966 photograph of west elevaƟ on showing openings. currentcurrent 72 1971 1966 1893 current current 73 INTEGRATED CONSERVATION RESOURCES, INC. 44-02 11th Street, Suite 604 Long Island City, NY 11101 10005 t 212.947.4499 f 212.947.7766 icr-icc.com M Development 312 East Hyman LLC Jimmy, I wanted to get back to you about my visit to the South Wall of the Crystal Palace and put in writing some of my thoughts and observations. As you know, I carried out a site visit on September 1st, 2022. The purpose of this visit was to carry out a cursory survey of the interior and exterior conditions of the south wall. In addition, I reviewed changes and modifications which could be observed in the current wall construction. ICR reviewed historic photographs and text that defined some of the modifications made. The chronological development of the building over time is convoluted and these changes have greatly altered the south façade since its date of construction. Today the brickwork that remains is a confusing set of variations that have little connection to any one point in the building’s history. The one artifact that remains intact is not original, it is a replication and series of over paintings of the original Owl Cigar Mural which was implemented in 1977 and is less than 50 years old. The following are several bullet points that describe why what little remains in place today of the south wall is very limited, confusing, and does not represent any specific period in the history of construction of the building: •The current south elevation brick wall is now only one story in height, all previous openings have been modified and/or filled in. Some ghosts of old openings can be observed but have been filled in with non-original brick. •These repairs and modifications have been carried out with the use of new brick in some locations and old replscement brick in others, making it difficult to discern what is original and what is not. •Numerous different mortars from different periods of time are present with a variation of colors, hardness, texture, and density. Some of the mortar appears too dense and hard for the surrounding older softer brick and therefore incompatible. •A good amount of sandstone foundation units remains. •The original Owl Cigar painted sign (mural) is a replication and series over paintings of the original Owl Cigar Mural which was implemented in 1977 and is less than 50 years old. In a report issued on August 21st, 2021 by Historic Preservation Representatives, Natalie Feinberg Lopez and Sarah Yoon they say: “The brick masonry wall above the historic rubble foundation seems to have been reconstructed at various points in time, using both historic materials and new materials. Some brick is historic, possibly from the original period of construction, with lime mortars to meet the period of the brick. However, there is no particular section of the wall that can be designated to match the period of the rubble foundation. It appears that there is a patchwork of repairs, with reused materials, combined with infill and new materials”. From the perspective of trying to be historically accurate and not confuse the public, it would seem that the little amount of material left of the south wall should be removed. To keep the memory of Exhibit K 74 the Crystal Palace building alive today, and for future generations, it would seem that preserving the current Owl Cigar Mural and designing and installing an adjacent plaque that informs the interested visitor what they are looking at and brief history of the building would be most effective. We would be happy to provide a number of design concepts on this theme if it might be of interest to the City of Aspen. Carefully extracting the mural in a non-destructive manner is something ICR has experience with. The general process is to make sure the brickwork that makes up the mural is stable. Surface penetrating radar can be used to determine if there are any subsurface voids or cracks. Repointing and injection grouting may be required with compatible materials. Once this is complete, the rear section of the mural is backed with an appropriate structural material to link the exposed rear brick surface together. This backing is brought past the mural boarders. A metal frame is then placed on both the interior and exterior elevations outside the mural boarder. Protective padding is placed on the brick and wood is used to displace pressure as the interior and exterior frames are bolted together though the brickwork. Once the system is in place the wall around the mural can be carefully disassembled and cut with diamond encrusted tools so that it can be lifted out of place. Once out, a custom designed frame and backing would be installed and the mural set into its new location. The above work requires study to design a system of compatible materials to carry out the stabilization, relocation and resetting. In addition, a specialized structural engineer would be required to calculate loads and to ensure that the frame and support systems can carry the weight and avoid unnecessary point loading. We look forward to working with you to preserve the memory of the Crystal Palace and responsibly serve the people of Aspen. Sincerely Yours Glenn Boornazian President and Principal Conservator 75 SP Engineers Consulting Structural Engineers 134 N. LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60602 P: 312.332.2800 F: 312.332.2820 June 20, 2023 Robert Avila Modif Architecture Aspen, CO RE: 300 Hyman, Aspen – Existing non-bearing wall along east face Mr. Avila, This is regarding condition of existing east wall at 300 Hyman, Aspen. Figure 1 thru 4 shows existing condition of the solid masonry wall at the site. As it can be seen in figures the overall structural condition of the wall is poor with cracked brick, deteriorated and loose mortar, masonry voids and structural steel embedded in the existing wall. Numerous mortars that vary in hardness, texture and density are present with some of the mortar appears too dense and hard for surrounding older softer brick masonry for any possibility of repair. It is our opinion that the existing wall is structurally unstable and should be removed and rebuilt with existing brick. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to us. Sincerely, Jeff Pribyl, PE SP Engineers, Ltd. 76 SP Engineers Consulting Structural Engineers www.spengineersltd.com 134 N LaSalle Street, Suite 1930, Chicago, Illinois 60602 P: 312.322.2800 F: 312.332.2820 Figure 1 Exterior View 77 SP Engineers Consulting Structural Engineers www.spengineersltd.com 134 N LaSalle Street, Suite 1930, Chicago, Illinois 60602 P: 312.322.2800 F: 312.332.2820 Figure 2 Interior View 78 SP Engineers Consulting Structural Engineers www.spengineersltd.com 134 N LaSalle Street, Suite 1930, Chicago, Illinois 60602 P: 312.322.2800 F: 312.332.2820 Figure 3 Interior View of Deteriorated Wall 79 SP Engineers Consulting Structural Engineers www.spengineersltd.com 134 N LaSalle Street, Suite 1930, Chicago, Illinois 60602 P: 312.322.2800 F: 312.332.2820 Figure 4 Interior View of Deteriorated Wall 80 FIELD REPORT ADDRESS: 300 Hyman Street, Aspen, CO 81611 DATE AND TIME: 08/24/2021 11am HISTORIC PRESERVATION REP: Natalie Feinberg Lopez, Sarah Yoon OWNER/ARCHITECT: Mark Hunt PRESENT ON SITE : Luciana Tescari (Centaur), Michael Buglione (Centaur), Sarah Yoon (HPC), Natalie Feinberg Lopez (HPC) WEATHER CONDITIONS: Sunny, clear sky, light breeze, 74F NOTES: Sarah Yoon (Historic Preservation Planner, City of Aspen) and Natalie Feinberg Lopez (Historic Preservation Officer, City of Aspen) were on site at 300 Hyman Street on August 24, 2021 to conduct portable XRF testing to determine the age of the exterior wall on the West elevation. Test results and report can be found below. FINDINGS: Findings from the portable XRF testing shows masonry and mortars from various time periods throughout the wall with no specific match found. 1. The Basalt Peachblown sandstone rubble foundation is appropriate to the earliest construction periods in Aspen, both in the type of construction and in the materials, with the historic lime mortar. While the mortar is intact, the test result show that the mortar has deteriorated, and requires repair before the next phase of construction. Repairs will require a lime mortar to match the historic mortar. A mortar test (see Recommendation 1b) is needed to find the correct match to the foundation mortar. Note that current engineering drawings show new mortar is required to be 3000psi compression strength, however the stone would need to be stronger than 3000psi for this to work. 3000psi mortar will damage the stone in the foundation wall. Lime mortar can get to high psi ratings, but it must be less than the masonry unit compression strength. 2. The brick masonry wall above the historic rubble foundation seems to have been reconstructed at various points in time, using both historic materials and new materials. Some brick is historic, possibly from the original period of construction, with lime mortars to meet the period of the brick. However, there is no particular section of the wall that can be designated to match the period of the rubble foundation. It appears that there is a patchwork of repairs, with reused materials, combined with infill and new materials. While the mural has been repainted, the current mural is over fifty years in age, and is expected to be preserved for the community. The exterior wythe of brick is required to be retained along with the rubble foundation, as 81 currently constructed. Interior wythe construction is expected to meet the structural engineering requirements for modern construction methodologies, while retaining the exterior wythe as a veneer. Historic brick retention is encouraged for the interior wythe. 3. The rubble foundation may have an interior concrete pour applied once the historic lime mortar has been upgraded. Lime mortars require the ability to express moisture vapors. One side of the historic foundation will need to be free of all moisture barriers, including Portland cement. Shotcrete is not an acceptable treatment, as the application is not the preferred treatment for historic foundations and typically does damage to historic sandstone and lime mortars. Other foundation options are required. RECOMMENDATIONS: The following recommendations are requested for construction and repair methods to be approved for the existing West wall at 300 Hyman Street. 1. Historic Rubble Foundation a. Test the historic lime mortar of the rubble sandstone foundation of the West elevation for correct match to the mortar currently in situ. b. Use the Middendorf method for testing or ASTM C114 – Standard Test Methods for Chemical Analysis of Hydraulic Cements. c. Restore historic foundation using matching lime mortar. d. https://www.uvm.edu/~tvisser/HP306/HistoricMortarTestsNCPTT.pdf 2. New Foundation a. An interior pour of a Portland cement foundation wall may be applied to the structural engineering team’s specification, while allowing the exterior of the wall access to vapor permeability. b. Portland cement is considered a vapor barrier and may only be applied to one side of the historic rubble foundation. All moisture must be diverted away from the historic rubble foundation, as it will deteriorate the historic mortar and masonry units. c. Shotcrete is not an acceptable method of application for the foundation. 3. Existing Brick Masonry a. The exterior wythe of the brick masonry wall on the West elevation must be maintained as currently constructed, with protection of the painted mural. b. While the interior wythe may be altered to meet the structural engineering team’s requirements, it is strongly encouraged to retain the historic brick or use it elsewhere in the project. c. The exterior wythe may be used as a veneer for the interior wythe construction. 82 SITE PHOTOS: Photo 1: Interior of the West wall, North end. Rubble foundation is seen at the base of the wall, with various stages of construction using historic bricks and mortars. Arrow to dot show XRF testing location for the historic lime mortar. SYoon. 08/24/21 83 Photo 2: Interior of the West wall, North half. Various periods of construction can be seen, using both historic bricks and mortars, as well as new brick infill and Portland cement-based mortars. XRF sample locations for interior historic and new brick and mortar are shown with the arrows an dots. SYoon. 08/24/21 84 Photo 3: Exterior of the West wall, approximately at the midpoint between North and South. Photo has brick has both historic and new brick. The arrow shows the XRF testing location for the exterior historic brick and mortar. SYoon. 08/24/21 85 Photo 4: Exterior of the West wall, north of the midpoint. Photo has brick has both historic and new brick. The arrow shows the testing location for the exterior new brick and mortar. SYoon. 08/24/21 86 PORTABLE XRF RESULTS: Crystal Palace Testing – Masonry and Mortar of the West Wall The site visit to the Crystal Palace was specifically to review the West elevation in order to conduct a cursory testing protocol with the portable XRF, designed to identify the historic portions of the wall that were part of the original construction. Findings were mixed, with no matches between old brick, new brick, and all the mortars tested. The closest to a match was between Sample #4 and Sample #10, both historic lime mortars, #4 from the rubble foundation, and #10 from the exterior wythe of the West wall. Findings indicate that the current wall was repaired and possibly reconstructed using historic brick and new brick at the period of the dinner theater’s remodel, as well additional new brick that has been added during the current construction phase. The total effect is a patchwork of construction periods and materials. The exterior wythe of brick is more cohesive than the interior wythe, with more historic material intact. The findings from the XRF are below with brief descriptions explaining the spectra and data points found. Typical matches show similar ratios, specifically with secondary trace elements acting as the “fingerprints” that identify matches between materials. No matches were found with the cursory tests conducted. 87 1. West Elevation, Interior Brick - New (Patch) 0 10 20 30 40 - keV - 0 1 2 3 4 5 x 1E3 Pulses Element Net Element Net Element Net Al 130 Co 764 Au 22 Spectra above shows a high peak at Fe (Iron) and at Ca (Calcium) as expected for brick. Additional secondary elements are highlighted that commonly assist in identification of matched materials. Si 1004 Ni 118 S 113 Cu 266 Cl 1511 Zn 439 Ar 585 Se 68 K 1406 Br 71 Ca 10796 Sb 1568 Ti 1473 Te 537 Cr 55 W 99 Mn 464 Ir 196 Fe 50607 Pt 71 88 2. West Elevation, Interior Brick – Old Element Net Element Net Al 65 Cu 102 Spectra above shows a high peak at Fe (Iron) and at Ca (Calcium) as expected for brick. Secondary elements are highlighted that commonly assist in identification of matched materials. Note Si (Silica) is lower than in Sample #1 of the new brick, which is a common identification for wear and deterioration. While this may have been intrinsic to the brick at the time of manufacture, it is common that the silica depletes as part of the aging process. Si 872 Zn 312 S 110 Se 51 Cl 1321 Br 25 Ar 492 Sb 387 K 1503 Te 128 Ca 14780 W 34 Ti 1245 Ir 201 Cr 12 Pt 43 Mn 506 Au 11 Fe 62967 Tl 87 Co 612 Ni 72 0 10 20 30 40 - keV - 0 1 2 3 4 5 x 1E3 Pulses 89 3. West Elevation, Interior Mortar, Old Element Net Element Net Al 135 As 60 Spectra above shows a high peak at Fe (Iron) and at Ca (Calcium). Note that the two peaks are similar in height, with Ca surpassing Fe, which is appropriate for a lime mortar. Additional secondary elements are highlighted that commonly assist in identification of matched materials. Note the amount of Ti (Titanium) and Mn (Manganese) is not typical of lime mortars, but usually of brick. This would commonly be an indication of the addition of brick dust as a pozzolan that would suggest an additional test for confirmation. Si 789 Rb 74 S 180 Sr 29 Cl 1566 Sb 2960 Ar 631 Te 866 K 948 Ba 103 Ca 21213 W 60 Ti 572 W 32 V 68 Ir 96 Mn 336 Pt 113 Fe 24890 Au 75 Co 192 Ac 40 Ni 101 Pa 43 Cu 207 Zn 315 0 10 20 30 40 - keV - 0 1 2 3 4 5 x 1E3 Pulses 90 4. West Elevation, Interior Foundation, Mortar (Old) , in 0 10 20 30 40 - keV - 0 1 2 3 4 5 x 1E3 Pulses Element Net Element Net Al 100 Te 794 Spectra above shows a high peak at Fe (Iron) and at Ca (Calcium). Note both peaks are significantly lower than the mortar sample in #3, showing deterioration and wear of the foundation lime mortar. While the secondary elements are important to compare, they do not match sample #4, indicating different mortars from different construction periods. Si 570 Ba 121 S 93 W 51 Cl 1667 Ir 194 Ar 812 Pt 220 K 656 Hg 81 Ca 10028 Ti 427 V 42 Mn 157 Fe 19457 Co 333 Ni 140 Cu 346 Zn 359 As 119 Br 41 Sb 1186 91 5. West Elevation, Exterior Brick, New (Infill) Element Net Element Net Al 192 Sb 359 Spectra above shows a high peak at Fe (Iron) and at Ca (Calcium), however the Fe peak is extremely high for the materials tested, and very different when compared to the new brick on the interior, indicating two different types of brick from different periods of construction. Secondary elements of note include Ti (Titanium) which has a high ratio to Ca (Calcium) in comparison to the other samples. Si 1320 Te 232 S 76 W 91 Cl 1481 Ir 212 Ar 657 Pt 73 K 1717 Au 123 Ca 3892 Tl 57 Ti 1553 Pb 40 V 116 Bi 13 Cr 84 Ac 40 Mn 646 Th 68 Fe 59737 Co 613 Ni 84 Cu 321 Zn 281 Sn 184 0 10 20 30 40 - keV - 0 1 2 3 4 5 x 1E3 Pulses 92 6. West Elevation, Exterior Brick, Old Element Net Element Net Al 188 Sn 179 Spectra above shows a high peak at Fe (Iron) and at Ca (Calcium) with the Ca peak even lower than in sample #5. This is the first brick sample with the Ca (Calcium) and the Si (Silica) having nearly the same data points, which is more common in older low-fire brick. Secondary elements of note include Ti (Titanium) that is in a high quantity by comparison, that would typically be used to identify a local brick. Additional samples of historic Aspen low-fire brick can be compared to see if there is a local match. Si 1488 Te 91 S 92 Ba 323 Cl 1433 W 108 Ar 683 Ir 183 K 2174 Pt 71 Ca 1837 Hg 163 Ti 1875 Tl 55 V 127 Pb 63 Cr 88 Ac 85 Mn 390 Th 138 Fe 55073 Co 674 Ni 64 Cu 301 Zn 475 Se 151 Br 126 Rb 19 0 10 20 30 40 - keV - 0 1 2 3 4 5 x 1E3 Pulses 93 7. West Elevation, Exterior Mortar, Old Element Net Element Net Al 109 Te 983 Spectra above shows a high peak at Fe (Iron) and at Ca (Calcium) with a higher peak at Ca common to lime mortars. Si (Silica) is slightly low, indicating the joint mortar should be watched for deterioration. Si 590 W 107 S 89 Ir 81 Cl 1471 Pt 67 Ar 700 Au 66 K 520 Au 22 Ca 16528 Tl 125 Ti 472 Pb 82 V 113 Mn 445 Fe 18099 Co 266 Ni 137 Cu 208 Zn 303 As 54 Br 86 In 88 Sb 2258 0 10 20 30 40 - keV - 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 x 1E3 Pulses 94 8. West Elevation, Exterior Mortar, New Element Net Element Net Al 83 Au 15 Spectra above shows a high peak at Fe (Iron) and at Ca (Calcium) with a higher peak at Ca. This is the new mortar related to new (not from the period of construction of the original structure) used as infill for what appears to have been windows at one time. The Ca is high for a modern Portland cement but may indicate a lime-rich Portland mix, such as a lime mortar with a Portland additive. Secondary elements found in Portland are present but not consistent with typical Portland cement findings, further suggesting a lime mortar with a Portland additive. Additional testing would be required to establish matching ratios for a replication mix. Si 521 Hg 74 S 82 Tl 124 Cl 1480 Ac 47 Ar 698 Th 35 K 382 Pa 14 Ca 30083 U 54 Ti 249 V 57 Cr 35 Mn 341 Fe 12780 Co 342 Ni 329 Cu 240 Zn 346 As 49 Se 44 Ir 142 Pt 68 Au 157 0 10 20 30 40 - keV - 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 x 1E3 Pulses 95 9. West Elevation, Exterior Brick, Old Element Net Element Net Al 160 Sb 292 Spectra above shows a high peak at Fe (Iron) and at Ca (Calcium) as expected for brick, however the Ca is very low. While this is similar to Sample #6, secondary elements are different enough that there is no match. Si 1148 Te 79 S 121 Ba 202 Cl 1417 W 49 Ar 659 Ir 59 K 1504 Pt 25 Ca 3509 Au 102 Ti 1545 Hg 115 V 100 Tl 93 Mn 559 Pb 183 Fe 52938 Bi 71 Co 697 Bi 11 Ni 115 Ac 34 Cu 347 Th 36 Zn 596 U 66 As 76 Se 38 Rb 24 Sr 38 Sn 139 Sb 1 0 10 20 30 40 - keV - 0 1 2 3 4 5 x 1E3 Pulses 96 10. West Elevation, Exterior Mortar, Old Element Net Element Net Al 110 Au 123 Spectra above shows a high peak at Fe (Iron) and at Ca (Calcium), but the Ca peak is lower than the Fe peak, which is not typical for a lime mortar unless there are signs of deterioration. This mortar is the closest to a match we found at the site, coming very close to the historic mortar found at the foundation wall. Data points for Ti and Mn differ enough to indicate different sources of sands as well as different periods of construction. Si 607 Hg 89 S 123 Tl 53 Cl 1568 Bi 97 Ar 776 U 94 K 733 Ca 10588 Ti 1107 V 88 Mn 656 Fe 23822 Co 336 Ni 55 Cu 133 Zn 453 Sb 1620 Te 600 Ba 63 W 203 Ir 86 Pt 67 0 10 20 30 40 - keV - 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 x 1E3 Pulses 97 Elem # 1 # 2 #3 # 4 #5 #6 #7 #8 # 9 #10 Al 130 65 135 100 192 188 109 83 160 110 Si 1004 872 789 570 1320 1488 590 521 1148 607 S 113 110 180 93 76 92 89 82 121 123 Cl 1511 1321 1566 1667 1481 1433 1471 1480 1417 1568 Ar 585 492 631 812 657 683 700 698 659 776 K 1406 1503 948 656 1717 2174 520 382 1504 733 Ca 10796 14780 21213 10028 3892 1837 16528 30083 3509 10588 Ti 1473 1245 572 427 1553 1875 472 249 1545 1107 Cr 55 12 68 42 84 88 113 35 100 88 Mn 464 506 336 157 646 390 445 341 559 656 Fe 50607 62967 24890 19457 59737 55073 18099 12780 52938 23822 Co 764 612 192 333 613 674 266 342 697 336 Ni 118 72 101 140 84 64 137 329 115 55 Cu 266 207 346 321 301 208 240 347 133 Zn 439 315 359 281 475 303 346 596 453 98 Robert Avila Modif. Architecture 1229 N. North Branch Street, Suite 206 Chicago, IL 60642 RE: Brick masonry wall, 300 E. Hyman, Aspen, Colorado Dear Mr. Avila: I visited the project site at 300 E. Hyman in Aspen on May 23, 2023, to observe conditions at a brick masonry wall at the southwest corner of the building. The wall is partially painted with a mural for Owl Cigar as depicted in the photograph below. While on site I observed conditions at the interior and exterior. I also reviewed documents you provided including construction details, survey information, and a preservation plan for the wall. This letter contains my observations and recommendations. West elevation, 300 E. Hyman, Aspen, Colorado. 1. While on site I observed the wall to be out of plumb and leaning to the west. There are new cracks and movement at the base of the south wall consistent with the wall leaning to the west. There is 99 also evidence of recent movement at the interior side of the wall in the form of horizontal cracks and separation at adjacent columns. These observations suggest the wall continues to move and requires stabilization. 2. Material deterioration and distress was observed, mostly at the top of the wall, at the base, and at the foundation. Repairs are required to address deterioration and protect the wall from weather exposure. Occasional bricks within the field of the wall show deterioration and must be replaced. 3. As the wall exists now, original or historic brick, mortar, and stone all have infills and repair using modern materials including inappropriate hard cement-based mortar, concrete masonry units, corrugated metal anchors, concrete and steel structural elements, and modern hard-fired bricks. Significant repairs are required to remove inappropriately stiff non-historic materials and replace them with materials compatible with historic construction. This includes portions of the exterior visible face and a majority of the interior side of the wall. Taken as a whole the wall lacks historic integrity and its authenticity has been compromised by use of modern materials. 4. Information in the file "Aspen Guesthouse West Wall Reconstruction" shows the top of the wall to be leaning 2 7/8" to the west. The wall itself is 3 wythes or approximately 12 inches thick. Tension will develop in unreinforced masonry wall sections when the center of mass is outside the middle third of the wall section, leading to potential instability. In this case the center of mass (at mid- height) is 1.44 inch off the center line or approximately 1/8 the wall thickness. This means the wall is stable in its current condition if it supports only its own mass. 5. I do not recommend using the existing brickwork as a loadbearing wall in the future. Better approaches would be to carry structural loads to the foundation using new structural components, anchoring the historic wall to the new structure to stabilize the wall and prevent future movement. 6. It is certainly possible to dismantle the wall and rebuild in kind using the original brick materials. This type of work is common and can be carried out by a mason experienced with historic construction. Reworking the wall in this fashion would provide a wall consistent with original construction, rather than representing the existing mix of construction materials and construction typologies as historic. Sincerely, Michael Schuller, P.E. Technical Consultant Rocky Mountain Masonry Institute 100 “The trusted choice for your environmental & industrial hygiene needs.” Front Range 7555 W 10th Ave Suite A, Lakewood, CO 80214 Mountains PO Box 6864 Avon, CO 81620 Western Slope PO Box 3793 Aspen, CO 81612 Web dsconsultinginc.com Direct (303) 286-9094 Fax (303) 986-0121 LEAD-BASED PAINT INSPECTION REPORT 300 E Hyman Ave, Aspen, CO – Exterior Brick Wall PRESENTED TO: M Development Brad Hribar Director of Construction (312) 714-8519 INSPECTED BY: Sean Work DS Environmental Cell: (720) 878-1741 PROJECT DETAILS: DS Job Number: 26338 Date of Inspection: November 1, 2023 101 2 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Definitions 3.0 Scope of Work 4.0 Inspector & Firm Certifications 5.0 Data Interpretation 6.0 Overview of Findings 7.0 Equipment Information 8.0 Inspection & Testing Procedures 9.0 Conclusion & Recommendations 10.0 Disclaimer & Limitations 11.0 Copyright Notice APPENDIX A XRF Data Table APPENDIX B Inspector & Firm Certificates 102 3 1.0 Introduction Sean Work with DS Environmental Consulting (DS) performed a limited-scope, lead-based paint (LBP) inspection and performed in situ X-Ray Florescence (XRF) testing to determine the presence of LBP on select painted building components on the brick wall detailed on the cover page of this report. The purpose of the limited-scope inspection was to identify any LBP present on the building components , as defined by the client, that is planning to be demolished by the client. LBP testing was conducted on a painted sign on the exterior wall. LBP was found on the tested components. Table 1 and Table 2 in Section 6.0 further details the materials that contain LBP and those that do not. The full table (Table 3), including all XRF readings, can be found in Appendix A. 2.0 Definitions Room Equivalent is an identifiable part of a residence, such as a room, a house exterior, a foyer, staircase, hallway or an exterior area. Lead-based Paint (LBP) is any paint having concentrations of lead greater than 1.0 mg/cm2, which is also Colorado’s action level. Limited-scope means the extent of the inspection and XRF testing included in this report was limited to a subset of the entire residence, was not a lead hazard assessment, and was not a full-building inspection. No water, air, dust or soil samples were collected or analyzed to determine the respective lead concentrations. Paint is any liquid mixture, usually of solid pigment in a liquid form, used as a decorative or protective coating. This includes, but is not limited to, primer, lacquer, polyurethane, wood stain, etc. X-Ray Florescence (XRF) is a non-destructive analytical technique used to determine the elemental composition of materials. XRF analyzers determine the chemistry of a sample by measuring the fluorescent (or secondary) X- ray emitted from a sample when it is excited by a primary X-ray source. 3.0 Scope of Work The scope of the limited LBP inspection was limited to specific areas of the building defined by the client. The remaining areas within the building, garage or any out-building on the property were not included in the scope of the inspection. The limited LBP inspection did not constitute a full building inspection or hazard assessment. Additionally, there may be other components in other parts of the building that contain LBP, which were not included in the scope of this inspection and sampling. 4.0 Certifications Sean Work is a Colorado State Certified LBP Inspector; having EPA Accreditation #27686. DS Environmental Consulting is a Colorado State Certified Lead Evaluation Firm, license #16918. Mr. Work is certified to operate the Heuresis Pb200i XRF Lead Paint Spectrum Analyzer by the manufacturer (see Appendix B for certificates). 103 4 5.0 Data Interpretation When evaluating the information included in this report, Wall “A” in each room is the wall where the main front entrance door to the home is located (or aligned with the street). While facing Wall “A” and going clockwise, Wall “B” will always be to the right, Wall “C” directly to the rear and Wall “D” to the left. Ceilings and floors are designated with an asterisk. If a component, i.e. baseboard, window sill, or door jamb, contains LBP in any room equivalent, then all other components that are similar in color, substrate and painting history can be assumed to be positive as well with no additional testing, regardless of their location in the structure; however, this extrapolation cannot be made the same with negative components. If a component is negative for LBP, only the components in that room equivalent can be assumed negative, additional testing must be done to similar components in each room equivalent. All walls shall be tested in room equivalents with four or less walls and a minimum of four different walls in room equivalents with more than four walls for all walls to be determined negative; however, the scope of work for a limited-scope inspection may dictate that not all walls are to be impacted; therefore, not all walls will be tested. **Please note that due to the limited nature of this inspection, only the materials included in this report, in the locations identified, have been tested and no assumptions have been made to the lead -content of similar components in other areas. All inaccessible areas are assumed to be positive, even though they were not able to be tested. These areas may not be listed in this report. 6.0 Overview of Findings Table 1: Components that Contain LBP Table 2: Components that Do Not Contain LBP Read No. Room/Area Wall Structure Paint Cond Substrate Paint Color Lead (mg/cm2) Result 1 Exterior B Wall Slightly Damaged Concrete Olive 1.9 POS 2 Exterior B Wall Slightly Damaged Concrete White 20.2 POS 3 Exterior B Wall Slightly Damaged Concrete Black 17.7 POS 4 Exterior B Wall Slightly Damaged Concrete Brown 22.5 POS 5 Exterior B Wall Slightly Damaged Concrete Yellow 6.0 POS 6 Exterior B Wall Slightly Damaged Concrete Cream 16.2 POS No tested components did not contain LBP 104 5 Fig.1: all colors of paint on this wall tested positive for lead-based paint. Fig.2: paint chips and painted pieces of brick were observed in e debris at the base of the wall; therefore, this debris shou ld be treated as lead- containing. 105 6 7.0 Equipment Information LBP concentrations were obtained using a Heuresis Pb200i XRF Lead Paint Spectrum Analyzer, which are approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to determine the concentration of lead in paint. The XRF was calibrated according to the manufacturer’s Performance Characteristic Sheet (PCS). The XRF was calibrated using the calibration standard block of known 1.0 mg/cm2 lead content as well as a standard block of known 0.0 mg/cm2 lead content. Three (3) calibration reading of each block were taken before the inspection began as well as after the inspection was complete d, every four hours of continuous use, and/or following a battery change. 8.0 Inspection & Testing Procedures The LBP inspection and XRF testing were conducted by a State of Colorado accredited LBP Inspector qualified by experience, education, and training in approved LBP testing techniques. These procedures call for the visual inspection of the areas of concern and the collection of XRF readings for lead concentrations. This inspection was performed in accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines for lead -hazard inspections, as well as the State of Colorado Air Quality Control Commission Regulation No. 19 for the Control of Lead Hazards. The EPA’s 40 CFR Part 745 Final Rule (January 5, 2001) set standards for the identification of dangerous levels of lead. The standards identify when lead-based paint, lead-contaminated dust, and lead-contaminated soil are hazards. It also establishes residential dust clean-up levels (post-abatement clearance levels) and set dust and soil sampling requirements. The lead-based paint readings were collected by XRF analyzation for the purpose of determining lead concentrations as mg/cm2. 9.0 Conclusions & Recommendations Concentrations of lead in paint higher than the State of Colorado regulatory levels were identified; therefore, “lead safe” work practices are required when disturbing, removing or impacting the tested components. Additionally, painted brick debris was found at the base of the wall which will need to abated with the rest of the LBP material. Additional testing is required if new materials are discovered or the scope of work changes. 10.0 Disclaimer & Limitations This limited-scope inspection does not constitute a comprehensive lead-based paint inspection or full lead- hazard assessment. Other areas not tested and conditions existing outside this scope of work may contain lead concentrations above the regulatory action levels. Consequently, to determine whether or not lead-based paint exists within other areas of the building, a full lead-based paint inspection must occur. 11.0 Copyright Notice © DS Environmental 2023. All Rights Reserved. This document contains material protected under Federal Copyright Laws. No part of this document or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied, modified or adapted, without the prior written consent of the author and DS Environmen tal. 106 7 APPENDIX A: XRF READINGS 107 8 Read No. Room/Area Wall Structure Paint Cond Substrate Paint Color Lead (mg/cm2) Result Pre-inspection Calibration – Known LBP Calibration Block Average: 1.0 PASS Pre-inspection Calibration – Known LBP Calibration Block Pre-inspection Calibration – Known LBP Calibration Block Pre-inspection Calibration – Known Negative Calibration Block Average: 0.0 PASS Pre-inspection Calibration – Known Negative Calibration Block Pre-inspection Calibration – Known Negative Calibration Block 1 Exterior B Wall Slightly Damaged Concrete Olive 1.9 POS 2 Exterior B Wall Slightly Damaged Concrete White 20.2 POS 3 Exterior B Wall Slightly Damaged Concrete Black 17.7 POS 4 Exterior B Wall Slightly Damaged Concrete Brown 22.5 POS 5 Exterior B Wall Slightly Damaged Concrete Yellow 6.0 POS 6 Exterior B Wall Slightly Damaged Concrete Cream 16.2 POS Post-inspection Calibration – Known LBP Calibration Block Average: 1.0 PASS Post-inspection Calibration – Known LBP Calibration Block Post-inspection Calibration – Known LBP Calibration Block Post-inspection Calibration – Known Negative Calibration Block Average: 0.0 PASS Post-inspection Calibration – Known Negative Calibration Block Post-inspection Calibration – Known Negative Calibration Block 108 9 APPENDIX B: INSPECTOR & FIRM CERTIFICATES 109 10 Inspector Certification: 27686 Firm Certification: 16918 Heuresis Pb200i XRF Certification 110 1 Italian elegance for doors and windows OS2 Exhibit J.8 111 32 This catalogue wants to tell the OS2 window system. Winner of the “Compasso d’Oro”, OS2 is a Secco Sistemi product born from the experience gained by the company in the area of windows’ realization with reduced visual impact made of precious metals for architecture. A complex of possibilities that OS2 can offer to architectural design, synthesis of years of competence in restoration ad contemporary world. 6 values 8 design 16 materials 40 technology 44 variants 46 types of opening 50 windows 66 doors 80 lift and slide doors 90 pivot 100 folding 110 anti-burglary 122 accessories 124 handles 126 glazing beads 128 hinges 112 Ditton House designer: Surman Weston 113 6 OS2 values OS2 takes the name of the classification for the restoration of works of art, to remember its vocation for the past architecture, outcome of the long profitable relationship with designers. With its essential lines, the innovative types of opening and its original accessories, OS2 blends with the contemporary architecture as well. The window of OS2 stands out for the elegance and the artisanal attention to details but especially for the happy solution of the relationship between the transparency of the glass and the solid lightness of the frame made of quality material like brass, Corten, stainless steel and galvanized steel. 114 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 8 OS2 design The foundation of the system is its accurate draw, awarded with “Compasso d’Oro”, the design’s Oscar, with the following motivation of the jury. «The relationship between the opening and the transparent surface have always been one of the challenges of the fenestration industry. OS2 lays down a new standard by combining thermal cut and insulation, with extremely small dimensions and a interesting aesthetic flexibility thanks to the profiles in Corten, steel and burnished brass». OS2 provides 70 different profiles to realize the preferred design of the frame, allowing to release designer’s creativity and to “returning to draw the frame”. handles in the same material as the profile glazing beads of various shapes central section for the two sashes of only 62mm reduced hinges, same material as the profiles lateral section only 47 mm constant profiles on the whole perimeter 115 10 11 profile design examples The central section of the two-leaved door has a reduced section while the profiles framing it is pronounced. The glazing is measured by slender profiles with the two-leaved opening evident in the centre. The fixed glazing is divided into two parts by a horizontal profile of the same design as the perimetral border. The glazing is characterised by the seamless pattern and undifferentiated profiles, making the two-leaved doors much less conspicuous. 116 12 13 Double-sash windows with the same design for profiles which trace the external perimeter and the central section. In the glazing panel the profiles of fixed and openable sashes have the same design. In the double-sash windows the thin profiles tracing the perimeter of the casement have the same design as the central section in the front view. Perimetral profiles in the front view have the same dimensions and design as those which divide the glazing into 4 parts. profile design examples 117 casa di Confine designer: Subissati 118 16 OS2 materials The OS2 profiles are made in solid and tenacious materials with certified quality of oxidation and corrosion resistance. Materials for Secco are a source of design too, with them natural surfaces they affect the appearance of the frame and they can catch light or reflect it, they can have warm colors or austere ones and at the same time they have non-homogeneous surfaces for a continuous variant that emphasises the craftsmanship aspect of the product. All the used metals are 100% recyclable and they have high durability to concretize the sustainability of the product. 119 1918 iron-chrome alloy nickel and molybdenum, cold rolled with scotch brite finish OT67 copper and zinc alloy, cold rolled and roughened, with satin finish OT67 copper and zinc alloy, cold rolled and roughened, hand-burnished iron-chrome alloy nickel and molybdenum, cold rolled with hand burnished finish scotch brite 316L stainless steel satin-finished brass CuZn33 CW506L patinated brass CuZn33 CW506L blackened 316L stainless steel OS2 materials 120 20 Carbon iron alloy with high corrosion resistance (Cor) and tensile yield strength (ten), with oxidized finish Corten steel Fe 510 X OS2 materials Hot galvanized Iron alloy of carbon with Sendzimir system, skinpast finish. Requires liquid or powder coating galvanised steel FeP02 GZ 200 121 blackened stainless steel satin-finished brass 122 patinated brassblackened stainless steel 123 patinated brasssatin-finished brass 124 corten steelpatinated brass 125 satin-finished brass patinated brass 126 painted galvanised steel corten steel 127 corten steelpainted galvanised steel 128 corten steelgalvanised steel 129 corten steelpainted galvanised steel 130 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 7 6 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 40 41 OS2 technology The result of years of experience, the OS2 technology supports the design and at the same time it allows to have high performance even with minimal profiles and fixtures with large dimensions, large estate and a great insulator. The thermal break profiles of OS2 are made of two metal shells (cold profiled) joined together by extruded polyamide (9) made integral to the parts by polyurethane resin (8). Water, air and wind seals are guaranteed by open joint gaskets (5, 6, 7). The handling and closing hardware, made specifically for OS2, is placed in a window chamber (4) – the glazing beads (1) are fixed to the frame with concealed hook. glazing bead glazing slot up to 58 mm internal and external overlap hardware groove Internal rebate gasket external rebate gasket central flipper gasket structural thermal break - polyurethane structural thermal break - polyamide 131 Harella House - London designer: Piercy & Company 132 85 75 65 40 4544 OS2 85 System for the realization of windows (also flap door) and doors with glass between 58 mm and 46 mm thick. OS2 75 System for the realization of windows (also flap door), doors, lift-slide, swing, book with glasses between 50 mm and 38 mm thick. OS2 65 System for the realization of windows, doors, balance, with glasses between 39 mm and 26 mm thick. OS2 40 System for the realization of doors and fixed with glasses between 21 mm and 6.5 mm thick. The numbers of OS2 correspond to the thickness not in profile view. Highter is the number, wider is the possibility of the window to have a thicker glass, from which derives more insulation. The OS2 variants were designed to answer all the different needs of heat insulation and to allow the realization of new types of opening for this range of minimal profiles. OS2 variants 133 46 The types of opening created by Secco Sistemi are not dictated only by tradition, but also to participate to the harmony of the facade of the building, to make an environment more accessible and to solve projects in restoration or in contemporary architecture. OS2 offers the usual type of opening with profiles and new technologies with the goal of “returning to draw the frame”. 47 windows p. 50 doors p. 66 lift and slide doors p.80 pivot p. 90 folding p. 100 anti-burglary p. 110 OS2 types of opening 134 M3 - Mestre designer: ANK architects 135 5150 The window or properly “window frames”, is the essential element of a building and with OS2 it can become, with elegance, the main character. The OS2 window has new features for this typology of profiles: the central node is only 62 mm wide, lateral node 47 mm, the OS2 can have internal and external opening and the tilt and turn opening. maximum achievable performance air permeability 4 4 4 4 water tightness 9A 9A 8A x wind resistance C5 C5 C4 A2 thermal transmittance *1,1 1,1 1,4 x acoustic performance 45 dB 45 dB 43 dB x glass thickness 58 50 39 x tilt and turn (maximum capacity)150 150 x x VARIANTS GEOMETRY AVAILABLE 85 75 65 40 technical dr.p. 58 internal opening external openingtechnical dr.p. 60 technical dr.p. 62 X = unavailable * standard frame with Ug = 1,0 W/m2K windows OS2 136 53 OS2 75 burnished stainless steel external view OS2 75 burnished stainless steel internal view 137 55 OS2 65 corten steel external view OS2 65 corten steel internal view 138 57 OS2 40 painted pickled steel external view OS2 40 painted pickled steel internal view 139 432 1 5432 1 432 1 5432 1 47 27 62 47 92 92 78 92 1. 1. 1. 1. 85 92 92 78 47 47 27 2762 62 62 62 62 62 27276262 2.4. 2.4. 2. 2. 3. 3. 3. 5. 4. 4.5.3. 5958 inward- opening sections outward- opening sections windows OS2 85 140 432 1 5432 1 432 1 5432 1 1. 1. 1. 1. 2.4. 2.4. 2. 2. 3. 3. 3. 5. 4. 4.5.3. 47 84 84 476247 27 70 70 27 276262 84 62 62 62 47 77 62 84 84 27 276262 6160 inward- opening sections outward- opening sections windows OS2 75 141 432 1 5432 1 1. 1. 1. 1. 2.4. 2.4. 2. 2. 3. 3. 3. 5. 4. 4.5.3. 47 47 72 47 47 47 62 6247 62 65 65 72 58 62 72 432 1 5432 1 47 72 62 62 62 72 6227 2762 65 6362 inward- opening sections outward- opening sections windows OS2 65 142 Fondaco dei Tedeschi - Venezia designer: Rem Koolhaas 143 6766 OS2 doors are made, for design continuity, with profiles that have the same dimension of the windows, lateral node is only 47mm wide and the central node 62 mm. The hinges, a fundamental part of the functionality and the durability of the frame, have the same profile finishes. maximum achievable performance air permeability 4 4 4 4 water tightness 7A 7A 7A x wind resistance B3 B3 B3 A2 thermal transmittance*1,0 1,1 1,4 x acoustic performance x x x x glass thickness 58 50 39 x VARIANTS GEOMETRY AVAILABLE 85 75 65 40 technical dr.p. 70 internal opening external opening technical dr.p. 72 technical dr.p. 74 technical dr.p. 76 doors OS2 X = unavailable * standard frame with Ug = 1,0 W/m2K 144 podere Panico designer: Fulvio De Rosa 145 1. 2.4.5. 2.4. 2. 3. 3. 3.4.5. 5432 1 78 27 276262 1. 47 85 6262 62 92 42 92 62 62 62 6278 5432 1 432 1 1. 47 85 7170 inward- opening sections outward- opening sections doors OS2 85 146 1. 1. 1. 2.4.5. 2.4. 2. 3. 3. 3.4.5. 5432 1 42 84 70 62 62 62 62 6262 62 77 47 77 27 276262 70 5432 1 432 1 47 77 7372 inward- opening sections outward- opening sections doors OS2 75 147 1. 1. 1. 2.4.5. 2.4. 2. 3. 3. 3.4.5. 5432 1 47 6227 2762 58 65 6262 62 65 42 6258 62 62 62 72 5432 1 432 1 47 65 7574 inward- opening sections outward- opening sections doors OS2 65 148 1 3 42 47 4735.5 47 35.5 47 47 62 47 27 62 276242 27 35.5 27 24 245656 47 62 4735.5 47 47 4742 47 35.5 27 27 62 2762 35.5 27 56 56 5624 24 48 , 5 48 , 5 35 , 5 35 , 5 47 4735.5 47 35.5 47 47 62 47 27 62 276242 27 35.5 27 24 245656 47 62 4735.5 47 47 4742 47 35.5 27 27 62 2762 35.5 27 56 56 5624 24 48 , 5 48 , 5 35 , 5 35 , 5 1.2.3.4. 47 4735.54735.5 47 47 62 47 27 62 276242 27 35.5 27 24 245656 47 62 4735.5 47 47 474247 35.5 27 27 62 2762 35.5 27 56 56 5624 24 48,5 48,5 35 , 5 35 , 5 35 , 5 47 4735.54735.5 47 47 62 47 27 62 276242 27 35.5 27 24 245656 47 62 4735.5 47 47 474247 35.5 27 27 62 2762 35.5 27 56 56 5624 24 48,5 48,5 35 , 5 35 , 5 35 , 5 1.2.3.4.5.6. 1 3 4 5 62 47 4735.5 47 35.5 47 47 62 47 27 62 276242 27 35.5 27 24 245656 4762 4735.5 47 47 4742 47 35.5 27 2762 2762 35.5 27 5656 5624 24 48 , 5 48 , 5 35 , 5 35 , 5 35 , 5 47 4735.5 47 35.5 47 47 62 47 27 62 276242 27 35.5 27 24 245656 47 62 4735.5 47 47 4742 47 35.5 27 2762 2762 35.5 27 56 56 5624 24 48 , 5 48 , 5 35 , 5 35 , 5 1.2.3.4. 1 3 42 47 4735.5 47 35.5 47 47 62 47 27 62 276242 27 35.5 27 24 245656 4762 4735.5 47 47 4742 47 35.5 27 2762 2762 35.5 27 5656 5624 24 48 , 5 48 , 5 35 , 5 35 , 5 35 , 5 47 4735.5 47 35.5 47 47 62 47 27 62 276242 27 35.5 27 24 245656 47 62 4735.5 47 47 4742 47 35.5 27 2762 2762 35.5 27 56 56 5624 24 48 , 5 48 , 5 35 , 5 35 , 5 35 , 5 1.2.3.4.5. 1 3 4 52 7776 inward- opening sections outward- opening sections doors OS2 40 149 Serre Reali - Venezia designer: Alberto Torsello 150 8180 The OS2 lift and slide doors find the elegance in quality materials and in the accuracy of profile design, constant on all the door perimeter with dimentions of 47 mm or 62 mm, to match the windows profiles respectively to one or two doors. The movement of the door can take place with the traditional wheels or with the innovative magnetic levitation ØG “Zero Gravity”, awarded with the Oscar of design, the “Compasso d’Oro”. In-depth analysis(catalog - slide) maximum achievable performance air permeability x 4 x x water tightness x 9A x x wind resistance x B3 x x thermal transmittance*x 1,3 x x acoustic performance x x x x glass thickness x 46 x x carried with traditional system on wheel x 400 x x carried with with zero gravity system x 1000 x x VARIANTS GEOMETRY AVAILABLE 85 75 65 40 online opening angular openingx : unavailabletechnical dr.p. 84/86 lift and slide OS2 * standard frame with Ug = 0,7 W/m2K 151 83 OS2 75 AS burnished brass internal view OS2 75 AS burnished brass external view 152 47 47 47 47 195 47 195 OS2 AS sezioni apertura a 2 ante 1 3 4 5 2 47 47 47 47 195 47 195 OS2 AS sezioni apertura a 2 ante 1. 4. 5. 2. 3. 8584 lift and slide doors sections lift and slide OS2 75 153 3 4 5 2 5. 4. 3. 47 47 47 29 2. 1.47 47 16 5 , 5 195 195 1 8786 lift and slide door sections with magnetic levitation ØG lift and slide OS2 75 154 villa Alpago arch. DTACC villa Alpago designer: DTACC 155 9190 Elegant and spectacular, the OS2 pivot with its big dimensions and its minimal profiles redefine the relation between window and frame and also between lightweight and dimentions. The OS2 pivot is set up as a refined solution that takes from tradition its innovation, repurposing itself with valuable metals, high sealing and insulation performance and reduced visible sections: only 62 mm consistent in all the window perimeter. maximum achievable performance air permeability x 4 4 x water tightness x 9A 7A x wind resistance x C5 C5 x thermal transmittance*x 1,1 1,4 x acoustic performance x x x x glass thickness x 50 39 x maximum vertical pivot capacity x 350 100 x horizontal pivot maximum capacity x 250 100 x VARIANTS GEOMETRY AVAILABLE 85 75 65 40 vertical pivot window horizontal pivot window x : unavailable technical dr.p. 94 technical dr.p. 96 pivot OS2 In-depth analysis(catalog - pivot) * standard frame with Ug = 1,0 W/m2K 156 93157 62 62 3 4 2. 1. 62 62 84 3.4. 62 62 2. 1. 6262 84 3.4. 2 1 3 4 2 1 9594 horizontal pivot sections vertical pivot sections pivot OS2 75 158 2. 1 1 3 4 2. 1. 3.4. 3.4. 6262 72 62 62 2. 1.62 62 62 62 72 2 4 2 3 9796 horizontal pivot sections vertical pivot sections pivot OS2 65 159 casolare crete Senesi 160 3+0 5+0 2+1 2+13+1 3+1 4+1 4+13+2 3+2 5+2 5+2 3+3 3+3 3+0 5+0 101100 The folding opening allows to create versatile environments, which open completely to the outside. OS2 folding solves the aesthetic and functional shortcomings of traditional windows, by offering a system with high insulation and sealing performance with visible nodes always equal to each other and of only 62 mm wide, recessed upper and lower sliding rails and high-quality profile materials. maximum achievable performance air permeability x 4 x x water tightness x 5A x x wind resistance x B3 x x thermal transmittance*x 1,0 x x acoustic performance x x x x glass thickness x 40 x x VARIANTS GEOMETRY AVAILABLE85 75 65 40 internal opening external openingx : unavailable technical dr.p. 104/106 folding OS2 * standard frame with Ug = 0,7 W/m2K 161 103 OS2 75 LB corten steel internal view OS2 75 LB corten steel internal view 162 62 62 62 62 62 84 84 64 42 10 65 OS2 F sezioni apertura interna 1 3 4 5 6 7 2. 1. 6. 5. 4. 3. 7. 2 105104 folding doors sections with 4 inward opening folding OS2 75 163 1 3 4 5 6 7 84 84 62 62 62 62 62 64 42 10 65 OS2 F sezioni apertura esterna 2. 1. 6. 5. 4. 3. 7. 2 107106 folding doors sections with 4 outward opening folding OS2 75 164 uffici One Works designer: One Works 165 111110 It is in the nature of the metal, the raw material of Secco products, the ability to resist shocks and deformations, for this reason even the small sections of OS2 feel robust enough to allow the creation of windows with minimal profiles and high anti-burglary performance up to class RC3. The OS2 burglar-proof windows frames are made with valuable finish like stainless steel galvanized steel and the new finishes for RC, Ottone and Corten. maximum achievable performance anti-burglary class 2 sì sì sì x anti-burglary class 3 sì sì x x VARIANTS GEOMETRY AVAILABLE 85 75 65 40 inward opening windows inward opening doors outward opening windows outward opening doorsx : unavailable technical dr.p. 116 technical dr.p. 118technical dr.p. 114 anti-burglary OS2 In-depth analysis(catalog - anti-burglary) 166 112 167 47 27 62 47 85 85 92 78 47 47 27 2762 62 62 62 62 62 272792 92 62 62 78 92 OS2 85 sezioni FINESTRE 47 27 62 47 85 85 92 78 47 47 27 2762 62 62 62 62 62 272792 92 62 62 78 92 OS2 85 sezioni FINESTRE 47 27 62 47 85 85 92 78 47 47 27 2762 62 62 62 62 62 272792 92 62 62 78 92 OS2 85 sezioni FINESTRE 47 27 62 47 85 85 92 78 47 47 27 2762 62 62 62 62 62 272792 92 62 62 78 92 OS2 85 sezioni FINESTRE 432 1 432 1 1. 1. 2. 2. 4. 4. 3. 3. 115114 window sections two inward opening window sections two outward opening anti-burglary OS2 85 168 432 1 5432 1 432 1 5432 1 1. 1. 1. 1. 2.4. 2.4. 2. 2. 3. 3. 3. 5. 4. 4.5.3. 47 84 84 476247 27 70 70 27 276262 84 62 62 62 47 77 62 84 84 27 276262 432 1 5432 1 432 1 5432 1 1. 1. 1. 1. 2.4. 2.4. 2. 2. 3. 3. 3. 5. 4. 4.5.3. 47 84 84 476247 27 70 70 27 276262 84 62 62 62 47 77 62 84 84 27 276262 117116 window sections two inward opening window sections two outward opening anti-burglary OS2 75 169 432 1 5432 1 1. 1. 1. 1. 2.4. 2.4. 2. 2. 3. 3. 3. 5. 4. 4.5.3. 47 47 72 47 47 47 62 6247 62 65 65 72 58 62 72 432 1 5432 1 47 72 62 62 62 72 6227 2762 65 432 1 5432 1 1. 1. 1. 1. 2.4. 2.4. 2. 2. 3. 3. 3. 5. 4. 4.5.3. 47 47 72 47 47 47 62 6247 62 65 65 72 58 62 72 432 1 5432 1 47 72 62 62 62 72 6227 2762 65 119118 window sections two inward opening window sections two outward opening anti-burglary OS2 65 170 flat in Milan designer: Luca Bombassei 171 122 Designed and produced to complete Secco’s systems, the accessories become an essential and integral part of the window and they make it unique. Glass stoppers, handles and hinges are in harmony with the profiles of the frame because they are realized with the same finishes of profiles, that almost disappear, becoming a discrete decor element. accessories 172 124 Elegant and discreet complements in harmony with the essential lines of the window, handles are realized with the same valuable materials and finish of profiles. The handles are available in two design family: Vitruvio and cariglione Raffaello. handles truncates square oval round raffaello 173 126 Little profiles to secure the glass to the frame, glazing beads are elegant elements that complete and makes unique the window design. They are available in essential geometric shapes, square, triangle, L. thin divider gothic glass dividerbeveled glass dividerflat glass gothic triangular square recessed beveled glazing beads 174 AC 1221AC 6045 AC 2631 AC 1068 AC 2629 AC 1033 AC 2628AC 1237 15 42 21 21 84 14 42 20 20 82 13 40 40 80 15 84 38 38 16 0 20 50 12 5 12 5 31 0 12 40 40 80 22.5 84 38 38 16 0 15 46 22 22 90 AC 1221AC 6045AC 2631AC 1068AC 2629 AC 1033 AC 2628AC 1237 15 42 21 21 84 14 42 20 20 82 13 40 40 80 15 84 38 38 16 0 20 50 12 5 12 5 31 0 12 40 40 80 22.5 84 38 38 16 0 15 46 22 22 90 AC 1221AC 6045AC 2631AC 1068AC 2629AC 1033 AC 2628AC 1237 15 42 21 21 84 14 42 20 20 82 13 40 40 80 15 84 38 38 16 0 20 50 12 5 12 5 31 0 12 40 40 80 22.5 84 38 38 16 0 15 46 22 22 90 128 Thin, light and small but able to ensure the handling of large heavy doors, hinges make up the design of the frame with elegance, they are made with the same material and finish of the profiles and they can be both technological devices and plastic elements. The hinges are adjustable and have been tested by strict regulations that certify the quality and durability. weldedØ 13 mm three-wingØ 15 mm two-wingØ 12 mm hinges 175 Carmel villa - California designer: Luca studio of architecture 176 Secco Sistemi is an Italian brand expression of innovation and design awarded “Compasso d’Oro”. For 70 years it contributes to the evolution of window engineering: it invents systems and profiles that become reference models for the industry and Secco continues to improve them, to interpreting projects and trends in contemporary architecture and restoration. Secco Sistemi produces every year 1 million linear meters profiles in over 300 models that allow to realize 35 different types of openings in 4 precious metals – galvanized steel, stainless steel, corten steel and brass – and in 9 finish. It adapts its industrial capacity to the artisanal sensibility to solve and produce more than 50 special projects every year. 177 Exhibit J.8 17 8 HMOS BRICK BURNISHED BRASS WINDOW FRAMES, TYP. HMOS BRICK CORNICE MECHANICAL SCREENING (HVAC EQUIPMENT BEYOND) GLASS AND STEEL TRELLIS GLASS WINDSCREEN GLASS AND STEEL AWNING MOVABLE UMBRELLA MOVABLE TREE PLANTER BRICK DETAILING EXPOSED METAL DETAILING ZONING DISTRICT HEIGHT LIMIT METAL PANEL FACADE HMOS BRICK CORNICE HMOS BRICK BRICK DETAILING EXPOSED METAL DETAILING BURNISHED BRASS WINDOW FRAMES OWL CIGAR MURAL GLASS AND STEEL AWNING GLASS WINDSCREEN SKYLIGHT, TYP. MECHANICAL SCREENING (HVAC EQUIPMENT BEYOND) STONE PRIVACY WALL GLASS AND STEEL TRELLIS ZONING DISTRICT HEIGHT LIMIT Scale:3/32" = 1'-0" RH GUESTHOUSE07/16/24 A 29 PROPOSED SOUTH AND WEST FACADE 300-312 E. HYMAN AVE., ASPEN, CO Ex h i b i t J . 8 179 SKYLIGHT, TYP. METAL PANEL FACADE HMOS BRICK CORNICE HMOS BRICK BRICK DETAILING BURNISHED BRASS WINDOW FRAMES MECHANICAL SCREENING (HVAC EQUIPMENT BEYOND) FLUSH METAL DOOR (EGRESS) FLUSH METAL DOOR (TRASH EGRESS) TRANSFORMER EXPOSED METAL DETAILING ZONING DISTRICT HEIGHT LIMIT ADJACENT BUILING (N.I.C.) SKYLIGHT, TYP. HMOS BRICK CORNICE HMOS BRICK TRANSFORMER BRICK DETAILING MECHANICAL SCREENING METAL PANEL FACADE HMOS BRICK Scale:3/32" = 1'-0" RH GUESTHOUSE07/16/24 A 30 PROPOSED NORTH AND EAST FACADE 300-312 E. HYMAN AVE., ASPEN, CO 3/32" = 1’−0"1 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 3/32" = 1’−0"2 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 180 FD FACP LOW VOLTAGE RM. L213 MECH. RM. L210 STAIR #2 L204 CORRIDOR L205 ELEV. #2 L202 ELEV. #1 L201 MECH. CLOSET L214 POOL EQUIP. RM. L212 BACKFILLED AREA PUMP RM. L217 MECH. RM. L206 POOL EQUIP. RM. L216 MECH. RM. L207 ELEC. RM. L215 MECH. RM L208 STAIR #1 L203 19 ' - 1 0 1 / 4 " 9' - 9 1 / 4 " 68'-7 3/4"13'-2 1/2" 10 ' - 4 " 23 ' - 8 1 / 4 " 18'-11" 14'-8 1/2" 15 ' - 3 " 32'-1 1/2" 5'-6" 6' - 1 " 5'-1 1/2" 5'-0 3/4"7' - 1 1 " 20'-11 3/4" 18 ' - 1 1 / 4 " 94 ' - 8 3 / 4 " 81'-10 1/4" T/O POOL SLAB -20' 2 1/2'' T/O POOL SLAB -20' 2 1/2'' CWP LL2.3-4 ET LL2.2 GMU LL2.2 REFR. RACK CWP LL2.1 ET LL2.1 GMU LL2.1 BOILER B1 BOILER B2 STEAM RM. GENERATOR: MR. STEAM CU-1250 STEAM RM. GENERATOR: MR. STEAM CU-1250 DOAS DOAS MDP EXPANSION TANK HYDRONIC SUPPLY/RETURNWATER PUMP WATER HEATER WH1 DH LL2.1 STORAGE TANK STORAGE TANK EXIST. STORM DRYWELL EXIST. FDN. DRYWELL (BELOW FINISH FLOOR) MECH. RM. L209 25 ' - 6 " 15 ' - 1 1 / 2 " 17'-6 1/4" 22'-1 3/4" REFR. RACK H-1 H-2 T/O SLAB -26'-8'' 5' - 1 " 33 ' - 1 1 1 / 2 " 5' - 0 " 8'-2" 44'-4 1/2" Scale:3/32" = 1'-0" RH GUESTHOUSE07/16/24 A 11 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL 2 300-312 E. HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 181 DN SAUNA RM. 1 L120 STEAM RM. 2 L121 SAUNA RM. 2 L119 CORRIDOR L122 MEN'S LOCKER ROOM L129 STEAM RM. 1 L118 METER CLOSET L115 SPA RM. L123 HOT SPA L123C SPA L123BHOT SPA L123A COLD PLUNGE COLD PLUNGE 10 ' - 1 0 1 / 4 " ELEV. #1 L101 ELEV. #2 L102 STAIR #2 L104 STAIR #1 L103 WOMENS' LOCKER ROOM L130 CLOSET L127 GYM L126 GUEST RM. 6 L108GUEST RM. 5 L107 GUEST RM. 9 L112 ADA GUEST RM. 10 L113 STORAGE L125GUEST RM. 7 L110 GUEST RM. 8 L111 19 ' - 1 0 1 / 2 " 10 ' - 2 3 / 4 " 4' - 8 " 4' - 1 1 / 2 " 8' - 5 1 / 2 " 3' - 6 " 5' - 0 " 3' - 9 " 7' - 1 1 1 / 4 " 3' - 9 " 8' - 1 1 1 / 2 " 10'-0 1/2"11'-4"4'-4" 18 ' - 5 1 / 4 " 25'-10 1/4"10'-8"3'-8 1/4" 10 ' - 4 " 12'-9 1/2"5'-4" 4' - 5 3 / 4 " 10 ' - 4 1 / 2 " 5' - 0 " 3' - 6 " 3' - 9 1 / 4 " 8' - 1 0 1 / 4 " 4' - 9 " 10 ' - 2 3 / 4 " 19 ' - 1 0 1 / 2 " 26'-10"26'-10 1/4"24'-6 3/4" 6'-6 3/4"5'-0"52'-11"5'-0"6'-6 3/4" 12 ' - 1 0 1 / 2 " 30'-10 1/2" 11 ' - 2 1 / 4 " 7'-9 1/2"8'-8"8'-4 1/2"8'-6"4'-5 1/2"4'-5 1/2" 6'-2 1/2"6'-3" 3'-2 1/4"4'-5 1/4"3' - 0 3 / 4 " 2'-9" 3'-8 3/4"3'-7" 3' - 0 " 3'-11 1/4"8'-3 1/2"3'-9 1/8"3'-9 1/8" 7'-1" 9' - 1 1 1 / 4 " 7' - 1 1 / 4 " 6'-6 1/2"4'-0"4'-0" 4' - 0 " 3'-0"4'-3 3/4"3'-8 3/4" 3' - 1 1 1 / 2 " 3' - 0 " 2'-9" 3'-8"8'-6 1/2"3'-9 1/2"3'-9 1/2" 6'-1 3/4" 7' - 0 " 3' - 3 1 / 4 " 26'-5" 3' - 3 1 / 4 " 27'-9" 81'-10 1/4" 94 ' - 8 3 / 4 " 10 ' - 4 3 / 4 " 13'-4 1/4" FOUNTAIN WALL 10'-7 1/2" X 7'-9 1/2" 10'-7 1/2" X 8'-8" 10'-7 1/2" X 8'-8" 10'-7 1/2" X 7'-9 1/2" [11'-6' A.F.F.][11'-6' A.F.F.] 3'-8 3/4"3'-0 1/2"1'-4 1/2"5' - 6 3 / 4 " Scale:3/32" = 1'-0" RH GUESTHOUSE07/16/24 A 12 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL 1 300-312 E. HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 182 RESTAURANT 106 RESTAURANT 117 HALLWAY 100A VESTIBLE 105 KITCHEN 107B 300 SF TRASH / UTILITY RM. 108 ELEV. LOBBY 100B ELEV. #1 101 ELEV. #2 102 EXIT PASSAGEWAY 114 CLO. 121 GUEST SERVICE AREA 115 SERVICE COUNTER AREA 107A CLO. 120 GUEST RM. 1 109 GUEST RM. 4 110 STAIR #1 103 STAIR #2 104 LUGGAGE ROOM 122 CCB 116 CCB KITCHEN 131 6' - 8 1 / 4 " 26'-6 1/2"4'-1 1/2"24'-1"5'-11 1/2"22'-10 1/2" 1'-10" 5' - 1 1 1 / 2 " 5'-0"5'-0" 6'-6 1/2" 8' - 8 3 / 4 " 7' - 1 0 3 / 4 " 4'-8 1/2" 24'-8 1/2" 4' - 0 " 7'-0" 20'-8 3/4" 10'-10 3/4" 9' - 9 1 / 2 " 3'-11 1/2" 3' - 1 0 " 7'-0" 13 ' - 6 1 / 2 " ADA 121 ADA 122 ADA 123 RESTROOM 124 RESTROOM 125 RESTROOM 126 9' - 1 0 3 / 4 " 2'-4" 3'-9 3/4" 9' - 2 1 / 4 " 5'-4" 6' - 1 " 7' - 0 1 / 4 " 6' - 4 1 / 4 " LOBBY 118 GUEST RM. 2 132 7' - 2 " 14 ' - 9 1 / 2 " 26 ' - 8 3 / 4 " 4'-1 1/2"24'-1"4'-1 1/2" 15 ' - 0 " 7' - 1 1 / 2 " 4' - 0 " 3' - 1 1 3 / 4 " 5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"3'-8 1/2"3'-8 1/2"3'-8 1/2" GUEST RM. 3 134 7' - 0 " 7' - 0 " DN DN 59 ' - 3 1 / 4 " 15 ' - 4 3 / 4 " 7' - 2 " 15 ' - 0 " 12'-11 3/4"14'-6 3/4"25'-4 1/2"7'-9 1/4"11'-3 3/4"15'-8 1/2" Scale:3/32" = 1'-0" RH GUESTHOUSE07/16/24 A 13 PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR PLAN 300-312 E. HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 RESTAURANT SEATING COUNTS RESTAURANT 106 AND 117 2 TOPS: 32 (64 SEATS) 4 -5 TOPS: 16 (64-80 SEATS) TOTAL: 128-144 SEATS TOTAL TABLES: 48 TABLES 2 TOPS: 67% 4 -5 TOPS: 33% 183 SUITE 8 207 SUITE 7 209 SUITE 4 205 ELEC. ROOM 212 SUITE 6 210 STAIR #1 203 OUTDOOR TERRACE 219 HOUSEKEEPING 213 BATH 205A BATH 205B BATH 211A BATH 211B BATH 210A BATH 210B BATH 208A SUITE 5 211 ELEV. #1 201 ELEV. #2 202 STAIR #2 204 BATH 206B CORRIDOR 217 HOUSEKEEPING 223 CORRIDOR 209A BATH 209A 4' - 8 " 28 ' - 3 " 13'-7 1/4"6'-7"15'-7"2'-8"16'-6 1/2" 27'-8 1/2"27'-5 1/2" 9'-8 1/2" 8' - 1 " 7' - 1 1 " 6'-0 3/4"4'-4"4'-4"6'-2 1/4"6'-8 3/4"4'-4"4'-4"6'-8 3/4"6'-6"4'-4"4'-4"6'-8 3/4" 4' - 5 3 / 4 " 4'-0 1/4"4'-0" 4' - 8 " 4'-1 1/2" 17'-3" 7'-0 3/4" 4' - 7 1 / 2 " 3' - 1 " 3' - 1 " 3' - 3 1 / 4 " 4' - 2 " 4' - 5 1 / 2 " 4' - 2 1 / 4 " 3' - 3 1 / 4 " 3' - 1 " 3' - 4 1 / 2 " 3' - 2 1 / 4 " 2' - 1 3 / 4 " 16'-4" 5'-6 3/4" ADA SUITE 9 206 ADA BATH 206A 26'-10" 6' - 1 1 1 / 2 " 6' - 1 1 1 / 2 " 4' - 9 " 28 ' - 2 3 / 4 " 22 ' - 9 1 / 4 " 7'-6 1/2" 7' - 6 " 30 ' - 9 1 / 4 " SUITE 8 LOCKOFF 208VESTIBULE 214 4' - 8 3 / 4 " 1' - 4 1 / 2 " 7'-4 1/2" 3' - 9 3 / 4 " 7'-3 3/4" 4' - 7 3 / 4 " 7'-6" 3'-0" 3'-0" GYMPANTRY GYMPANTRY GYMPANTRY 7' x 7' MATTRESS 7' x 7' MATTRESS 7' x 7' MATTRESS 6' x 7' MATTRESS 11'-4" x 3'-4" 11'-4" x 3'-6" REF.REF. WINE STORAGE WINE STORAGE 22" SEAT DEPTH 22" SEAT DEPTH 22" SEAT DEPTH 22" SEAT DEPTH 22" SEAT DEPTH 22" SEAT DEPTH 5'-4" x 2'-7" 5'-4" x 2'-7" 5'-4" x 2'-7" 5'-4" x 2'-7" 5'-4" x 2'-7" 5'-4" x 2'-7" 4'-6" x 2'-0'' 4'-6" x 2'-0'' 4'-6" x 2'-0'' 4'-6" x 2'-0'' 4'-6" x 2'-0'' 4'-6" x 2'-0'' GYMPANTRY PANTRY GYM PANTRY GYM 5'-0'' DIA. 5'-0'' DIA. 20" SEAT DEPTH 20" SEAT DEPTH 22" SEAT DEPTH 22" SEAT DEPTH 22" SEAT DEPTH 22" SEAT DEPTH 22" SEAT DEPTH 22" SEAT DEPTH 4'-0'' x 4'-0'' 6'-4 1/2" 6' x 7' MATTRESS 6' x 7' MATTRESS 6' x 7' MATTRESS 32 3/4" SEAT DEPTH 32 3/4" SEAT DEPTH 17" SEAT DEPTH 17" SEAT DEPTH 18" x 18" 31 ' - 0 1 / 4 " BATH 208B 7'-4 1/4" 1' - 1 0 1 / 4 " 7' - 4 3 / 4 " 12' - 10 1/2" 12 ' - 9 1 / 2 " 15'-2 1/4" BATH 209B 3'-11"3'-3 1/2"3'-1" 2-SIDED F.P. Scale:3/32" = 1'-0" RH GUESTHOUSE07/16/24 A 14 PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR PLAN 300-312 E. HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 184 FD SUITE 1 306 SUITE 2 305 SUITE 3 307 PRIVATE TERRACE X313 CORRIDOR 309 DN TERRACE X311 PRIVATE TERRACE X312 ELEV. # 1 301 ELEV. #2 302 STAIR #2 304 BATH 305A BATH 305B BATH 307A BATH 307B SUITE 1 BEDROOM 306A BATH 306D UNISEX TOILET 308 3'-6" x 3'-6" 4'-0 1/4" BATH 306C SPA SPA SPA STAIR #1 303 6' - 9 1 / 2 " 11 ' - 7 1 / 2 " 3' - 8 " 3' - 1 0 1 / 4 " 22'-3" 4'-4 1/4"4'-0"4'-4 1/4" 6' - 1 0 " 5'-0 1/2" 5'-2 3/4" 7'-0 1/2" 7' - 1 1 " 8' - 0 " 3'-7"4'-0"3'-7"3'-2" 1'-9 1/4"6'-9 1/2"15'-0" 30 ' - 4 1 / 4 " 10 ' - 3 3 / 4 " 26 ' - 1 1 / 4 " 12'-8 1/4" 6' - 9 1 / 2 " 3'-2" 5'-5 1/4" 3'-0 1/2"3'-0 1/2" 22'-4 1/2" 3'-0 1/2" 5'-6" x 5'-0'' 5'-6" x 5'-0'' 5'-6" x 5'-0'' 5'-6" x 5'-0'' 5'-6" x 5'-0'' 5'-6" x 5'-0'' 5'-6" x 5'-0'' 5'-6" x 5'-0'' 5'-6" x 5'-0'' 5'-6" x 5'-0'' 5'-6" x 5'-0'' 5'-6" x 5'-0'' 5'-6" x 5'-6'' 5'-6" x 5'-6'' 1'-10" x 16'-1'' 1'-10" x 16'-1'' PANTRY GYM PANTRY GYM 11'-4" x 3'-4" 11'-4" x 3'-6" REF.REF. WINE STORAGE WINE STORAGE 6' x 7' MATTRESS 6' x 7' MATTRESS 6' x 7' MATTRESS PANTRY GYM 17" SEAT DEPTH 17" SEAT DEPTH 22" SEAT DEPTH 22" SEAT DEPTH 22" SEAT DEPTH 22" SEAT DEPTH 22" SEAT DEPTH 4'-6" x 2'-0'' 4'-6" x 2'-0'' 4'-6" x 2'-0'' 4'-6" x 2'-0'' 5'-10" x 2'-6" 18" x 18" 3'-6" x 3'-6"3'-6" x 3'-6" 3'-6" x 3'-6" 3'-6" x 3'-6"3'-6" x 3'-6"3'-6" x 3'-6" 3'-6" x 3'-6"3'-6" x 3'-6"3'-6" x 3'-6"3'-6" x 3'-6"3'-6" x 3'-6" 30 ' - 4 1 / 4 " 10 ' - 4 1 / 2 " 26 ' - 0 1 / 2 " TERRACE BELOW 16'-6 1/2" 22 ' - 1 0 1 / 4 " 3'-1 1/2" 21'-1 3/4" 17" SEAT DEPTH 17" SEAT DEPTH 3'-11"3'-3 1/2"3'-1" 2-SIDED F.P. Scale:3/32" = 1'-0" RH GUESTHOUSE07/16/24 A 15 PROPOSED 3RD FLOOR PLAN 300-312 E. HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 185 Scale: RH GUESTHOUSE07/16/24 A 16 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN 300-312 E. HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SETBACK 15 ' - 0 " 3" R.D. SL O P E SL O P E SLOPE SL O P E SL O P E GENERATOR 3,000 LBS (3) CONDENSING UNITS CONDENSING UNIT FIREPLACE EXHAUST FAN FIREPLACE EXHAUST FAN DRY COOLER DRY COOLER FIREPLACE EXHAUST FAN TEF FIREPLACE TERMINATION SK Y L I G H T F R A M I N G / C U R B SKYLIGHT FRAMING/ CURB SK Y L I G H T F R A M I N G / C U R B SK Y L I G H T F R A M I N G / C U R B SKYLIGHT FRAMING/ CURB SKYLIGHT (203 sq. ft.) SKYLIGHT (678 sq. ft.)SK Y L I G H T F R A M I N G / C U R B SKYLIGHT FRAMING/ CURB GLASS TRELLIS GLASS TRELLIS SK Y L I G H T F R A M I N G / C U R B SKYLIGHT FRAMING/ CURB MECHANICAL SCREEN / PLANTER, TYP. BOILER FLUES AND INTAKES SKYLIGHT (308 sq. ft.) SKYLIGHT (681 sq. ft.) SK Y L I G H T F R A M I N G / CU R B HWH FLUES AND INTAKES SPANDREL PANEL, TYP. 3" R.D. 3" R.D. 3" R.D. 3'' R.D. 3'' R.D. ROOF ACCESS * MIN. ROOF SLOPE = 1/4" PER FOOT MIN. INSULATION R-VALUE = 23.6 (4") ROOF ASSEMBLY R-VALUE = 26 SKYLIGHT GUTTER SKYLIGHT GUTTER SKYLIGHT GUTTER DOWNSPOUT LEADERSPLASHBLOCK DOWNSPOUT LEADER AND SPLASHBLOCK DOWNSPOUT LEADER AND SPLASHBLOCK INTAKE DUCT 6'' V 3'' V 3'' V 6'' V DRY COOLER DRY COOLER SL O P E SL O P E SL O P E SL O P E SL O P E GENERAL NOTE: ALL ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT AND REQUIRED CURB/MOUNTING PAD SHALL NOT EXCEED SIX FEET IN HEIGHT ABOVE THE ROOF. FIREPLACE EXHAUST FAN DRY COOLER 3" R.D. TERRACE BELOW FIREPLACE EXHAUST FAN SL O P E MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SETBACK 15'-0" MECHANICAL SCREEN DR Y C O O L E R DRY COOLER DRY COOLER SLOPE SL O P E SL O P E SKYLIGHT (22 SF) SKYLIGHT (22 SF) SKYLIGHT (51 SF) 3'' R.D. GLASS TRELLIS SL O P E 3/32" = 1'-0" 186 ENUE HYMAN AVENUE 1/8" = 1'-0" PROPOSED SITE PLAN21/8" = 1'-0" APPROVED SITE PLAN1 HYMAN AVENUE 1/8" = 1'-0" PROPOSED SITE PLAN2 1/8" = 1'-0" PROPOSED SITE PLAN21/8" = 1'-0" APPROVED SITE PLAN1 1/8" = 1'-0" PROPOSED SITE PLAN2 300-312 E. HYMAN AVE. A-100 SITE PLAN COMPARI ASPEN, CO SITE PLAN COMPARISON A-100 M AD J A C E N T B U I L D I N G HYMAN AVENUE MO N A R C H S T R E E T ONE-WAY ALLEY PROPOSED PLANTER, TYP. 300-312 E. HYMAN AVE. THREE STORY LODGE EX I S T . S T R E E T P A R K I N G PROPOSED DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE, TYP. T 300 SF COVERED TRASH AREA PROPOSED TREE, (SILVACELL NOT REQ'D.) SEE SHEET L200 FOR PAVER LAYOUT WITHIN PLANTING AREA, TYP. PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLANTER, TYP. EXIST. BRICK PAVERS PROPOSED CONC. WALK PROPOSED NEW BRICK PAVERS . AWNING ABOVE, TYP. GAS METER LOCATION WATER SERVICE LOCATION PROPOSED TREE, (SILVACELL REQ'D.). SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS. STREET PARKING HYMAN HYMAN AVENUE M HYMAN AVENUE 07/18/24 300 SF COVERED TRASH AREA AWNING ABOVE HYMAN AVENUE MO N A R C H S T R E E T ONE-WAY ALLEY PROPOSED PLANTER, TYP. EX I S T . S T R E E T P A R K I N G PROPOSED DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE, TYP. PROPOSED TREE, (SILVACELL NOT REQ'D.) PROPOSED PAVERS IN LANDSCAPE AREA, TYP. PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLANTER, TYP. EXIST. BRICK PAVERS PROPOSED CONC. WALK PROPOSED NEW BRICK PAVERS . PROPOSED TREE, (SILVACELL REQ'D.). SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS. STREET PARKING PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 0" 0" 3 1 / 2 " T PHONE PEDESTAL 10 ' - 3 " AD J A C E N T B U I L D I N G ( N . I . C . ) 187 Scale:3/32" = 1'-0" RH GUESTHOUSE A 29 300-312 E. HYMAN AVE., ASPEN, CO 0'-0" 29'-5" 36'-8" 42'-9" SOUTH FACADE COMPARISON APPROVED ELEVATIONAPPROVED ELEVATION PROPOSED ELEVATION 07/18/24 0'-0" 29'-5" 36'-8" 42'-9" 188 Scale:3/32" = 1'-0" RH GUESTHOUSE A 29 300-312 E. HYMAN AVE., ASPEN, CO PROPOSED ELEVATION 0'-0" 29'-5" (-)3'-3" 36'-8" WEST FACADE COMPARISON APPROVED ELEVATION 07/18/24 0'-0" 29'-5" PROPOSED ELEVATION (-)3'-3" 36'-8" 189 Scale:3/32" = 1'-0" RH GUESTHOUSE A 30 300-312 E. HYMAN AVE., ASPEN, CO PROPOSED ELEVATIONPROPOSED ELEVATION (-)3'-3" 29'-5"29'-5" 36'-8" (-)3'-3" 29'-5"29'-5" 36'-8" PROPOSED ELEVA PROPOSED ELEVATION NORTH FACADE COMPARISON07/18/24 190 Scale:3/32" = 1'-0" RH GUESTHOUSE A 30 300-312 E. HYMAN AVE., ASPEN, CO ROOF PLAN COMPARISON07/18/24 MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SETBACK 15 ' - 0 " 3" R.D. SL O P E SL O P E SLOPE SL O P E SL O P E GENERATOR 3,000 LBS (3) CONDENSING UNITS CONDENSING UNIT FIREPLACE EXHAUST FAN FIREPLACE EXHAUST FAN DRY COOLER DRY COOLER FIREPLACE EXHAUST FAN TEF FIREPLACE TERMINATION SK Y L I G H T F R A M I N G / C U R B SKYLIGHT FRAMING/ CURB SK Y L I G H T F R A M I N G / C U R B SK Y L I G H T F R A M I N G / C U R B SKYLIGHT FRAMING/ CURB SKYLIGHT (203 sq. ft.) SKYLIGHT (678 sq. ft.)SK Y L I G H T F R A M I N G / C U R B SKYLIGHT FRAMING/ CURB GLASS TRELLIS GLASS TRELLIS SK Y L I G H T F R A M I N G / C U R B SKYLIGHT FRAMING/ CURB MECHANICAL SCREEN / PLANTER, TYP. BOILER FLUES AND INTAKES SKYLIGHT (308 sq. ft.) SKYLIGHT (681 sq. ft.) SK Y L I G H T F R A M I N G / CU R B HWH FLUES AND INTAKES SPANDREL PANEL, TYP. 3" R.D. 3" R.D. 3" R.D. 3'' R.D. 3'' R.D. ROOF ACCESS * MIN. ROOF SLOPE = 1/4" PER FOOT MIN. INSULATION R-VALUE = 23.6 (4") ROOF ASSEMBLY R-VALUE = 26 SKYLIGHT GUTTER SKYLIGHT GUTTER SKYLIGHT GUTTER DOWNSPOUT LEADERSPLASHBLOCK DOWNSPOUT LEADER AND SPLASHBLOCK DOWNSPOUT LEADER AND SPLASHBLOCK INTAKE DUCT 6'' V 3'' V 3'' V 6'' V DRY COOLER DRY COOLER SL O P E SL O P E SL O P E SL O P E SL O P E GENERAL NOTE: ALL ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT AND REQUIRED CURB/MOUNTING PAD SHALL NOT EXCEED SIX FEET IN HEIGHT ABOVE THE ROOF. FIREPLACE EXHAUST FAN DRY COOLER 3" R.D. TERRACE BELOW FIREPLACE EXHAUST FAN SL O P E MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SETBACK 15'-0" MECHANICAL SCREEN DR Y C O O L E R DRY COOLER DRY COOLER SLOPE SL O P E SL O P E SKYLIGHT (22 SF) SKYLIGHT (22 SF) SKYLIGHT (51 SF) 3'' R.D. GLASS TRELLIS SL O P E APPROVED ROOF PLAN PROPOSED ROOF PLAN 191 4'-3 3/4"4'-2 1/2"4'-3 3/4"4'-3 3/4"4'-2 1/2"4'-3 1/2" 25'-7" 5' - 0 " 1'' LAMINATED GLASS 2 A 31 STRUCTURAL TIE-BACK 1'' LAMINATED GLASS C-CHANNEL5'-0" Scale:As indicated RH GUESTHOUSE07/19/24 A 31 DETAILS 300-312 E. HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 3/16" = 1'-0"1 CANOPY PLAN 3/8" = 1'-0"2 CANOPY SECTION BURNISHED BRASS WINDOW FRAMES METLA LATTICE WORK HMOS BRICK BRICK DETAILING 192 Scale: RH GUESTHOUSE 300-312 E. HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 A 17 PROPOSED FAR CALCULATIONS07/16/24 300 East Hyman Ave. Floor Area and Net Livable/ Leasable Area Calculations 7/16/24 revised LL2 6,412 6,412 0 0 0 0 0 LL1 8,027 1,834 6,193 0 0 62 15 1 8,614 5,090 436 3,105 5,090 436 3,105 2 8,307 1,452 6,855 0 1,452 6,855 0 3 4,523 900 3,623 0 900 3,623 0 Total Lodge and Commercial:20,212 percent lodge 84.64% percent commercial 15.36% Lodge non-unit 6,299 Commercial non-unit 1143 Lot Size 9,047 21,538 2.38 Floor Area Calculations - May 6th, 2024 CURRENT PLANS Floor Level Gross FAR Non Unit Lodge Commercial FAR non unit FAR lodge FAR commercial 35,883 15,688 17,107 3,105 7,442 10,976 3,120 Allocation of Non Unit: 1.91 Total LODGE FAR 17,275 Total COMMERCIAL FAR 4,263 0.47 Total FAR for Lot 193 FD COMMERCIAL AREA NON-UNIT AREA LODGE AREA FAR LEGEND: FACP LOW VOLTAGE RM. L213 MECH. RM. L210 STAIR #2 L204 CORRIDOR L205 ELEV. #2 L202 ELEV. #1 L201 MECH. CLOSET L214 POOL EQUIP. RM. L212 BACKFILLED AREA PUMP RM. L217 MECH. RM. L206 POOL EQUIP. RM. L216 MECH. RM. L207 ELEC. RM. L215 MECH. RM L208 STAIR #1 L203 T/O POOL SLAB -20' 2 1/2'' T/O POOL SLAB -20' 2 1/2'' CWP LL2.3-4 ET LL2.2 GMU LL2.2 REFR. RACK CWP LL2.1 ET LL2.1 GMU LL2.1 BOILER B1 BOILER B2 STEAM RM. GENERATOR: MR. STEAM CU-1250 STEAM RM. GENERATOR: MR. STEAM CU-1250 DOAS DOAS MDP EXPANSION TANK HYDRONIC SUPPLY/RETURNWATER PUMP WATER HEATER WH1 DH LL2.1 STORAGE TANK STORAGE TANK EXIST. STORM DRYWELL EXIST. FDN. DRYWELL (BELOW FINISH FLOOR) MECH. RM. L209 REFR. RACK H-1 H-2 NON-UNIT SPACE 6,412 SF Scale:As indicated RH GUESTHOUSE07/16/24 A 18 LOWER LEVEL 2 FAR 300-312 E. HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 194 DN SAUNA RM. 1 L120 STEAM RM. 2 L121 SAUNA RM. 2 L119 CORRIDOR L122 MEN'S LOCKER ROOM L129 STEAM RM. 1 L118 METER CLOSET L115 SPA RM. L123 HOT SPA L123C SPA L123BHOT SPA L123A COLD PLUNGE COLD PLUNGE ELEV. #1 L101 ELEV. #2 L102 STAIR #2 L104 STAIR #1 L103 WOMENS' LOCKER ROOM L130 CLOSET L127 GYM L126 GUEST RM. 6 L108GUEST RM. 5 L107 GUEST RM. 9 L112 ADA GUEST RM. 10 L113 STORAGE L125 GUEST RM. 7 L110 GUEST RM. 8 L111 NON-UNIT SPACE AREA 1,834 SF (EXEMPT) LODGE AREA 6,193 SF (EXEMPT) Scale:3/32" = 1'-0" RH GUESTHOUSE07/16/24 A 19 LOWER LEVEL 1 FAR 300-312 E. HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 195 2472 2472 24 36 X 24 " 36 X 24 " G G 48 " x 3 0 LOBBY 118 RESTAURANT 106 RESTAURANT 117 HALLWAY 100A VESTIBLE 105 KITCHEN 107B 300 SF TRASH / UTILITY RM. 108 ELEV. LOBBY 100B ELEV. #1 101 ELEV. #2 102 EXIT PASSAGEWAY 114 CLO. 121 GUEST SERVICE AREA 115 SERVICE COUNTER AREA 107A CLO. 120 GUEST RM. 1 109 GUEST RM. 4 110 STAIR #1 103 STAIR #2 104 LUGGAGE ROOM 122 CCB 116 CCB KITCHEN 131 ADA 121 ADA 122 ADA 123 RESTROOM 124 RESTROOM 125 RESTROOM 126 COMMERCIAL AREA 3,105 SF NON-UNIT SPACE LODGE AREA 5,090 SF LODGE AREA 436 SF 30"x48" REQ. CLEAR 30"x48" REQ. CLEAR 30"x48" REQ. CLEAR GUEST RM. 2 132 GUEST RM. 3 134 Scale:3/32" = 1'-0" RH GUESTHOUSE07/16/24 A 20 GROUND FLOOR FAR 300-312 E. HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 196 SUITE 8 207 SUITE 7 209 SUITE 4 205 ELEC. ROOM 212 SUITE 6 210 STAIR #1 203 OUTDOOR TERRACE 219 HOUSEKEEPING 213 BATH 205A BATH 205B BATH 211A BATH 211B BATH 210A BATH 210B BATH 208A SUITE 5 211 ELEV. #1 201 ELEV. #2 202 STAIR #2 204 BATH 206B CORRIDOR 217 HOUSEKEEPING 223 CORRIDOR 209A BATH 209A ADA SUITE 9 206 ADA BATH 206A NON-UNIT SPACE AREA 1,452 SF LODGE AREA 6,855 SF SUITE 8 LOCKOFF 208 VESTIBULE 214 BATH 209B BATH 208B 2-SIDED F.P. Scale:3/32" = 1'-0" RH GUESTHOUSE07/16/24 A 21 2ND FLOOR FAR 300-312 E. HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 197 FD SUITE 1 306 SUITE 2 305 SUITE 3 307 PRIVATE TERRACE X313 CORRIDOR 309 DN TERRACE X311 PRIVATE TERRACE X312 ELEV. # 1 301 ELEV. #2 302 STAIR #2 304 BATH 305A BATH 305B BATH 307A BATH 307B SUITE 1 BEDROOM 306A BATH 306D UNISEX TOILET 308 3'-6" x 3'-6" BATH 306C SPA SPA SPA STAIR #1 303 LODGE AREA 3,623 SF NON-UNIT SPACE AREA 900 SF 2-SIDED F.P. Scale:3/32" = 1'-0" RH GUESTHOUSE07/16/24 A 22 3RD FLOOR FAR 300-312 E. HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 198 Scale: RH GUESTHOUSE 300-312 E. HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 A 23 PROPOSED NL CALCULATIONS07/16/24 Net Leasable/Net Livable Calculation Foor Level Net Livable Net Leasable Total:9,492 2,437 Avg. Lodge size:474.60 Lodge Room Schedule Guest Room No.Floor Level Size Sub Total By Level 372 787 5455 2,878 Grand Total:20 9,492 Avg. Lodge Size:474.60 LL2 -- LL1 787 - Ground 372 2,437 2 5,455 - 3 2,878 - 1 Ground 92 2 Ground 96 3 Ground 92 4 Ground 92 5 LL1 124 6 LL1 143 7 LL1 114 8 LL1 95 9 LL1 144 10 LL1 167 Suite 8 Lockoff 2 431 Suite 4 2 943 Suite 5 2 981 Suite 6 2 973 Suite 7 2 628 Suite 8 2 887 Suite 9 2 612 Suite 1 3 1,420 Suite 2 3 723 Suite 3 3 735 199 FD FACP LOW VOLTAGE RM. L213 MECH. RM. L210 STAIR #2 L204 CORRIDOR L205 ELEV. #2 L202 ELEV. #1 L201 MECH. CLOSET L214 POOL EQUIP. RM. L212 BACKFILLED AREA PUMP RM. L217 MECH. RM. L206 POOL EQUIP. RM. L216 MECH. RM. L207 ELEC. RM. L215 MECH. RM L208 STAIR #1 L203 T/O POOL SLAB -20' 2 1/2'' T/O POOL SLAB -20' 2 1/2'' CWP LL2.3-4 ET LL2.2 GMU LL2.2 REFR. RACK CWP LL2.1 ET LL2.1 GMU LL2.1 BOILER B1 BOILER B2 STEAM RM. GENERATOR: MR. STEAM CU-1250 STEAM RM. GENERATOR: MR. STEAM CU-1250 DOAS DOAS MDP EXPANSION TANK HYDRONIC SUPPLY/RETURNWATER PUMP WATER HEATER WH1 DH LL2.1 STORAGE TANK STORAGE TANK EXIST. STORM DRYWELL EXIST. FDN. DRYWELL (BELOW FINISH FLOOR) MECH. RM. L209 REFR. RACK H-1 H-2 EXEMPT -NON-UNIT SPACE Scale:3/32" = 1'-0" RH GUESTHOUSE07/16/24 A 24 LOWER LEVEL 2 NL 300-312 E. HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 200 DN SAUNA RM. 1 L120 STEAM RM. 2 L121 SAUNA RM. 2 L119 CORRIDOR L122 MEN'S LOCKER ROOM L129 STEAM RM. 1 L118 METER CLOSET L115 SPA RM. L123 HOT SPA L123C SPA L123BHOT SPA L123A COLD PLUNGE COLD PLUNGE ELEV. #1 L101 ELEV. #2 L102 STAIR #2 L104 STAIR #1 L103 WOMENS' LOCKER ROOM L130 CLOSET L127 GYM L126 GUEST RM. 6 L108 GUEST RM. 5 L107 GUEST RM. 9 L112 ADA GUEST RM. 10 L113 STORAGE L125 LODGE AREA 787 SF GUEST RM. 8 L111 GUEST RM. 7 L110 95 114 124 143 144 167 Scale:3/32" = 1'-0" RH GUESTHOUSE07/16/24 A 25 LOWER LEVEL 1 NL 300-312 E. HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 201 LOBBY 118 RESTAURANT 106 RESTAURANT 117 HALLWAY 100A VESTIBLE 105 KITCHEN 107B 300 SF TRASH / UTILITY RM. 108 ELEV. LOBBY 100B ELEV. #1 101 ELEV. #2 102 EXIT PASSAGEWAY 114 CLO. 121 GUEST SERVICE AREA 115 ? ? CLO. 120 GUEST RM. 1 109 GUEST RM. 4 110 STAIR #1 103 STAIR #2 104 LUGGAGE ROOM 122 CCB 116 CCB KITCHEN 131 ADA 121 ADA 122 ADA 123 RESTROOM 124 RESTROOM 125 RESTROOM 126 TOTAL NET LEASABLE SPACE 2,437 SF LODGE AREA 372 SF 92 30"x48" REQ. CLEAR 30"x48" REQ. CLEAR 30"x48" REQ. CLEAR GUEST RM. 2 132 GUEST RM. 3 134 96 92 92 Scale:3/32" = 1'-0" RH GUESTHOUSE07/16/24 A 26 GROUND FLOOR NL 300-312 E. HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 202 SUITE 8 207 SUITE 4 205 ELEC. ROOM 212 SUITE 6 210 STAIR #1 203 OUTDOOR TERRACE 219 HOUSEKEEPING 213 BATH 205A BATH 205B BATH 211A BATH 211B BATH 210A BATH 210B BATH 208A SUITE 5 211 ELEV. #1 201 ELEV. #2 202 STAIR #2 204 BATH 206B CORRIDOR 217 HOUSEKEEPING 223 CORRIDOR 209A BATH 209A ADA SUITE 9 206 LODGE AREA 5,455 SF SUITE 8 LOCKOFF 215 BATH 208B ADA BATH 206A 628 SF SUITE 7 BATH 209B VESTIBULE 214 943 981 973 612 887 431 2-SIDED F.P. Scale:3/32" = 1'-0" RH GUESTHOUSE07/16/24 A 27 2ND FLOOR NL 300-312 E. HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 203 SUITE 1 306 SUITE 2 305 SUITE 3 307 PRIVATE TERRACE X313 CORRIDOR 309 DN TERRACE X311 PRIVATE TERRACE X312 ELEV. # 1 301 ELEV. #2 302 STAIR #2 304 BATH 305A BATH 305B BATH 307A BATH 307B SUITE 1 BEDROOM 306A BATH 306D UNISEX TOILET 308 3'-6" x 3'-6" BATH 306C SPA SPA SPA STAIR #1 303 LODGE AREA 2,878 SF 723 735 1,420 2-SIDED F.P. Scale:3/32" = 1'-0" RH GUESTHOUSE07/16/24 A 28 3RD FLOOR NL 300-312 E. HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 204 Scale:As indicated 422-434 E. COOPER06/15/22 FAR -APPROVED VS PROPOSED ASPEN, CO Exterior Materials Basis of Design: RH GUESTHOUSE 300-312 E. HYMAN AVE., ASPEN, CO 07/18/24 Jada Windows - Burnished Brass 205 Scale:As indicated 422-434 E. COOPER06/15/22 FAR -APPROVED VS PROPOSED ASPEN, CO Example Image2 modif.architecture 1200 westlake street suite 200 chicago,il 60607 Exterior Material Basis of Design: GlenGery HMOS Face Brick Color: Trevanion RH GUESTHOUSE 300-312 E. HYMAN AVE., ASPEN, CO 07/18/24 206 300 East Hyman PreservaƟ on Plan The building located at 300 East Hyman Avenue, aka the Crystal Palace, has been heavily altered over Ɵ me. The applicant is commiƩ ed to restoring the building based on historic photographs. A preliminary preservaƟ on plan is proposed to outline the methodology and documentaƟ on available and to idenƟ fy areas that need further study in the fi eld aŌ er removal and demoliƟ on of non-historic elements. Methodology: Historic photographs, visual site inspecƟ on and onsite discussion with the Aspen Historic PreservaƟ on Offi cer were used to produce this plan. History: This structure is a typical brick commercial building constructed as the town’s prosperity grew. Brick provided greater fi re protecƟ on than wood, and indicated a sense of “permanence.” The oldest part of the building (the western part) was built by S.B. Clark in 1891. Named the Clark Commission Company, it was uƟ lized as a wholesale produce house. In the early 1900s, E. M. Cooper bought the business and changed the name to Aspen Com- mission Company. The building was later vacant for a period of years, unƟ l bought by Mead Metcalf, who operated a dinner theater, “The Crystal Palace,” there from 1959 unƟ l 2008. The building has had numerous alteraƟ ons, including addiƟ ons to the east and rear which obscure the original character. All windows have been replaced and new storefronts have been constructed across the enƟ re south facade. www.aspenvictorian.com Summary: The building is proposed to be accurately restored using available historic photographs. QuesƟ ons about the original confi guraƟ on of the storefront are unanswered. Comparing historic photographs to the current condiƟ on raise uncertainty about the original height of the Owl Cigar mural and the original height of upper fl oor window openings. Onsite mock-ups of brick details, as noted, are proposed for review by Staff and monitor during the construcƟ on process. Other items for Staff and monitor include verifi caƟ on of historic elements during demoliƟ on. Exhibit J.8 20 7 South ElevaƟ on/ Front Façade Brick: The upper fl oor of the front façade has been enƟ rely reconstructed. In addiƟ on at ground level, the eastern most column of the historic building has been reconstruct- ed. The eastern most column was originally 3 and a half bricks wide. It was extended to probably accomodate the shed roof form. The corner column and the center col- umn match original dimensions in the photographs, and appear to have original brick; however, past repoinƟ ng used a grey mortar color typical of repairs over the past de- cades that did not match original mortar color common to Aspen in the 19th century. Proposal: Remove the second fl oor (including the brick corbel) and the unoriginal col- umn during demoliƟ on. Preserve and protect the corner and middle column on the south elevaƟ on. Reconstruct brick column to match historic photograph dimension of three and a half bricks wide. Determine in the fi eld the authenƟ city of the brick di- rectly above the storefront aŌ er the non-historic wood cornice above the storefront is removed. Reconstruct upper fl oor with bricks to match fi rst fl oor west elevaƟ on, sub- ject to Staff and monitor approval prior to installaƟ on. Color, dimension, mortar style and color to match typical historic commercial buildings in Aspen, subject to Staff and monitor approval prior to installaƟ on. A mock up onsite is recommended to confi rm appropriate technique and applicaƟ on. Brick corbel: The brick corbel detail above the storefront was added to the front façade and is carried around to the west façade. Proposal: Remove the brick corbel and replace with a fl at conƟ nuous wall plane to match historic photographs. B&W photograph at top: Close up view of building pre- 1930s. Color photographs (leŌ to right): Current condiƟ on of columns; current detail of brick corbel, current building. Next page: Collage of photographs used to verify dimensions, dated 1971 and 1966. 1900s current currentcurrent 20 8 19711971 1966 1966 20 9 Cornice: A decoraƟ ve cornice caps the enƟ re building. The end brackets and corner pendant of the upper cornice matches the original photographs. As the build- ing was expanded, the cornice was replicated to extend the length of the building on the west and south elevaƟ ons. The authenƟ city of the denƟ l molding needs fi eld verifi caƟ on. The storefront also has a decoraƟ ve cornice that completes the storefront. The end bracket of the cornice atop the storefront matches historic photographs; how- ever, the profi le of the cornice molding appears to have been replaced or parƟ ally replaced when the cornice was extended to accomodate the addiƟ on to the building. Comparing the 1950s and 1966 photographs to the 1971 photographs shows that a fl at back was added to the end bracket. The 1950s photograph shows only one end bracket. It is assumed that the other bracket was lost, possibly when the roof collapsed. Proposal: Work with Staff and Monitor to replicate the original cornice for the top of the building and the original cornice above the storefront (which appears to be fairly simple molding) using historic photographs and informaƟ on gathered during demoliƟ on. Examine the decoraƟ ve corner brackets of the cornice above the storefront to determine authenƟ city as they may have been part of the original cornice that was salvaged and reused during a previous remodel. Work with Staff and Monitor to determine an appropriate molding for the cornice atop the storefront. Retain all material determined to be original. 1971 current LeŌ to Right: 1971 photograph with altered storefront cornice - note the backing behind the end bracket. The upper cornice is most likely original; Current photograph of upper cornice. Next page (clockwise): 1950s photograph showing one end bracket for storefront cornice and more depth to cornice molding above storefront; 1966 photograph aŌ er Crystal Palace improvements are made; Current photograph of end bracket and upper cornice; 1971 photograph of storefront cornice. 21 0 1971 1950s 1966 current 21 1 Upper fl oor windows: During the 1960/70s remodel, an addiƟ onal window was added to the upper fl oor for a total of 5 windows instead of the original 4 windows. The height of the window openings was reduced at some point - verifi ed by counƟ ng bricks in the historic pre-remodel photographs. The upper fl oor double hung windows were replaced with casement style. The delicate brick detailing above the windows was replaced with a faux-Romanesque brick design. The window sills, originally pink sandstone, were replaced with what appears to be cast stone or machine cut sandstone. Proposal: Restore 4 double hung windows, centered across the front façade and above storefront openings, to match historic photographs. All upper fl oor windows proposed to be wood and rectangular with wood fi lling in the curved opening to match historic condiƟ on. The 1971 photographs show the window openings to be about 31 bricks tall (current condiƟ on is about 23 bricks to the boƩ om of the exaggerated arch). Height of the windows in relaƟ onship to the storefront is unclear based on the angles and resoluƟ on of historic photographs. We propose to work with Staff and Monitor to conƟ nue to research and refi ne window height and relaƟ onship to storefront. Replace cast stone window sills with sandstone window sills - color to match typical sandstone of the era, subject to Staff and monitor approval. Replicate the delicate brick detailing around the upper fl oor windows to match historic photographs. An on-site mock-up is proposed to verify brick detailing with Staff and Monitor. Storefront: The storefront has evolved over Ɵ me as tenants changed hands. The original confi guraƟ on and height is hard to idenƟ fy in historic photographs; however close-up views of high resoluƟ on aerial photographs seem to show the two openings between brick columns are divided into two entrances/windows. On the other hand, the 1893 aerial shows a centered entrance with windows on either side and no verƟ cal division of the bay. When the Midnight Mine occupied the building from the mid-1930s to 1951, the far right bay was a garage to house and service trucks and store equipment. The current height of the storefront may be shorter than the original condiƟ on (the blurry historic photographs make it hard to count bricks and verify height). Field verifi caƟ on aŌ er removal of the cornice atop the storefront will hopefully provide some answers. The intent is to restore the storefront to the original height and proporƟ on. Proposal: A wooden storefront is proposed. The entrance is proposed to the far leŌ similar to the current condiƟ on. The right bay is proposed to be a large storefront window. Considering the uncertainty around the original appearane of the storefront, the proposed storefront is similar to the current confi guraƟ on. LeŌ : 1893 Bird-eye view detail of building. Next page (clockwise): Right bay is converted to a garage door as part of the Midnight Mine operaƟ on; current storefront; garage bay is removed; store- front confi guraƟ on prior to sliding barn door. 1893 21 2 1950s current 1900s 1962 21 3 West ElevaƟ on/Monarch Facade Brick: Similar to the front elevaƟ on, the upper fl oor brick has been enƟ rely reconstructed, and the building has been extended to the rear, as evidenced by the change in foun- daƟ on material from sandstone to concrete. Proposal: Remove the second fl oor (including the brick corbel) during demoliƟ on. Preserve and protect the historic porƟ on of the ground fl oor including the Owl Cigar Mural during construcƟ on. Reconstruct upper fl oor with bricks to match fi rst fl oor west elevaƟ on including the American/common brick bond course evident on the ground level of the west elevaƟ on, subject to Staff and monitor approval prior to installaƟ on. Color, dimension, mortar style and color to match typical historic commercial buildings in Aspen, subject to Staff and monitor approval prior to installaƟ on. A mock up onsite is recommended to confi rm appropriate technique and applicaƟ on. Owl Cigar Mural: The historic mural harkens back to the original tenant of the building – the Clark Commission Company – a wholesale produce house. The historic mural was repainted in 1977 by RP Evans according to the signature at the base of the mural. The height of the Owl mural may have been changed as evidenced by its relaƟ onship to the storefront height in historic photographs vs. current condiƟ on. Around 66 verƟ cal bricks are counted on the historic photograph and about 61 verƟ cal bricks are counted onsite today. The unoriginal brick corbel may have resulted in a shortened historic mural. As noted above, the storefront height may have been changed as well. Proposal: Protect the mural during construcƟ on. No change proposed. Cornice: see discussion above. Remove brick corbel from west elevaƟ on. LeŌ : Current relaƟ on- sip of mural to store- front cornice. Right: 1966 relaƟ on- ship of mural to store- front cornice. 1966current 21 4 Photographs clockwise: 1971 photograph showing mural hiƫ ng the upper fl oor window sills; current photograph showing gap between win- dow sills and mural; 1962 photograph showing mural hiƫ ng the upper fl oor window sills. current 1971 1962 21 5 Upper fl oor windows: During the 1960/70s remodel, the grouping and number of upper fl oor windows was signifi cantly altered from the original 6 equally spaced double hung windows. The height of the upper fl oor windows, verifi ed by counƟ ng bricks, was also reduced. The 1971 photographs show the window openings to be about 31 bricks tall (current condiƟ on is about 23 bricks to the boƩ om of the exaggerated arch). The upper fl oor double hung windows were replaced with casement style. The delicate brick detailing above the windows was replaced with a faux-Romanesque brick design. The window sills, originally pink sandstone, were replaced with what appears to be cast stone or machine cut sandstone. Proposal: Restore 6 double hung windows. All upper fl oor windows proposed to be wood and rectangular with wood fi lling in the curved opening to match historic condiƟ on. Window openings to match historic dimensions. Spacing of the windows is slightly diff erent than historic photographs to accommodate the proposed use of the building. A slightly diff erent spacing is a subtle way to show that this elevaƟ on was reconstructed and is not original. Replicate original window height based on historic photographs. Re- place cast stone window sills with rough cut sandstone window sills - color to match typical sandstone of the era, subject to Staff and monitor approval. Replicate the delicate brick detailing around the upper fl oor windows to match historic photographs. Ground level openings: SomeƟ me aŌ er 1962, ground level doors and window openings were bricked in. Luckily there are clear ghost shadows indicaƟ ng the locaƟ on and dimension of these openings. Proposal: Restore openings with wood windows or doors to match historic photographs and exisƟ ng shadow lines. Work with Staff and Monitor to detail these elements prior to construcƟ on and installaƟ on. The openings are not proposed to be operable. Steps and coal shoot: The remnants of a possible coal shoot and three concrete steps exist toward the rear (alley) of the west elevaƟ on, and sit within the right of way. The steps do not align with the ghost images of bricked in entrances and were probably shiŌ ed over Ɵ me. Proposal: Store concrete steps off -site during construcƟ on and replace in front of restored entrances at rear of west wall pending approval from Engineering via an encroachment license. The “coal shoot” is not proposed to be replaced. Photographs (leŌ to right): Current photograph to show ghost image of original door locaƟ on; current photograph to show concrete steps and “coal shoot”. Next page (clockwise): 1971 photograph detail of original window openings, sandstone sill, and delicate brick detail; current photograph of cast stone window sill; current photograph of upper fl oor windows; 1893 drawings of west elevaƟ on showing openings; 1966 photograph of west elevaƟ on showing openings. currentcurrent 21 6 1971 1966 1893 current current 21 7