Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20250616AGENDA CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION June 16, 2025 4:00 PM, City Council Chambers 427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen I.Work Session I.A APCHA Moving Assistance and Incentivized Rightsizing I.B West Mountain Regional Housing Coalition Good Deeds I.C Housing Summit I.D Armory Hall Adaptive Reuse: Status Update II.Council discussion of items published in the most recent information update, as needed Zoom Meeting Instructions Join from PC, Mac, iPad, or Android: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/85780538972?pwd=f4Gh683d7Sia92K8e6EW2I9sELFFf0.1 Passcode:81611 Join via audio: +1 346 248 7799 US Webinar ID: 857 8053 8972 Passcode: 81611 International numbers available: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kcDzaIkkqH June_16th_Work_Session_Memo_- _APCHA_Moving_Assistance_and_Incentivized_Rightsizing.docx Jun16 Work Session - WMRHC Good Deeds Follow-up.docx June 16th Work Session Memo - Housing Summit.docx Work session memo_Armory Hall_6.16.25.pdf 1 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Liz Axberg, Housing Policy Analyst THROUGH: Diane Foster, Deputy City Manager MEMO DATE: June 9, 2025 MEETING DATE: June 16, 2025 RE: APCHA Moving Assistance and Incentivized Rightsizing _____________________________________________________________________ REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The purpose of this work session is to: 1. Update Council on APCHA’s rightsizing program and discuss possible alternatives for allocating spare bedrooms in the APCHA ownership program 2. Discuss City Council’s interest in asking APCHA, and offering the City’s support, in the development of a moving assistance program. Staff is looking for direction on which potential programs City Council would like to further discuss or receive more information on. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND: In the City of Aspen’s 2024 Updated Affordable Housing Strategic Plan, one of the outlined action items is APCHA Incentivized Rightsizing. The goal of this action item is to fill spare bedrooms in the APCHA ownership inventory. In 2023, APCHA launched a rightsizing pilot program which has so far resulted in 2 swaps (with a third currently underway). In addition, City Council reserved 5 units for rightsizing at Burlingame 3. One household took advantage of this opportunity. Overall, there has not been significant uptake of either program. In today’s work session, staff will present high-level alternatives to assist in movement within and out of the APCHA to address spare bedrooms in the inventory. Another impetus for today’s discussion was feedback received in two APCHA focus groups held this past winter where feedback was received from attendees that they wanted to move out of the valley to be closer to family or for another reason, but they felt they couldn’t afford to move. 2 Any program, whether it be an incentivized rightsizing program or a moving assistance program. would need to be administered by the APCHA Board and potentially need to be adopted into the APCHA Regulations. Any potential incentives would need to be financially supported by the City of Aspen. DISCUSSION: The two main programs being explored include a moving assistance program or various alternatives to a rightsizing program. Below includes an overview of each along with 1. APCHA Moving Assistance Program This program would support APCHA owners who would like to sell their unit and leave the program but are limited financially in being able to afford to do so . To assist with this, this program would cover moving expenses for the owner at the time they choose to sell their home and exit APCHA. To qualify, eligible APCHA homeowner(s) who meet certain eligibility criteria would apply for the program, accept a moving assistance stipend, have a time window to move, then sell their home abiding by the APCHA regulations (lottery, sellers standards, etc.)  Request of the APCHA Board: Is City Council interested in asking the APCHA Board to consider a moving assistance program for APCHA owners who need financial assistance to exit the program?  Eligibility Criteria: Are there particular income levels or other demographics that Council would want to recommend to the APCHA Board this program to be reserved for? 2. Incentivized Rightsizing In the current rightsizing program, homeowners were invited to fill out a form at APCHA to express their interest in either downsizing or upsizing. APCHA owners are responsible for identifying a household to “swap” with, essentially buying each other’s homes. The APCHA Board recently amended the regulations to eliminate category barriers for those wishing to downsize. Alternatives to the current rightsizing program:  Reserve X number of units in a future City-developed affordable housing complex for rightsizing, allowing the owners to downsize into rental units.  Offer financial incentive to the downsizing household.  Offer to cover moving expenses for the downsizing household.  Request of the APCHA Board: Is City Council interested in making a recommendation to the APCHA Board about any of the proposed rightsizing 3 program alternatives? Which programs would City Council like more information on?  More alternatives? Are there any additional rightsizing alternatives that Council would like to suggest? FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Any of these programs would require financial support from City Council. Eligibility requirements, program parameters, and uptake would heavily influence this amount. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: All of the above programs are development neutral strategies with zero environmental impacts as opposed to new development. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Liz Axberg, Housing Policy Analyst THROUGH: Diane Foster, Deputy City Manager MEMO DATE: June 9, 2025 MEETING DATE: June 16, 2025 RE: West Mountain Regional Housing Coalition Good Deeds Program _____________________________________________________________________ REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is requesting direction how City Council would like to proceed with discussing potential funding to the West Mountain Regional Housing Coalition’s Good Deeds Program. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND: During the May 12th, 2025, Council Work Session, April Long, the Executive Director of the West Mountain Regional Housing Coalition (WMRHC) presented an overview of the coalition’s Good Deeds Program which Aspen City Council contributed $450,000 to in 2024. WMRHC took a regional and community-centered approach to eligibility and therefore structured the requirements to allow anyone working full-time for an employer principally or physically based in Pitkin, Eagle, or Garfield counties to be eligible. There is no income cap. A qualified buyer must use the home as their primary residence, is not allowed to short-term rent the home, must maintain local employment, and own no other residential property. They are eligible for a 3% simple interest annual appreciation and capital improvements of 10% every five years. WMRHC pays 30% of the purchase price of the home, up to a $1.5 million home price (varies geographically), in exchange for a permanent price capped deed restriction on the property. During the first 7 months of the program, WMRHC was able to facilitate putting deed restrictions on 9 homes. Of these nine homes, 4 of those new homeowner’s report to work in Aspen. With more support for the program, the goal is to bring 30 homes into the program by 2026. 5 DISCUSSION: WMRHC has been working on ways to expand the program (e.g. allowing current free - market owners to apply and exchange cash for deed restricting their home) and diversify their funding sources. To continue this program, WMRHC is requesting 2025 funding from jurisdictions. So far, 2025 program support has been received from:  Town of Snowmass Village - $250,000  City of Glenwood Springs -$100,000  Town of Carbondale - $100,000  Pitkin County - $1,000,000 Council concluded the May 12th work session by stating that the funding decision would be made at a different time. Staff is requesting direction on next steps. Options include (but are not limited to): 1. If Council needs additional information to decide on possible Good Deeds funding, Council could request an additional work session. 2. Council could request that staff bring this topic as an Action item during a regular meeting. During this time, staff could bring a resolution with a blank dollar amount for Council to discuss. 3. Council could request staff to bring a resolution to a regular meeting with the dollar amount to fund the program. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: West Mountain Regional Housing Coalition is requesting $1,000,000, just under the price of constructing a new bedroom in Aspen, from the City of Aspen for the program. City Council has the discretion to determine the extent to which they will address this request. The potential contribution would be supplied by the 150- Housing Development Fund. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: 6 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Liz Axberg, Housing Policy Analyst THROUGH: Diane Foster, Deputy City Manager MEMO DATE: June 9, 2025 MEETING DATE: June 16, 2025 RE: Housing Summit _____________________________________________________________________ REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The purpose of this work session is to receive direction from Council on the goals and structure of a possible Housing Summit. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND: During the 2025 City Council Retreat, Council expressed interest in exploring a Housing Summit. The most recent other local housing summit was hosted by Habitat for Humanity in 2022 at the Aspen Institute. This event had included stakeholders from Aspen through Glenwood Springs. Staff have various questions for Council to assist in establishing goals and parameters for the potential event to ensure a successful event which meets Council’s goals. DISCUSSION: For the Housing Summit, Staff have the following recommendations:  Solution-focused and outcome orientated  Little to no discussion of the problem, as this has been covered in other conferences and in many other venues (Council & BOCC work session throughout the valley, newspaper articles, etc.)  Fewer speakers “talking at” the attendees and instead workshop structured  Not a “one and done” event o Pre-scheduled follow-up meetings  Partner-focused: Limit the participants to those who are able to take action on affordable housing  Hire a facilitator who knows about affordable housing to lead the event All of the above recommendations are up for Council input or questions. In addition to the recommendations, Staff have the following questions for Council: 7  What outcomes do you want to see? o Immediately after Housing Summit o Six Months out o One Year out o Five years out  Focus: Where should discussion be focused? o New affordable housing, including development neutral solutions o Maintenance of existing affordable housing units o Both or Other  Geography/Partners: Who should be included in this Summit?  Timing: When would you like this to happen?  Location: Do you have any preferences on where you would like this to happen? FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Hosting or co-hosting a Housing Summit would have financial impacts. The size and scope of the housing summit would influence the cost of the event. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: There are no direct environmental impacts. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: 8 Page 1 of 20 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Richards and Aspen City Council FROM: Jen Phelan, Development Manager THROUGH: Tyler Christoff, Public Works Director and Rob Schober, Capital Asset Director MEMO DATE: June 9, 2025 MEETING DATE: June 16, 2025 RE: Armory Hall Adaptive Reuse: Status Update _____________________________________________________________________ REQUEST OF COUNCIL: At the work session, staff and the consultant team (project team) will discuss the status of three components of the project: interior programming and design of the Armory, considerations for a potential operator Request for Proposal (RFP), and the direction provided by the Historic Preservation Commission during its review of the land use application. The team will seek direction on aspects associated with each topic. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND: Since the last work session with Council on January 13, 2025, where the proposed material palette for the building, treatment of the Hopkins Avenue facade, and improvements to Conner Park/expanded parklet were discussed, the project team has continued to progress the Design Development (DD) plan set and overall project, submitted the land use application to begin the public hearing and review process, provided an Information Only memo to City Council, and participated in two public hearings with the Historic Preservation Commission. The team is also targeting release of a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a potential operator of Armory Hall. Several topics covering design progress, operations, and a land use review update, are discussed in the body of this memo with associated questions posed to gain continued guidance from Council. Interior Programming and Design. Based upon past City Council direction and additional space planning considerations, the project team has continued to progress the DD plan set and is anticipating a completion deadline of June 30th based on the current design. The interior floor plans have evolved with slight changes to the primary stairwell footprint, further development of retail positioning, and continued study of a coffee/ limited beverage bar to maintain a family focused approach on the main level (Exhibit A). 9 Page 2 of 20 Additionally, the project team has begun interior design work, developing initial design concepts for Armory Hall. This progress will be reviewed at the work session. Operations. The operational consultants (Ripple Creek Properties / Immersed) have suggested that an appropriate time to issue a RFP is once a land use approval is in hand, as the entitlements will provide a sufficient level of certainty around the design and programing that will be constructed. As the project team is now in the land use review process, additional direction on the content to include in an RFP for an operator is needed. As discussed in past work session and meeting memos (May 28, 2024 and October 8, 2024) and confirmed by Resolution No. 129 (Series of 2024), an operator model or licensee model is Council’s preferred management approach for Armory Hall. With an ‘operator’ or ‘licensee model’, it allows the City a more hands-off approach for ownership of the asset compared to a ‘landlord’ model. The operator model will require less City staff involvement as the licensee will be responsible for leasing the tenant spaces, managing the beverage services, and daily property operations. The contemplated structure proposes the City provide all capital to improve the asset and deliver the building in turnkey condition. The City is expected to earn a modest return on investment, generating revenue from licensee rent payments and a share of operating profits. Armory Hall is not intended to be a “profit center” for the City. As designed, Armory Hall is expected to be a self-supporting asset that generates sufficient capital reserves to maintain the building in perpetuity. The draft operating budget from the October 8th work session reflects modest, positive income generated by the building but is limited to an operational perspective only and thus is not a pro forma. A pro forma, which includes estimates of the capital and timing associated with investment outlays, will be developed as financing assumptions are determined. In the interim, in order to develop and issue an RFP for a potential operator, some basic parameters need to be agreed upon by City Council. This includes confirmation of the previously discussed operator model, provision of all capital to deliver the building in turn-key condition, and certain expectations on the lease and building operations. The operational consultants advise that the City’s standard lease term (5-year base term w/ 5-year renewal) presents a challenge in attracting an operator. The consultants recommend an extended base term and/or additional renewal options be approved for Armory Hall. The consultants believe the City’s flexibility on lease terms will impact operator interest and the number of RFP responses received. Regardless of lease term, the consultants recommend the City negotiate termination rights in any lease should an operator fail to achieve financial benchmarks or fulfill management duties. 10 Page 3 of 20 Utilities for the visitor center will be separately metered, with other Common Area Maintenance (CAM) expenses passed through and billed back annually. The future operating partner will be responsible for payment of all utilities, CAMs, and other operating expenses for the property. Operation maintenance is anticipated to include the building exterior for scopes such as snow removal and landscaping; however, the City will be responsible for capital maintenance of the Armory Hall. For purposes of the future liquor license, the team recommends that a portion of Connor Park be included in the operator’s leased premises. Without compromising public access/use, shared use of Connor Park will be important to the success of Armory Hall. The City may also wish the operating partner to oversee maintenance of Connor Park, though maintenance costs for Connor Park are anticipated to be paid by the City. Armory Hall is intended to be a four-season asset. The design program aims to meet year-round market demand, with the opportunity to accommodate more visitors in the busiest months via integration with Connor Park. The future operating partner should recommend operating hours and any changes based on seasonal variation. Lease negotiations will determine the City’s control over operating hours and should clearly define any allowances for closure during shoulder seasons. The asset has been programmed to influence the affordability of consumer offerings. Food vendors at Armory Hall will be counter-service only, with the small footprint kitchens maximizing efficiency. Likewise, all patron seating is common area to be managed by the operator, reducing staffing burden compared to typical food service. Lower vendor overhead should produce lower consumer prices, creating natural affordability for the project. The consultants do not advise affordability restrictions be put in place at this time. The City should negotiate directly with the future operating partner to determine any limitations for the property. For example, in comparable properties in the private sector, lease agreements sometimes require vendors to offer a specified number of menu items at or below a designated price point. To maximize RFP interest and produce the highest likelihood of success, the consultants recommend the City remain open to varying lease and partnership structures with the future operator. It may be possible to negotiate a partnership structure that incentivizes some capital investment (“skin in the game”) from the operator. Consultants advise operating partners will be unlikely to contribute capital to project costs under a lease agreement only. Exterior Design and Land Use Review. Armory Hall is being reviewed as a Public Project, with associated land use reviews. As such, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is tasked with making a recommendation on the proposal to City Council. City Council then reviews the application and is the final decision-maker regarding the proposal. 11 Page 4 of 20 City Council last reviewed the design on January 13, 2025, which was included in the land use application. At the work session the applicant team asked for guidance on a number of design, land use review, and construction timeline items that were later memorialized in Resolution No. 20 (Series of 2025). This included progressing the entry vestibule and visitor center siding with metal rather than sandstone, including a darker paint scheme, using metal as a roofing material for the building, focusing larger window openings solely on bays 2 and 5 of the Hopkins elevation (rather than enlarging windows on all five bays), and removing the extended eave to its original condition on the Hopkins elevation. Council also supported the Hopkins Avenue expanded parklet and the direction of improvements to Conner Park. Certain modifications shown to City Council, such as the change of siding from sandstone to metal, and limiting larger window openings to bays 2 and 5 on the Hopkins elevation were made after discussions with Community Development staff. The land use application was submitted to the Community Development Department on February 3, 2024. The project team began the land use review process for the adaptive reuse of Armory Hall by participating in two public hearings before the Historic Preservation Commission, resulting in adoption of Resolution No. 4 (Series of 2025). An initial public hearing was conducted before the HPC on May 14th. At this meeting, the HPC reviewed the project and discussed certain elements of the proposed design. Generally speaking, the Commission discussed recommendations made within the staff memo which included maintaining the extended eave along Hopkins, restudy of the roof material, noted concern of historic material (brick) and windows being removed or obscured by the visitor center and vestibule, recommended removal of the vestibule on the east elevation, advised reconsideration of the proposed canopies on Hopkins, suggested reconsideration of the window detail on the bay openings, and asked for an alternate to the proposed artificial turf for an area of Conner Park. The Commission then continued the hearing to May 28th. A quorum was not available on the 28th so the application was continued to June 3rd. After the hearing, the project team considered recommendations in the staff memo, any constructive comments provided by the Commission, and pertinent design standards and guidelines, while balancing the community interest in creating a vibrant space and Council direction. The Commission did not recommend approval of the project as presented on June 3rd and included a number of items for further restudy. The changes presented at the June 3rd hearing, along with associated recommendations made by the HPC include: • Armory roof material. Based on a comment from the HPC on May 14th, the design has been updated to include synthetic wood shingles rather than pre-patinaed metal. The original roofing material of Armory Hall was wood shingle, which was switched to metal, and is currently asphalt shingle. This alternate material was selected to “restore the character of the historic roof” per HP Guideline 7.8; in addition, the design team believes the synthetic wood shingles complement the natural metal siding better than 12 Page 5 of 20 a painted metal would. The shingles are an acceptable material for the fire department and were recently approved by the Commission for portions of the Annebelle. City staff does not support the alternate material; however, two members of the Commission did agree with the project team that painted metal would not be of the same level of quality compared to other materials proposed for the project. The resolution passed by the Commission proposes asphalt shingles or a non- reflective metal and the project team anticipates working with HP staff on this item. Figure 1: Roof with patinaed metal Figure 2: Roof with synthetic shingles • Additions. There are two additions proposed to Armory Hall, the visitor center on the north side of the building and a new ADA accessible vestibule on the east side of the 13 Page 6 of 20 building. Both additions were considered using the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and the Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Standards and Guidelines. Chapter 10 of the HP Guidelines addresses additions to historic structures. The design team believe that both proposed additions meet all the applicable sections of chapter 10 (10.3, 10.4, 10.5, 10.6, 10.8, 10.10, 10.11, and 10.12). The additions are located on rear facing facades which do not contain historically important architectural features. Both are set back from the street face so that the Armory remains the predominant structure as viewed from the street. The mass and roof forms are simple and do not compete with the historic resource but are compatible in scale, additionally, they are clearly a product of their own time. The Commercial Standards and Guidelines add another layer of requirements to the design solution. Standard 1.14 requires that commercial entrances be oriented to the street and requires a second entrance on corner lots. Standard 2.11 requires that a height of 12 to 14 feet for the first level is maintained. Visitor center. This addition provides a new, welcoming location for ACRA, facing Galena Street. It is located on the north side of the Armory where there have been many additions over the life of the building. The HPC discussed providing a connector element between the resource and the visitor center addition at the initial hearing. The HP Guidelines do not require a link when the addition is shorter than the resource but in consideration of the discussion, glass was added on the east elevation providing an unobstructed view through the addition. This approach was suggested by one of the HPC members. A reveal detail was also discussed as another approach. Both approaches were studied but it was determined that a reveal resulted in the covering of more existing brick. The team felt that the continuity of the brick as seen through the Visitor Center glazing was more effective than the use of a reveal to separate the new addition from the Armory. The glazing added on the east elevation of the addition provides additional transparency and viewing of the Armory’s north wall. 14 Page 7 of 20 Figures 3 & 4: Visitor center design – January 2025 15 Page 8 of 20 Figure 5 & 6: Visitor center design with additional glazing on east elevation The Commission was satisfied with the proposed changes. Entry vestibule. This vestibule provides an enclosed entry point into the building from Conner Park and the Hopkins Avenue sidewalk and is attached to the rear of the resource. Staff has recommended removal of the vestibule. In response, the project team added glazing on the back of the vestibule, allowing for additional transparency through the structure so that more of the resource’s brick wall can be 16 Page 9 of 20 viewed and made changes to the fenestration detail, to reflect a proportion more aligned to the historic, commercial context. The Commercial Design standards require an entrance “on the secondary street for corner lots”. As Armory Hall originally only had one ground floor entry into the building on Galena Street, Hopkins Ave. should be considered the secondary street and entrance point. The Galena Street entry has steps leading to it and is not accessible. The vestibule is “at the sidewalk level and oriented to the street”, adhering to the Commercial Design standards. Further recommendations by HPC to lower the height of the vestibule will be considered; however, the design team believes any changes should not result in the vestibule being out of proportion with the resource. The team feels strongly that an intentional and visible ADA access point is not only the best way to meet building codes and accessibility requirements, but the most responsible design solution to ensure all members of our community have equal access to the building. An important tenet of accessible design is that building entrances should be of equal quality and it is not appropriate to establish an accessible entrance through an otherwise service style entrance. Figure 7: Entry vestibule – January 2025 17 Page 10 of 20 Figure 8 & 9: Entry vestibule with rear glazing, smaller window opening on elevation, changes in window detailing The Commission determined a vestibule was appropriate but asked that it be restudied to be “simplified, minimized, and condensed”. The project team anticipates working with HP staff on this item. • Conner Park turf. The project team, through Parks department direction, has proposed synthetic turf for portions of Conner Park. Due to the shade and influence of the existing large evergreen tree, maintaining the already struggling lawn has proven difficult. With anticipated increases in foot traffic, including visitors from the Armory, park users, and the Saturday Market, Parks staff have determined that natural turf is no longer a viable option. They recommend installing synthetic turf, which offers the flexibility needed for diverse uses while enhancing the park’s appearance. It provides a soft, inviting surface that encourages informal seating and also significantly reduces water consumption for irrigation. The team believes that an inviting, comfortable, and accessible park can be created with the use of the proposed turf. The team asked HPC to make a recommendation to City Council on the preferred material, considering synthetic turf, gravel, or stabilized crusher fines. It should be noted that changing to a hardscape material will impact the look and feel of Conner Park, with it becoming more like an urban plaza. 18 Page 11 of 20 Figure 10: Conner Park design – January 2025 Figure 11: Conner Park design – hardscape surface The Commission recommended an appropriate material be determined other than synthetic turf. The project team anticipates working with HP staff on this item. 19 Page 12 of 20 • Southern roof extension. Since initial work sessions discussing the design of Armory Hall, the removal of the roof extension along Hopkins Ave. has been shown. The team tried to address key elements raised by the HPC between public hearings but after much consideration, continued to propose removal of the non-original eave extension. Removing the eave offers several notable advantages. It restores the original architectural symmetry of the Armory, allowing the brick corbelling detail, a significant historical feature of the building, to be fully appreciated. Furthermore, this change would enhance the interior by inviting more natural light, creating a brighter and more welcoming space. Eliminating the overhang also enables the creation of a parklet that seamlessly extends to Conner Park. Positioned to take full advantage of the southern solar exposure, this proposed parklet would serve as a comfortable communal gathering spot. The current drip line caused by the overhang disrupts this area, potentially creating safety hazards in winter and undermining the parklet’s functionality. By addressing this issue, the plan ensures a safer, more inviting environment for community use. Additionally, the project team believes there is a reasonable basis for the roof extension to be removed. Added in 1906, the roof extension is not original to the design of the Armory and distorts the intended symmetrical appearance of the building. This architectural detail is not from the period of significance of the resource, identified on the state inventory form as “late 1800’s Silver Mining Era” and as “19th Century” on the national inventory form. In the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, it is noted under HP Guideline 10.2 that “for Aspen Victorian properties, HPC generally relies on the 1904 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps to determine which portions of a building are historically significant.” The eave extension is not on the noted Sanborn map. Also, the historic record indicates, both through photographs and newspaper articles, that the south eave was added in concert with an eave extension on the north side of the building, maintaining the symmetrical form of the building. With the later removal of the north eave extension, that symmetry was lost. Removal of the eave extension restores the symmetry of the building’s facade along Galena Street, one of the building’s character defining features. The project team thoroughly evaluated the guidelines while considering the approach to the eave. Although the team understands that HP staff and the HPC believe the addition “has achieved historic significance in its own right”, the team believes there are a number of other guidelines which support the removal of the addition. Chapter 7 of the Historic Preservation Guidelines addresses roofs. Guidelines 7.1 and 7.2 are pertinent to this aspect of the design. Guideline 7.1 states “Preserve the original form of a roof”. “Where the original roof form has been altered consider restoration.” Guideline 7.2 states “Preserve the original eave depth. Overhangs contribute to the scale and detailing of a historic resource.” Removal of the eave extension will restore the original roof form and the original eave depth. Additionally, guidelines in Chapter 2 are relevant. 2.1 states “Preserve original building materials,” masonry features that 20 Page 13 of 20 define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices, pediments, steps and foundations should be preserved. Guideline 2.6 states “Remove layers that cover the original material”. Removal of the eave extension will reveal brick detail that is currently obscured from view. Figures 12 & 13: Hopkins elevation – June 2025 and historic photograph without extended eave (AHS archive) Both HP staff and the Commission recommend retaining this feature and focused on HP Guideline 10.1, “preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right.” as the basis for the recommendation. • Canopies. In consideration of comments made by HPC members at the initial public hearing, an alternative design for the Hopkins Avenue elevation was provided. Although not preferred by the applicant team, it removes the canopies over bay 2 and 5, including part of the canopy that wraps around to the entry vestibule. 21 Page 14 of 20 Figures 14 & 15: Removal/modification of canopy – June 2025 If the extended eave is removed, removal of the canopies is the preferred treatment for the Hopkins Ave. elevation by the HPC but has implications with regard to solar gain, weather protection, and seasonal access into the building through bays 2 and 5 along Hopkins Avenue. • Fenestration. Some comments from the HPC indicated an interest in revisiting the fenestration style and detail. Armory Hall is considered an Industrial style building which is unique to the commercial core historic district where the dominant historic building type in the downtown is the Victorian Era Commercial Building. During the January 13th work session, Council saw a gridded window pattern in the locations along Hopkins Ave. and the east elevation where new windows were being proposed. This style of window was intended to complement the Industrial style of the Armory, and per HP Guideline 3.7, these windows were intentionally distinguishable from the existing fenestration. Responding to initial Staff and HPC comments, the windows were changed in proportion to reflect the existing double hung windows and Victorian Commercial detailing was added. 22 Page 15 of 20 Figures 16 & 17: Window detailing differences – June 2025 (above) and January 2025 (below) In comparing the two options, HP staff preferred the original window detail, while the Commission recommended consideration of a ‘more appropriate window detail’. The project team anticipates working with HP staff on this item. • New window openings on Hopkins Ave and the east (Conner Park) elevation. Some comments from the HPC indicated an interest in revisiting the fenestration along Hopkins Avenue and the east facade. The project team has not proposed any alterations to the Galena Street facade, which is the most intact elevation of the 23 Page 16 of 20 building. All proposed alterations are on the other three building elevations – on an elevation facing a secondary street or the rear of the resource. The project team focused on these two elevations as greater flexibility in adding windows, per HP Guideline 3.7, “may be considered on rear or secondary walls.” New windows on the Hopkins Avenue elevation are located in areas which have had significant alterations in the past, including the installation of a door to the police station and a garage door for city vehicles. The new windows proposed for the Hopkins elevation will have minimal impact on historic material, estimated at between 25 and 50 sq. ft. on a 1700 sq. ft. elevation. The proposed window facing Conner Park is located on an elevation which has also had significant alterations over the years, including the addition of seven windows between the first and second floor in the 1970s. These windows closely mimic the historic windows at the Armory which is frowned upon in the historic preservation field. During the 1990s the elevation was altered again with the addition of the subgrade egress well. The new east facing window is clearly a product of its time. In consideration of HPC direction, the team did reduce the size of the window opening on the Hopkins and east elevation. Figures 18: Modifications to Hopkins Avenue elevation, photos circa 1994: HP staff considered the reduced size of the window opening as an improvement, but the HPC recommended removal of the window opening. • Integrated gutter. With the proposed removal of the extended eave, the project team had been anticipating incorporation of an integrated gutter, so that it would not be visible as HP Guideline 7.10 emphasizes minimizing their visibility. The HPC recommended no integrated gutter be permitted. 24 Page 17 of 20 • Perimeter maintenance border. A 1 ft. gravel border along the perimeter of the resource in front of any plantings was required by HPC, although this has been planned for by the project team. DISCUSSION: Throughout this process the project team has been weighing the desires of the community (as expressed in the many engagement opportunities), guidance from food hall development and operational experts, direction from Council, and design guidelines, both historic preservation and commercial standards. The project team’s intent is to design the Armory in a way that finds a balance between all of these points of view. The recent hearing with the Historic Preservation Commission has shown how difficult it is to balance the competing interests associated with the project, as the project received a denial with conditions from HPC. HPC noted its priority is preservation of the resource, which should also be a priority of Council, although City Council has additional priorities to weigh. The ultimate goal for this project is for a successful adaptive reuse of the historic Armory Hall, transforming the building into a community gathering space anchored by a food hall. In order for this goal to be met the Armory will need a building operator that sees the potential for economic viability. With the substantial investment that will be required to execute the restoration and remodel of Armory Hall, economic viability should be an important consideration for Council. Resolution No. 20 (Series of 2025) anticipated a land use review timeline where the HPC would review the application in April, followed by the City Council in May. The application is behind schedule. With the HPC providing recommendations to Council on what design items should be addressed, Asset staff recommends proceeding to a public hearing before Council to consider the land use application and minimize delay in the overall project timeline. The project team has pushed out the DD deadline, which creates a domino effect by pushing out the construction documents (CDs) timeline and delaying submission of a building permit application. All of this could ultimately delay the construction start date. To continue moving the project forward, the project team seeks confirmation of several issues related to the topics previously discussed. Some of these decision points will affect how the timeline progresses and are organized by category. • Interior programming and design. The consultant team has continued to refine the interior programming and has begun to develop the design aesthetics for the finishes. 1)The consultant team is looking for confirmation that the interior programming and design aesthetics are supported. • Operations. A RFP is planned to be released once land use entitlements are granted. The operational consultants have advised staff of other conditions that should be 25 Page 18 of 20 addressed by Council before an RFP is issued. The project team is looking for direction regarding flexibility to the City’s standard lease term, confirmation of Conner Park access, and determination of affordability restrictions (if any). Continued support for an efficient permit review process will be important to maintain operator in the project. Staff requests Council review and respond to following questions: 2) Is Council willing to consider a longer lease term and/or additional renewal options as long as adequate terminations rights are also included? 3) Is Council amenable to beverages being allowed in the parklet and Conner Park? 4) Is Council interested in negotiating affordability restrictions with the future operator? 5) Is Council still supportive of an expedited permit process? • Exterior design and land use review. As mentioned previously, it's important to note that throughout the design process, the project team has considered and incorporated the guidelines and standards as part of this project. The project team did indicate that aspects of this proposal would push the limits of the guidelines; however, guidelines are subject to interpretation. As such, their intent, applicability and prioritization may be viewed differently by different people. In some instances, the project team, HP staff, and the HPC have different perspectives regarding applicability of certain guidelines. In other cases, there appear to be opposing guidelines and the priority of application needs to be determined. The Historic Preservation Commission, in adopting the resolution related to Armory Hall, noted that it recognizes “the conflicted goals that the City Council is trying to achieve” but “the HPC’s priority is preservation of the resource regardless of any proposed function/use” and recommended areas for amendment to the proposed design. The project team believes the design conforms with a vast majority of the guidelines relevant to the project. It will be ultimately up to City Council to consider which guidelines are applicable to the project. As stated in the introduction of the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, “It must be emphasized that these are only guidelines and they are not applicable in all cases and need to be weighed with the practicality of the measure.” A design can be pursued that can conform with all the conditions of HPC’s recent resolution. Council will need to weigh what changes have the potential to create a venue that does not attract an operator, or if it still does, could impact the attractiveness of the Armory as a successful gathering space for the community. City Council, as the final decision maker on the design of the project, will need to provide direction on how to proceed. The project team is happy to follow whatever direction City Council thinks is appropriate. That direction could be somewhere from 26 Page 19 of 20 preserve/rehabilitate the building, to follow HPC conditions, to the January 2025 proposed design. • Reworking of certain building elements with HP staff. There are number of items noted by the HPC that can be further studied. The project team believes it can work with HP staff to try and find an appropriate design solution for the roof material, fenestration detail, entry vestibule, integrated gutter, and Conner Park turf prior to a public hearing before City Council is conducted. Although important to the overall character and design of the building, these elements will not have as much bearing on the overall success of its adaptive reuse; however, the project team would like to gain some initial direction on these items. The team can then work with HP Staff on refining the items. 6) The project team will discuss each item to gain some initial direction and then work on refinement. • Extended eave and parklet. The project team recognizes that the roof extension is old and there may be some emotional attachment to it; however, the team has outlined that the HP Guidelines associated with roofs would encourage bringing it to its original condition, the eave extension was constructed outside the building’s period of significance, the eave extension was built in concert with one on the north side of the building which provided symmetry, and is not shown on the 1904 Sanborn map – which is typically relied on to determine an addition’s significance. With this roof element, there appears to be opposing guidelines within the HP Guidelines between the ‘Roofs’ and ‘New Additions’ chapters. The preservation of this overhang has significant impacts to the functionality of the Hopkins Avenue side of the project, which is an important area for the ultimate success of the adaptive reuse of the building. 7) The project team is looking for direction on how to progress this aspect of the design. • Removal of the canopies along the Hopkins Ave. elevation. The HPC prefers removal of the canopies along the Hopkins Avenue elevation; however, this is not the project team’s preferred option. The canopies have been designed to create a distinction between old and new as outlined in the guidelines and the design on the south and east elevations are simple, clean and do not add architectural details that might compete with the historic fabric of the Armory. 8) Please provide direction as to whether the project team should progress the design with or without the canopy element. • East (Conner Park) elevation window opening. The project team reduced the size of the window opening in response to comments that were initially provided by the HPC. At the continued hearing, the Commission recommended removal of the entire window opening. The applicant team recommends maintaining the updated, smaller window opening. Although the opening will remove some potentially original building materials (brick and mortar), greater flexibility in adding windows, per HP Guideline 3.7, “may 27 Page 20 of 20 be considered on rear or secondary walls.” The consultant team advises the recommended design for the Hopkins Avenue facade is necessary for the community’s desired use and the east elevation provides connection to the park. Transparency, circulation (ingress/egress), and seamless transition from the interior building to both the streetscape and Connor Park is a priority for both functionality and identification. To maximize the likelihood of success of the adaptive reuse, preservation of the window opening is recommended. 9) Please provide direction as to whether to continue with the smaller east elevation window opening or if the opening should be removed. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Spending authority for the design work and interior finishes was approved via change order to the CCY Architects contract in 2025 by City Council. No spending authority has been approved for the rehabilitation and remodel of the building but will be discussed during the 2026 annual budget review. The project team is currently developing cost estimates for the project. Continued changes to the design and a drawn out entitlement process will most likely affect the design contract scope and require additional funds. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: As the project is in the design phase, no environmental impacts are occurring; however, the design is considering the minimization of the building’s environmental footprint as it is progressed. ALTERNATIVES: To maintain progress of a Council priority project, staff recommends continuing the project to a public hearing before City Council. Final design decisions can be made during the hearing process and minimize timeline delays. In the alternative, Council can send the project back to the HPC for consideration of an alternative recommendation. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff requests direction on the nine questions posed in the memo and recommends that the land use application be moved forward for City Council review. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Interior Floor Plans Exhibit B: HPC Resolution No. 4 (Series 2025) 28 Exhibit A: Interior floor plans 29 30 HPC Resolution 04, Series of 2025 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION #4 (SERIES OF 2025) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF REDEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 130 S. GALENA ST. AND 525 E. HOPKINS AVE., LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS BLOCK 93, LOT K THRU O & W 22 ½ FT OF LOT P, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL ID: 2737-073-31-851 & 2737-073-31-852 WHEREAS, the applicant, City of Aspen, 427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611, represented by Jessica Garrow, DesignWorkshop, 22860 Two Rivers Road, Suite 102, Basalt, CO 81621, has requested a recommendation from the Historic Preservation Commission for the redevelopment of the property located at 130 S. Galena St. and 525 E. Hopkins Ave., commonly known as Armory Hall and Conner Memorial Park, and legally described as Block 93, Lot K Thru O & West 22 ½ Ft of Lot P; City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that “no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;”; and WHEREAS, the Major Public Projects review procedure follows a two-step process per Section 26.500.040 of the Municipal Code with step one being a Public Hearing before the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) with a recommendation to City Council, and step two being a Public Hearing before City Council for decision; and WHEREAS, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070(d) of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may make a recommendation to City Council to approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or the HPC continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a recommendation to City Council to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for compliance with applicable review standards and, found it inconsistent with City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Guideline 2.5, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 4.5, 6.1, 6.3, 7.1, 7.2, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9, 10.1, 10.4, 10.11, and 10.12, and City of Aspen Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Standards and Guidelines Guidelines 1.16, 1.34, 2.3, 2.4, 2.8, and Standards 1.15, 1.22, 1.23, 1.33, 1.35, and 2.10, and therefore could not recommend an approval; and WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on May 14, 2025, and again on June 3, 2025, after a continuation, where the HPC considered the application, the staff memo, and public comment, and found the proposal inconsistent with the review standards and recommended that City Council deny the application by a vote of 6 to 0. Exhibit B: HPC resolution 31 HPC Resolution 04, Series of 2025 Page 2 of 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION THAT THE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL IS TO DENY THE APPLICATION. Section 1: Denial Considerations The HPC has recommended that the City Council deny the application as presented given the applicable guidelines and standards that have not been met. While the HPC understands the conflicted goals that the City Council is trying to achieve, the HPC’s priority is preservation of the resource regardless of any proposed function/use. The HPC finds that the following items need to be addressed before a recommendation for approval could be revisited: 1. The southern roof extension is to be retained. 2. No canopies are to be installed on the Hopkins Ave. façade. 3. The vestibule and associated entry opening into the Armory are to be restudied to be simplified, minimized, and condensed. 4. Roofing material shall be asphalt shingles or a non-reflective metal material, with either option to be reviewed by HP staff and monitor prior to building permit submittal. 5. Determine a more appropriate window detail for the bay openings to better align with HP design guidelines prior to building permit submittal. 6. Determine an appropriate material for Conner Memorial Park in lieu of artificial turf. 7. Changes made following Council approval are to follow the typical review process and meet required criteria associated with designated properties. 8. No integrated gutter is allowed. 9. A minimum 1’ border is to be placed around the structure before a planted border. 10. The proposed fenestration next to the vestibule is to be removed. Section 2: Existing Litigation This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3: Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION at a special meeting on the 3rd day of June, 2025. Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: 32 HPC Resolution 04, Series of 2025 Page 3 of 3 ________________________________ ________________________________ Jim True, Attorney Kara Thompson, Chair ATTEST: ________________________________ Tracy Terry, City Clerk 33