Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20160427 AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING April 27, 2016 5:00 PM City Council Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISITS A. 12:00- Please meet at the front door of City Hall to tour sites under consideration for HPC awards II. INTRODUCTION (15 MIN.) A. Roll call B. Approval of minutes March 23, 2016 minutes April 13, 2016 minutes C. Public Comments D. Commissioner member comments E. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) F. Project Monitoring G. Staff comments Update on Council review of Hotel Jerome expansion H. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued I. Submit public notice for agenda items J. Call-up reports K. HPC typical proceedings III. NEW BUSINESS A. 5:20: 541 Race Alley- Conceptual Major Development, Relocation and Variations, PUBLIC HEARING IV. OLD BUSINESS A. 6:30: 540 E. Main Street- Planned Development - Project Review, Major Development – Conceptual Review, Demolition & Relocation of designated historic properties, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Conditional Use review for the provision of Affordable Housing Growth Management Reviews for an Essential Public Facility and for the Development of Affordable Housing, PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 24TH B. 7:15 Selection of Annual Awards V. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: Resolution #12, 2016 TYPICAL PROCEEDING- 1 HOUR, 10 MINUTES FOR MAJOR AGENDA ITEM, NEW BUSINESS Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH) Staff presentation (5 minutes) Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes) Applicant presentation (20 minutes) Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes) Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) (5 minutes) Applicant Rebuttal Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed (5 minutes) HPC discussion (15 minutes) Motion (5 minutes) *Make sure the motion includes what criteria are met or not met. No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting of at least four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require the concurring vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes of the members of the commission then present and voting. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 1 Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Nora Berko, Patrick Sagal, Michael Brown, Bob Blaich and Sallie Golden. Absent were John Whipple, Gretchen Greenwood and Jim DeFrancia. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Nora said there is an apparent conflict of interest on the Meadows. Her family came here for the Institute. Nora said she has total ability to be objective on this application. Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director introduced herself and went over the moratorium that will be in place for a year that was passed by City Council. In the commercial zone districts, downtown, commercial core, C1, neighborhood commercial, mixed use and SCI zone districts we cannot accept any new land use applications during the period that the moratorium is in place. There are also limits on what building permit applications can be taken in. If a building permit application were coming in that didn’t trigger a land use review but was asking to increase height or FAR that is something that would be caught in the moratorium. City Council wanted to make sure that they have some breathing room and time to work through code amendments to better incorporate the Aspen Area Community plan into the land use code. As we move forward we will be asking HPC for input. Amy said she issued a certificate of no negative effect at the Ute City Banque building for skylights that were leaking. 540 E. Main Street – Aspen Police Station Planned Development – Project Review, Major Development, Conceptual Review, Demolition & Relocation of designated historic properties, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Conditional Use review for the provisions of Affordable Housing Growth Management Reviews for an Essential Public Facility and for the development of affordable housing, public hearing cont’d from February 24th P1 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 2 Jennifer said there was a site visit today to inspect story poles, Exhibit N. The scope of the project is to demolish the existing ranch house and a cement block garage, construct a new police station along Main Street and a new multi-family building for affordable housing behind the police station. There will also be a new trail connection from Main Street to Obermeyer. As part of the project the proposal is to relocate the historic resource on the site and move it forward. Direction was given at the last meeting that the barn could be removed because it wasn’t of the same period of significance as the historic house and the shed. The house and shed to remain on site as an interpretive building. There were two proposals for siting the house, one was square to the street and the other at an angle. Staff is recommending the square to the street angle. There was discussion on wanting to know where the resources will be temporarily located during the redevelopment of the site. The initial was Burlingame but there has been some talk about Anderson Park. The applicant is still trying to determine where they would be stored and recommends that be a condition of final. The Board asked how the two resources would be maintained as an interpretive building on the site. There is still discussion how that would occur. Currently the applicant is committing to maintain the two structures on the site by getting them on foundations and stabilizing them. The applicant isn’t sure if the Historical Society will operate the interpretive building. Jennifer said another question was to look at the fencing of the rear courtyard and how it may block views of the resource. A 3/1/2 foot fence is proposed and staff is recommending that the fencing impacts the view of the resource and should be removed. There was also discussion about reducing the height of the police station which is over 30+ feet. There are several zone districts in that area. In the commercial core and C1 district a two- story building is giving the height limit of 28 feet. Some of the height has been reduced. HPC needs to determine if they are OK with the height and if it is suitable to the character of the building for its use and that it is compatible with the neighborhood. Staff’s position is that it be as close to 28 feet as possible. The board also asked for more renderings and views which should be presented by the applicant during their presentation. Changes for affordable housing are included in the packet. The reso is to approve the project with conditions; maintain the height of 28 feet for the police station; removing the fencing along the perimeter of the courtyard; there is also concerns about the elevator near the affordable housing. It is almost like a standalone mass and maybe it can be incorporated into the building better. P2 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 3 We need to look at the exposure of the garage level from Rio Grande Place and if the mass can be reduced by landscaping, dirt etc. The ramping being proposed to connect the new trail is mostly on the Concept 600 building property. We would like consent from the adjacent property owner by final on the trail. Parks is also concerned that there is enough turnaround for cyclists. The temporary storage should be outlined in the development for final. In the resolution is a requirement to have a more detailed plan on how the resource shall be maintained as an interpretive building on the site and also a detailed plan for restoration and repair of the materials on the historic resources. The rear addition to the cabin can be removed. Nora asked about stabilization vs preserving the historic buildings. Amy said in this case we don’t want to take the work on the building to far. There is an appreciation for the state that it is in now and we don’t want to disturb the unique materials. We would like to fix it where it is and allow that condition to be maintained for the long term. Debbie pointed out that new renderings will be presented tonight that you haven’t seen. If the board does not have sufficient time to look at what they are going to present you can ask for a continuation. The applicant is to provide staff with a copy of what they are presenting for the record. Michael asked about the rear of the parcel and what is allowed in the SCI zone district and CC and C1. What is the height of the rear building at its peak point? Jennifer said if it is a two-story building in the CC and C1 it can be 28 feet. For a three-story in the commercial core it is 38 feet and C1 is 36 feet. The heights are a little higher for the SCI zone. On the rear you measure from the third-story down to the entry to the garage. The top of the roof form down to the finished grade. That is at 46.6 feet. Michael also asked what the rear setbacks are for adjacent zone districts. Jennifer said Obermeyer was a PUD and it probably has minimum setbacks. The CC and C1 have O setbacks. Applicants: Alan Richman, Planning Services; Jack Wheeler and Jeff Pendarvis from the Capital Asset Department. Richard Pryor and Bill Lynn P3 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 4 from the Police Department. Charles Cunniffe architects; Charles Cunniffe, Scott Smith, Jim Kehoe, Design Workshop, Darla Calaway. Alan pointed out that they were specifically asked to bring information to the meeting for today. We were asked to respond to certain specific items and bring a 3D rendering. We will respond to the direction that was given by the HPC. We ask that you keep in mind the importance of the functions of the overall plan. The property was purchased by the city 15 years ago to meet long term community needs. At one point in time it was considered for the Fire Department but they decided to stay on Hopkins. The civic master plan started 10 years ago. The police department is in an immanent need of a new home. This location allows them to coordinate their operations with the Sheriff’s and it is in close proximity to the jail, court house and to city administration buildings. In 2015 the property was rezoned to public. The zone district permits the uses which is clearly outlined in the staff report. It also requires that the dimensional requirements get set by the adoption of a Planned Development Plan. Alan said there are three primary standards for a planned development 1. There exists a significant community goal to be achieved through the proposed dimensions. 2. The proposed dimensions represent a character that is suitable for and indicative of the primary uses of the project. 3. The project is compatible with or enhances the distinct identity of the neighborhood and surrounding development patterns, including the scale and massing of nearby historical or cultural resources. Alan said there are clearly significant community goals that can be achieved here. We are creating a public building that will serve the community for many years to come. We are also providing onsite affordable housing and we are preserving a unique historic resource. The dimensions are necessary to achieve the purpose and primary uses of the project. This is not another building on Main Street it is a special building being used for a public purpose. We are also doing a LEED certified building and the City wants to lead by example. In 50 years I would like to think people will view this as a memorable space and worthy of recognition. The dimensional limits in the surrounding zones are one way to judge whether the project will be compatible with the neighborhood. The code doesn’t require absolute adherence to those limits. The surrounding zones do allow for more height P4 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 5 and we do have three stories in the affordable housing building. When looking at the neighborhood you need to consider the buildings on either side of the site. We measured the court house plaza and that is 35’3 inches and the Concept 600 is 32’6”. The new courthouse addition is a three story building. The floor area of this building is well below that of surrounding sites. The floor area is 1.1 to 1 on this site. It is about 30,000 square feet on a 27,000 square foot site. The CC and C1 allow the floor area of 2.75 to 1 and 2.5 to 1 respectively. SCI allows 2.25 to 1. We are way below the surrounding properties. That is because we consolidated our floor area and we have limited foot prints. For a downtown property we have large amounts of open space. We are accommodating a trail and a public plaza. The buildings tend to be more vertical and the foot prints are limited and the open space is considerable. Darla Calaway did a power point on two site plans. The police station is on the west property line and there is affordable housing. There is also an historic structure and the Hunter Creek trail connection which is a mid-block connection that connects pedestrians, bicyclists through the connection. There is also a public courtyard that allows the police to hold their public functions and an employee courtyard. The Concept 600 building is to the east. The Hunter Creek trail connection currently exists in a stair ramp configuration. We need to reconfigure the stairs and the ramp. We are lining the trail up with the cross walk to make the connection more direct. There is 12/1/2 feet of grade change to navigate through. We can do beacons etc. to make pedestrians aware of the garage doors. The alleyway is an emergency access and it is a patient drop off for Aspen Medical. The ramp is on the Concept 600 property and at final design we will address that. Regarding the historic structure we heard that the visibility is important to the HPC and how can we increase that visibility. The interior of the historic structure is very important to the board. If the building is too close to other buildings we would have to fire rate it and that would have implications to the interior. We have lowered the screening around the police courtyard from 5 feet to 3 ½ feet so that the view is not blocked. Richard Pryor, Chief of Police There are two elements why we would like to maintain the fence in the courtyard area. On the northwest area is an employee break area and just to the south is the main operations area and patrol. That is where people come and go and they are right near the windows. The courtyard ties into the P5 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 6 employee break area. We are hoping to provide an area where the police offices have an area to do reports and take a break and a few interviews. Most importantly is the security aspect. We do not want people just walking up to the windows of the police department and look in. There needs to be some kind of private space. A visual barrier is needed to indicate that it is a private area. There is 3 ½ feet of delineated space in which we can maintain our private space. Darla said there is a fence separating the Hunter Creek trail system connection which also serves the employee housing units and the police functions. Then there is a ten foot separation. It is out intent to separate the uses. We have not determined what the fencing is. It could be a trellis, plantings, and screen. It is not a privacy fence but will allow the police officer to be seated at a table and have a conversation without being completely exposed by those coming by the Hunter trail system. The trail is misleading as it is a midblock connection. Willis inquired about the ramp and accommodating a bike. Darla said the turning radius of a bike depends on design speed. You can walk a bike down the ramp or ride. Michael said bikes are not permitted on the sidewalks. Darla said we will involve Obermeyer Place and Concept 600 building regarding the ramp, snowmelt etc. Darla said the start of the ramp is within the easement and as it switches back it is on the Concept 600 property and a portion is in the alley right-of-way. Alan said there was a pedestrian easement granted by Obermeyer. Michael said we are being asked to approve a site plan in which the applicant doesn’t have control of the land. Willis said they are proposing to have those approvals in place at final. Charles said we are confident that progress is in place. Charles said at the last meeting the request was that we come in tonight with supplemental information. Charles presented a 3D power point of the project. The best presence of the historic house is along the trail. One concern was the P6 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 7 visibility of the elevator tower from the Rio Grande side of the site. There was conversation of making the elevator go to the second floor and have the third floor be walkup. There is a preference to make everything handicapped accessible and we can sort that out at final. Our goal is to get the building at 28 feet except for the clearstory which gives us ventilation and extra light and the elevator override. At final we can explain the benefits of LEED and WELL. Jim said the building will be cooled by ventilation with a radiant floor system which will have cooling properties. The windows will be automated so that fresh air flows from the lower level into the core of the building up through the circulation area and out the clearstory. Daylight is important in this building and it reduces the carbon footprint. Half of the building is internal because it abuts the existing court house plaza building. Housing Charles said the pulled the units in the center back to allow a little bit more outdoor livability. We also added storage closets. Every unit has either a deck or balcony and every unit has a storage closet. Our housing component is smaller than the county building about four feet. Jennifer asked if a fully sketch up model is available which she requested. Charles said we will have that for final. We provided a 3D which is a walk around. Jennifer clarified that the direction from the board was to provide additional perspectives so that you could actually see more of the buildings and that they would have a fully functional sketch up model so you could actually ask to see this view or that view. Michael asked what the height of the clearstory is. Charles said it is currently at 4’.3” and our intention is to lower that. The overall goal is to keep the building at 28 feet except for the clearstory. Michael said the building is two story. Is there a reason you couldn’t do the clearstory if you maxed out at 28 feet. P7 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 8 Charles said it is really difficult. In the commercial design standards the ground floors are supposed to be 13 to 14 feet high and we are down to 12 feet right now. We don’t want the building to look disproportionate to look like a horizontal building. We would like to keep the vertical emphasis and also allow the building to have presence and stature in the community. The buildings around it are quite large. Michael said the interesting thing is that the building to the west is three stories and the same height and the building to the east looks like it is four stories and the same height. Alan said the building to the left is dug out a full story below where we are and it exposes four stories. Jim said this building is essentially an office building with a public component. With that we have air movement, lighting requirements and all that happens below the floor plate. Those in design create limitation to reductions of floor plates and height. Willis asked what the ceiling heights are on the second floor? Jim said we are proposing 12 feet floor to ceiling. Underneath the structure we have 12 inch mechanical ducting and below that we have the lighting and fans. We have about 9 feet with three feet of mechanicals. Jack Wheeler said the elevator overrun is in front of the clearstory. If we reduce the clearstory the elevator overrun will be at the higher elevation. Taking the clearstory down is not going to reduce the mass of the building. The overall building is below 28 feet. We will try to minimize the clearstory. The clearstory is a function of the LEED and it is important that we are the City of Aspen hang that plaque and get the LEED certification. We feel the mass is appropriate in what we are trying to do. Charles said Gretchen asked us to lower the front portion of the building in front of the elevator and we did and we also did a reduction of the brick. Willis clarified that the building is at 28 feet except for the clearstory and elevator override. Michael said the way the city measures the height is at 33’4”. P8 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 9 Patrick asked how far back the clearstory is. Jim said it is approximately 30 feet back from the east wall. The clearstory is behind the elevator shaft. Charles said no matter what we do the county building will continue to overwhelm this building. Michael asked if they discussed tucking the second elevator in between the police building and the affordable housing. Charles said it is tucked in against the county building and it is also usable between us and the county because there is a connection between our building and the county sheriff’s office. Jack Wheeler said the reason it is on the north end is that it can service the parking area and loading area at the lowest level. Charles said we also can’t put it in the middle of a secure police parking area. The handicapped parking is also at that area. Jim said the idea is that people can do gown the elevator and walk across to the park. Patrick said he supports the police in wanting a separation. Would it be possible to move the historic resource up front toward Main Street so that the police could have that entire area back there? Darla said it could move to the front but then it compromises the firewall requirements under the code. Nora asked if a transparent wall could be incorporated so that you could see the historic resource. Darla said there needs to be a balance between maintaining the use of the space. A total transparent wall would diminish that space. We could use an open screen or possibly a trellis with plantings etc. Amy said the county building will be coming before HPC but it is an advisory review and HPC is not in a position to deny their proposal. P9 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 10 Sallie asked if there are areas that need railings that are not shown in the drawings. Darla said guardrails and handrails for the ramp and stairs will be provided. Bob asked if the public amenity space is basically for the housing. By maintaining the historic building in its location you have to compromise that. Darla said the police station needs are accommodated. There would be an opportunity to do a specific scheme for the affordable housing including a landscape berm. Charles said the courtyard to the front is a very active place to interact with the community. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. Lisa Hancock, curator for the Historical Society Lisa said she is here to represent their needs. We were approached about taking the three buildings to the Holden Marolt site. The discussion was is this an added value to the Marolt site and it was determined that it was. It would work for us to take these buildings. I was alarmed at the last meeting when HPC recommended to keep the structures onsite which for us is not our preference. Then there was discussion that we would use those as an interpretive site. There are many reasons why that will not work for us. It does work at Holden Marolt because it is an added value. There are two structures at Marolt, the salt shed and the barn itself. Having these other structures of the same time period gives us an opportunity especially with school children and with visitors to see the extra interpretive component. The other part is that staffing is in place. Since we lease the property from the city it could be added to the lease that the site is used for interpretive purposes. At its present location it is not a very acceptable site to interpret. The story that this building tells is a domestic interior. We tell that story already with the Wheeler Stallard house. If we can add this to the mining and ranching story that we already tell at Holden Marolt it just makes that story complete. To have it as a total separate site it isn’t very compelling. It isn’t a site that would be manned on a daily basis. It is difficult to attract visitors to the sites P10 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 11 we currently have (4) Holden Marolt, barn, lixiviation plant, Wheeler Stallard house and we operate the Independence ghost town and Ashcroft ghost town and how are we going to attract visitors to 5 site. At the last time we were here at the meeting we weren’t consulted. Sallie asked what staff preferred. Amy said there was a lot of discussion at the last meeting and the board decided for the integrity of location keeping the buildings on the site and part of the mix and fabric of town was the right thing to do. We have had no dialogue about this. Maybe it’s not the Historical Society that does the interpretation. It is up to the HPC whether the decision should be back on the table but we weren’t expecting that tonight. Nina Gabrielle, vice president of education and programs for the Aspen Historical Society. I work with the public and children. Imagine that you are 8 years old and I’m trying to tell you how people lived in 1885. If I could take them inside a building that would awesome and it would be priceless in trying to get them to understand. The Holden site was a large industrial plant and the largest in Pitkin County. Being able to interpret the families that lived here is invaluable. It could be done on the existing site but it could be done better on the Marolt site. I would be able to bring 120 kids onto the property. I don’t think this is the appropriate site. Patrick asked how many kids and adults are at the museum yearly. Nina said she has been doing this for 8 years. An average of kids is 400 to 500 per year and the adults are around 800 that come to the Holden Marolt site. In 1885 the Holden Marolt site was undeveloped. Jeff Pendarvis said he is coming as a parent of a 2nd grader. I went on the tour when my daughter was in 3rd grade and the tour is awesome. The context with that house at the Marolt makes sense. With the house on our site and trying to tell the story doesn’t make any sense to a 3rd grader of 4th grader. Nina’s argument is very compelling. Jerome Sennesich, represented Obermeyer Place We have been meeting with the development team and they have been responsive and we have made excellent progress. We are working on what P11 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 12 the stairway should look like and we have discussed a bike channel. We are generally in support of the project for the police department as a whole. Bob asked if there was any discussion about the interpretive center and was it positive or negative about the tenants. Jerome said the buildings have historic value and we recognize that and also the interiors. If there is someone wanting to take that stewardship I would suggest you reconsider. Having them sit closed up or locked up and not open to the public is a shame. If they stay there who is going to make them accessible. Obermeyer appreciates the value of them and understands that it is an historic property and at the same time we have been looking at the buildings with nothing going on. We would love to see something happen to them. Patrick asked Jerome what he thinks about a clear elevator as opposed to the stairs and you wouldn’t need the ramp. Jerome said Obermeyer would encourage a rolling access point rather than an elevator. Concept 600 is willing to give an easement. Amy pointed out that at the last meeting it was clear that the board wanted the buildings to stay. Since that time we as staff have heard nothing from the Historical Society and nothing from the applicant to suggest a different plan was needed. It is HPC decision and if they move the affordable housing should be restudied. The project should be continued if the applicant would like to look at moving the buildings to Holden Marolt then you have the opportunity to look at the design of the affordable housing. Michael said he was originally for moving it off site and in particular Gretchen spoke and we decided to keep it on the site. We all thought the Historical Society was going to operate the facility. That has some weight to it not that it is on the original site. Sallie said she doesn’t understand why this is coming up right now and if we should address it or not. Jerome said at the last meeting he heard the board wanted to keep it there and the board would like it accessible. What I am hearing tonight is that the Historical Society doesn’t believe they can take the stewardship. If the P12 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 13 choices is on-site un-accessible or Holden Marolt and accessible to me it’s the accessible factor. Jack Wheeler, Asset Management said we want to do what you want us to do. If you want us to keep the resource on site we are willing to do that. As I stated at the last meeting the operational component is a big question mark. We are also prepared to take care of the financial investment off site. Charles said if the house stays onsite it will never been in its original position onsite. Originally the site was very large. Jennifer said at the last meeting the discussion was how many employees are generated by the police building and it is up to city council to say you have to mitigate at a certain rate. The commission was comfortable with the generation of 39 employees with the new police station and that will be the recommendation. How much is mitigated will be handled by City Council. Willis identified the issues: Mass and scale: Staff recommends that the police station should not be greater than 28 feet and the removal of 3 ½ foot high fence and the applicant chooses not to do that for reasons we already heard. Staff is recommending that the stand alone elevator in the AH piece be a detached mass. The applicant has presented otherwise and want to stay with their original expression of the elevator in the back. Staff is recommending the turning radius and site lines be accommodate for cyclists on the ramp. Management of the historic resource will be discussed further. Debbie said given that the relocation issues is back on the table and staff at the last time said if it gets relocated off site we want a restudy of the employee housing units. Maybe HPC should discuss what the desire of the commission is about relocation off-site. If it is going offsite the meeting should be continued until you see a final site plan with those buildings offsite. Nora said she is disappointed that this is back on the table because we really vetted it the last time and had good discussions. We are picking away of what the fabric of this town used to be. This was a building that was in the middle of the town. It was not a farming and mining cabin. It might be seen in a different light. There is very little that you can walk around this town and recognize. For the kids to see that there was a log cabin right in the P13 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 14 middle of town is really powerful. I am disappointed that we are circling back to this and I hope we keep in mind what our job is which is to preserve the town and its character. Patrick said he agrees with Nora’s intent but looks at it as something that was on a ranch. I would support moving it to the Marolt because of education which is why the Historic Preservation is beneficial. Leaving it where it is looks like it is in a tunnel with the 3D picture. It is really tucked behind everything. If it is moved to Main Street we need to meet the fire codes and that would probably destroy the interior character. Move it to Holden Marolt and let the employee housing be redesigned. The building area might be office space before it is employee housing because wherever city hall goes space for offices might be needed before the new building is being built out and this could be potential office space in the near future and then housing. Bob said he envisioned the space as currently planned and knowing that the building would be sitting there not used or be another function is a concern. If the building were moved it would be a much better space for the function of the affordable housing. It would be a good area for kids to play that live in the affordable housing complex. Bob said he has been many places where they have taken existing buildings and brought them together in a context for the purpose of education and for the public. Sallie said there is a thing called imagination and having this building right in town and imagining what was around it is a good thing. What is fighting against this are the big walls on either side and it is hidden in a hole. We don’t have to approve it being hidden in a hole. Michael said Gretchen spoke eloquently at the last meeting about keeping it onsite. I also agree with what Nina said. The way it is presented in this fashion it is not going to do the community any good. Sallie said we need more perspectives and I don’t feel we have enough information. Michael said if the site plan has no other option as to how that building can sit there, then I’m struggling with it and Holden Marolt starts to look like a good alternative. I’d like to see some other site plans. P14 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 15 Willis pointed out that they presented two site plans if it stays onsite. We need to discuss whether it stays or goes. Nora commented that we spent the entire evening the last time discussing this. Willis said the center of Obermeyer Place is a dead zone essentially. At that time the connectivity was between Main Street and the skate park. There is not enough room to create outdoor space except in front of the police station on Main Street. The little structure backs up to a 42 foot wall. It has lost its expression as an historic structure. The public interest is best served having it at the Marolt ranch. There is too much going on at the site. The opportunity to redesign the employee housing is a good thing. It is a tight urban space. Bob asked what is on the Marolt site that might have been moved from another location that might be a reference point. Nina said the three buildings that exist were on the site. The Zupancis property was not the center of town it was the outskirts and the undeveloped part of town. Willis said if it goes to Marolt there is the opportunity to redesign the employee housing. There are too many confused uses in a tight urban space. Patrick agreed. Richard Pryor said the trail is used frequently with people going to the medical center. Nora said the story poles don’t tell how high the affordable housing is. Our charge is preservation. We are a 360 degree town and our view from the Rio Grande should meet the same expectations as Main Street and to be looking at a solid wall back there is really difficult. I would like to see the historic resource stay onsite. Willis said he would make the motion to support the historic structures moving to the Marolt property. Amy said you can give clear direction but it’s difficult to split the motion. P15 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 16 Michael said it is a directive to the applicant. Debbie said you could take a straw vote. We might have the same problem next time with the different members. If the direction of this board is to relocate and continue the meeting to restudy the employee housing you could make that motion. Willis said he would like to propose to restudy with the historic structures considered offsite. Allow the applicant to choose where it goes pending further discussion with the historic society. Bob said the client can come back with another proposal and say we restudied it and we would like to keep there. Sallie said we are continuing the application for a restudy across the board and we can give them a directive as to what each of us think. That is what the motion should be. Willis asked the HPC what they think of the Main Street elevation of 28 feet; clearstory etc. Patrick said once it was explained the clearstory is OK. The clearstory is 30 feet back and won’t be an issue as far as visibility. The historic resources should be moved offsite and the housing should be restudied to make it lower so that there is a view which is what Nora, Michael, Sallie and myself want. Nora said she would like it to be 28 feet and the clearstory 28 feet because it is still a building. Michael said you can do a clearstory. Basically if the entire building is 24 feet you can do two stories. You still would have room for the clearstory and you fit within the 28 feet. Willis said this is a civic project and the applicant said it should embody civic pride because of its uniqueness. Today this town feels there is a certain pride in modesty not pushing the envelope to exceed what people perceive as small town character. If you lead by example it should be in a modest way. Anything you can do to comply with the 28 feet and the clearstory and the LEED aspects to decree the volumes is supportive. P16 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 17 Sallie said the applicant needs some kind of direction. Michael said the board thinks it should remain onsite but not in this site plan that is being shown to us. There is too much on the site and it is overwhelming the historic resource. As a board if we are considering that site plan then I think you are hearing a lot of the people on this board want to see it go off site. No one is saying definitively move it off. We are open to seeing other site plans. Willis said he would definitively move it off the site. There are too many functions on a small site. It is a civic place. The historic interpretive center is over the top and it should go to Marolt where kids can enjoy it. Sallie said staff has good points and if the applicant works with staff that might be helpful. Having more views is recommended. We cannot design their project. Patrick said if they are going to change the employee housing they will have to move it to where the historic house is currently. Alan said we don’t have dramatic options to place the historic structure. It has always been in the central location on the site. Jack Wheeler said since we started this the historic house was to remain onsite. The entire conversation from day one was that the historic house was to remain onsite. If this was a normal project we wouldn’t be looking at the interior of the unit. I’m concerned that we will get direction again with a different board makeup at the next meeting. You wanted us to keep it onsite and we addressed all the concerns. Michael said we thought that would include a plan for the Historical Society or somebody to create vitality there and have it be worthwhile. Jack Wheeler said at the last meeting the Historical Society said they would not operate this location. We are not in a position to operate the historic interpretation. This is an ongoing dialogue that has no precedence. P17 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 18 Nora said at the last meeting we understood that the Historical Society said no and we all said this is important enough to have in the middle of town and that there will be a solution. Jennifer said if the historic house remains on the site the city has agreed to maintain the structure. It doesn’t mean that it will be operated and open to visitors. It will be put on a foundation and will be repaired so that it doesn’t deteriorate anymore. There is no guarantee that you will have an operator for that structure. The question for the board is does it remain onsite. The board also had concerns about the massing of the affordable housing and how it affects the Rio Grande perspective. If it moves offsite it might have a better chance with the Historic Society as an interpretive building and more room would be freed up. If can stay onsite but there is the possibility that the interpretation may not occur. Sallie said if it moves offsite it gives them the chance to relieve some of the stress on the site. Jeff Pendarvis said we were told at the last meeting to leave the historic house onsite. HPC also commended us on the employee housing component. We followed the direction that the board gave us. We are within the height of the zone district. Our 38 feet above grade is within the height of the zone district. We are compliant with the affordable housing. Amy said there are two possible direction; keep them onsite until another interpretation can be figured out. More than likely the applicant is not going to reduce the mass and they already lost one of the affordable housing units that was supposed to be in the historic structure. Or you can go in the Holden Marolt direction and get a reconfiguration of the massing of the affordable housing. Michael and Willis agreed that there is too much on a small space. Bob said you could let it stay there as a building and you preserve it and you don’t describe any function for it. And you don’t prescribe that any organization would take it over. Maybe in the future the city could determine a new function for the space. Amy said one of the most important things is that this building be used for interpretive purposes. Any other use is going to gut the building. P18 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 19 Charles said the historic house has to be moved off-site to do the construction. We would like to get direction for the police element because of the timing. Jennifer said either the resource stays onsite or it gets moved and what I am hearing the HPC would like the affordable housing be re-designed to create more breathing room on that site. Amy said at the next meeting have them present two different site plans. Sallie said they are going to come back with the same site plan. Willis said they can present both options. Jack said when we talk about the 28 feet that is for a two story building and we could turn it into a three story building and be compliant with the CC zone and be under 36 feet. Jennifer said the zone for the cc allows lodging to have a third story. Alan pointed out that they are not in the cc zone district. This is zoned public. Jack said when you measure the affordable housing from the jail road it is 46 feet and a four story building. When you look at it from Main Street it is a three story building and it is smaller than the building next to it. We put the third floor on the affordable housing to accommodate the affordable housing mitigation and to get a good mix with 3 bedroom units. We looked around and stayed below the heights of the buildings surrounding. We are in a public zone district yet you keep pointing at 28 feet. If we move the house the fourth floor would come off. Nora said she understands what Jack is saying but we have a 360 degree town. The Rio Grande is not an alley. Willis said you can have a clear story with 28 feet and we also know that this is a PD and we can make up any dimension we want to in affect or we can choose the 28 feet. Leading by example is being less tall than the buildings on either side. P19 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 20 Straw vote on moving the house to Marolt: Patrick, Willis, Bob, Michael Nora voted to keep the house onsite. Sallie didn’t vote. Willis said Bob mentioned his concern that if the resource stays on site and the interpretive center fails because of the nebulas location and then it would be converted to affordable housing in which case we have lost the unique quality of the interior as a civic asset. That might not ever happen but it is a concern. Bob said his other concern is if a two bedroom affordable housing unit is a good application for the house. I can’t imagine that being a good application. An interpretive center is a better use for the building. Nora said we don’t know down the road if there will be an interpretive application. MOTION: Patrick made the motion to continue 540 to a date certain and that they move the historic house off-site and show a redesign of the employee housing and that they keep it to 28 feet with the clearstory. Patrick withdrew his motion. MOTION: Willis made the motion to continue 540 E. Main to April 27th with direction to show two elevations, one with the resource onsite and the other with the historic house offsite. The police station be lowered and the affordable housing mass and scale be restudied and height lessened. Michael pointed out that the affordable housing should not be at 46 feet. The city has pushed for lower height everywhere. Motion second by Patrick. Roll call vote: Patrick, yes; Nora, yes; Willis, yes; Bob, yes; Michael, yes; Sallie, yes. Motion carried 6-0 845 Meadows Road, Aspen Meadows Reception enter, Conceptual Major Development, Growth Management, Planned Development, Public Hearing Jim Curtis, presented Amy Margerum Berg, Executive Vice-President for Aspen Institute P20 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 21 Debbie said she reviewed the public notice and asked Jim what boundaries he used in connection with the mailed notice. Jim said he went beyond the 300 foot radius and went to 325 feet and used the boundary of property 1A. This is an amendment to Lot 1A within a larger SPA. Debbie said given the neighborhood outreach that has been done and because we have multiple forms of notice the notice is acceptable. Amy said HPC is reviewing the planned development and making a recommendation to city council. Council will make the determination and then it will come back to HPC for details. Planned Development is a special designation given to unique properties in town that gives more flexibility for uses, dimensions etc. HPC will also have conceptual review and growth management. The building was originally called the Central building and was built in 1958. Fritz Benedict and Herbert Bayer designed the building together. The proposal is for the expansion of the lower level of the building where the Plato restaurant is. The entire Meadows area received approval in 1991 for a master plan which included the Institute the Music Associates and the Physics Center. The Institute has done numerous improvement to the site. Expansion limits were set in 1991 and we are close to the limit. They are about 1500 square feet past their limit in terms of building and about 2,000 in decks. We need to talk about traffic and affordable housing and they will need to meet today’s criteria. The applicant was required to compile a Transportation impact analysis which is a newer process where you calculate the proposed square footage and determine what kind of improvements are needed for the overall transportation system and pedestrian activity. The applicant did that but we feel the numbers are incorrect. We are recommending continuation to redo the TIA. Part of their proposal is to improve how pedestrians and disabled people would come in the front of the reception building and down to the new patio. There is a proposal to expand the dining room area on the lower patio and also make an addition on the north side of the historic building to accommodate in house needs. While we understand the need, staff questions the need of impacting the historic structure on all sides. Perhaps there is an area below grade so that the historic materials are not impacted. On the dining room expansion it is on an angle to the historic structure which I am sure is intentional but it is a departure from the Bayer/Benedict idea. It might be a way to distinguish P21 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 22 old from new or it might be too disruptive and cause attention to itself. We would also like discussion about the height difference between the historic resource and the addition. The new addition is about two feet taller than the ground floor of the dining room. We have also asked for more detail how the new construction actually physically attaches to the historic building. The project includes creating a new pedestrian bridge from the sculpture out to the new terrace. We aren’t entirely clear how that works so we need to know what the requirements are etc. The last topic are the trees. The trees have grown and they are quite large and it is hard to see the front of this building and it is an important piece of architecture. There should be some discussion whether some of them could be removed to provide more view of the architecture. In general this project is good and the architect is trying to be compatible with vocabulary of the institute. Willis inquired about the allocations. Amy said in 1991 the master plan had certain allocations for expanding the various buildings and the institute campus. There was square footage for the lodging, health club etc. As things progressed there was a tracking method but there seems to be an error. Nora said the health center has 1500 square feet unused. Amy said we just need better clarification on the numbers. Michael asked about the area of the total site. Amy Margerum Berg said there is 40 acres on the site. Amy B. said she was the Planning Director for the City of Aspen and after that she was the City Manager for the City of Aspen. It was an historic effort to plan this property and it was important for the community. The music festival was almost at the time bankrupt and the institute was bankrupt. The reason the master plan was done in the first place is the institute sold all the property including the land under the physics and music festival to a developer as part of the package for the St. Regis Hotel. The City got together with the developer and the four non-profits which included the International Design conference and we created a consortium and together we worked with the neighbors and the community to come up with the master plan. We have been very careful to develop the property in the P22 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 23 spirit of the Aspen Idea, Mind, Body and Spirit. We have worked hard to keep the property in the same feeling as 1958. The property still has the original spirit that the Paepcke’s and Bayer’s wanted it to have. Amy B. identified the team: Becky Ward, facilities coordinator Jud Hawk, general manager of the hotel. Amy said we own the hotel but contract out the services to a hotel management company which is Dolce International. Jeff Berkus is the institute’s architect. Amy B. said Donny Lee was here to support the Aspen Institute but had to leave. Amy B. said regarding the FAR we have been careful in keep track of our Floor Area. We have never intended or wanted to go over our floor area ratio. We have been talking for the last 5 and ten years what we want to use our last FAR for. We had discussed increasing the size of the fitness center and lodging. We feel it is important for us to have a restaurant that fits the number of hotel rooms that we have. In 1958 there were 100 seats in the restaurant and only 48 lodge rooms and now we have 98 lodge rooms and still only have 100 seats in the restaurant. When we have double occupancy which is most of the year they all can’t come together to eat breakfast or lunch. The hotel company has done a masterful job of managing that and we have put up tents. The tents aren’t heated as well as they should be. Many times our meals are centered on having a speaker. Having one room connected with the addition would make it feel like one big space and within keeping the architecture. Each time we went through the city process we had a resolution approved by City Council and recorded with our square footage and how much we deducted each time. The resolution shows that we have 2,229 square feet left. We have raised money and we are relying on that. After we build this building we aren’t coming back to ask for more square footage. We just had a donner give us a million dollars to put a conservation easement on the old historic race track. It is zoned open space and it can’t be developed. Someone could come before City Council and ask that it be rezoned. We are cognizant not wanting to come back to ask for more square footage. The addition is in the academic zone district which is meant to fulfill the mission of the Aspen Institute which is bringing intellectual activity to the Aspen community. Jim Curtis said he has been involved since 2003. Staff and myself will get together and work through the history of the numbers. We would prefer to P23 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 24 defer that discussion tonight. We would like to request that the next meeting date be changed as the architect is out of the country. HPC and staff were gracious to move us up to tonight’s meeting. Jeff Berkus, architect said it is an honor to work on this final building for the institute. I have been engaged with the institute for the last 13 years. When I do architecture with the Institute I bring in body and spirit. The main thing in the building is the elegance of the structural systems and they are clean and very thin. We started with how do we maintain the light elegant pattern that the first two architects have done, Harry Teague and Herbert Bayer. When we start a project we look for the heart or center of the project. When we were asked to add an addition for 100 people the first thing we did was try to determine how to make it as small as possible. It is 15 square foot per person, with 100 people equals 1500 square feet. That is as big as this building is going to be. This space is the only space on the property that is indoor/outdoor. All summer we have a tent that is the same square footage. The piece by Bayer is on the side of the building. People would like another way to come to the building rather than the front door to go to the terrace. The bridge is on the axis of the arrival court. We are asking for a subordinate amount of square footage to be added and it is pushed back from the front façade. We angled the building to the energy of the Maroon Creek valley. It makes a different in the building the way people feel. We continue to honor the natural landscape around the buildings that we are creating and create the views to nature. By angling the building away from the existing building it preserves the view of the existing space. The stair is necessary for egress from the roof and also down to the sub-basement. The basement will go under the new pavilion for storage and we want to connect with a tunnel link so that we have ADA access through a new service elevator. There are storage sheds in the parking lot so in order to get rid of those we might need more basement storage. Jeff addressed the roof terrace. The top of the building will have a skylight to bring light to the center. We want to have a flat usable deck. The roof terrace is at 12’8”. It is only two feet above the existing terrace. It was mentioned that a percentage of terrace was over. If you are over terrace by city code it means it goes to FAR which is not our intention. We intentionally designed this to not go over the FAR. We are concerned about the back of the Bayer building. We made the stairway that goes downstairs low so that the view is maintained out of the existing lounge. We added a very eloquent line structurally above and very simple concrete posts P24 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 25 and the same Bayer grey and white. The wing is the exact overhang of Bayer’s bldg. The courtyard that was created outside of the lounge is a place where people will love to sit and look up the Maroon Creek valley. Jim said the pedestrian bridge is mandated by the building codes. It also gives us the opportunity to remove the 2005 stairway that imposes on the that side today. Questions: Nora asked the applicant how they felt about the trees. Amy B. said they love the trees and all of Aspen had large trees. The trees are majestic and add green and outdoors. We can clearly limb some of the trees so that you can see the building. We feel the trees soften the building. Patrick asked if the organic growth of the tree is something that Bayer thought of going forward through time with his designs. Amy B. said Lisa did her thesis on Herbert Bayer and she is the curator for the Institute. Lisa said all of his architecture is in tune with the environment. The reason for all the low buildings is to be completely in context of the environment. I believe he would see the trees as part of the environment. Bob said he remembers meeting Herbert Bayer in 1960. The thinking behind the presentation is well thought out. Patrick asked about the plan for the bike path. It is an aesthetic entrance to Plato’s. Jeff said there is a very weak connection to the path right now. We are trying to create an accessible connection to connect the terrace to the trail. Nora asked if there could be a collaboration with Parks to eliminate any more erosion of the trail. Jim Curtis said we are having this discussion. Michael asked about the elevations of the north addition. P25 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 26 Jeff said we were very careful to not cover up the front corner and 33% of it and there is a window that we didn’t cover up. The second window is covered up and part of the original structure is covered up. Amy B. said the lobby is very small and when we have groups come in all at once from the airport the luggage storage is a huge issue. It is also noisy. It is important to have that extra storage space up above on the top floor. Amy S. asked if any space could be used where the mechanical corral is. Jeff said it is an interesting idea and we need to reassess all the mechanical equipment as it is at the end of its lifetime. The connection might be tough but we could look at going up by the elevator lobby. Nora asked if that would free up room so that you didn’t have to destroy the historic fabric of the building. Bob said where the last house was built that area isn’t the prettiest view and anything you can do to mast that out would be beneficial. Michael said he thought decks for commercial projects were exempt from floor area. Amy said they are not. We want to work out a solution that works for everyone. It has been debated with most current projects. We want to make sure we are accounting for everything in a fair way. Commercial core properties have recently become exempt from decks. Michael pointed out that we see a lot of projects proposing roof top public amenities which are really not roof top amenities. This looks like a real roof top amenity. Amy said the top of the roof is public amenity. Michael said the walk out patio that they have doesn’t count but when you put it on the roof it counts. Amy S. said so does the part that is cantilevered in the back. Jeff said none of it every counted before. P26 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 27 Amy S. said we can have a discussion as to what counts and what doesn’t and they can take that into account with their planned development review. Amy B. we have had the deduction of floor area that we have used for 15 years and we have been very careful to count every square foot. We also have a recorded exhibit with the deductions. We wanted to design a building that fit within what was allowed. Amy S. said HPC will make a recommendation to council including variations if those are an issue and they will make the final decision. Nora asked what was needed for continuation. Amy S. said the calculations are not clear and there are a few design issues that were mentioned. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Willis identified the issues: Willis said the square footage calculation can be addressed at the next meeting. TIA analysis and transportation. They have always been good stewards of people coming and going in the remote location that they are. Mass and scale. Additions, one on the north and one on the south. Articulation of the decks and the impression of the architecture as it relates to the historic resource which now has two major additions and this is the third. Staff raised the two foot height difference from the roof deck to the restaurant level. Pedestrian bridge and stair leading to the new addition was also called out by staff. Where should the bridge connect and land. Michael said the applicant did an exceptional presentation and they were well prepared on the heights and showing us where it would measure on the historical asset. I think the project is fabulous. It is probably the best project I’ve seen since I have been on the commission. The clean lines and how elegant and light and simple the design is goes with what is there. The P27 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 28 height in the historical resource is too low. The site is large and the floor area can be worked out. It is a terrific project. Sallie said the project looks great. It is important that the trees stay there and they are an important element of surprise and discovery. Bob said the floor area can be solved. The removal of part of the north addition and creating the function in the basement for storage is needed. I eat at the bar and it can be disruptive. It isn’t as welcoming to go by the desk etc. The design works very well. The trees can be addressed by Parks. This project is another jewel in the crown for the Institute. I am very supportive of the project and we can work through some of the details. Amy S. said you are missing information that is important, the growth management impacts, square footage, and parking. Nora thanked the applicant for a great presentation and a great site visit. I was shocked that it is small. Possibly you can save the northern wall and utilize the mechanical area. It is a beautiful project. Patrick said he knows the site intimately from decades of being there. The design is great and it is a continuation of the Doer Hosier. The trees are part of the organ growth and should stay. The baggage storage should be looked into. The height difference is fine. Willis said engaging in the kaleidoscope panels that Bayer did is a good thing because they are not entirely present as one engages the entrance unless you look for it. I was a huge Bayer fan when I moved to Aspen and his work is near and dear. The west elevation is entirely changed and completely altered. I don’t see the constructive eloquence in the fabric of the addition and that will be for final because it is not mass and scale. Bob said this project is honoring the past and celebrating the future and honoring Herbert’s intent in the building. Willis said the stair and the view doesn’t add up to connectivity. It distracts from the view. MOTION: Patrick moved to continue 845 Meadows Road, Aspen Meadows Reception Center to May 25th; second by Nora. Roll call vote: Nora, yes, P28 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 29 Sallie, yes; Michael, yes; Willis, yes; Patrick, yes; Bob, yes. Motion carried 6-0. City Clerk Minute review Linda Manning, City Clerk gave a history how the clerk’s office has approached minutes over a decade. This past year we have scanned the minutes from the 50’s from hand written bound books. Back then they were action item minutes only. A lot of clerks today do action item minutes only. Our minutes are summary minutes and we give a brief summary of the item and we try to get the details, who asked the questions and what the response was and the general discussion. City Council loves the HPC and P&Z minutes. Those meetings are not aired on Grassroots TV. If someone comes in they can get the audio of the meeting. For Council you can go online and listen to the meeting. Constantly Council says they rely on the minutes from HPC and P&Z and that is how they know what happened. It seems like every project that is called up comes back to you and Council looks at the minutes to base their decision off of. We try to give a thorough enough summary in those minutes so that when council is looking at them they have enough information to understand what HPC was talking about that there not going to call it up. We are more than happy to make changes to the minutes. You can state what you want in the record and say that you want it in the record and it will be typed. We can’t put it in there unless you say it. If you have an issue or think we aren’t doing a thorough enough job please come and talk to me. We are more than happy to tweak things. We are trying to be innovative and we want to do a good job and if you think we can make improvement please let me know. Patrick said this board is the final decision and the only person that has recourse is the applicant and is it possible that we could get it on video so that people could look at it. Linda said we have talked about that before but it is costly and we haven’t found it necessary at this point. Michael agreed with Patrick on the video. Patrick said maybe we can video larger projects. Linda said we can look into it. P29 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 30 Michael asked what council gets on the call ups. Amy said she gives council all the minutes and resolutions in the packet. Michael said regarding St. Mary’s he was very opposed to St. Mary’s and I didn’t feel the minutes accurately reflected that. Now council will see that. Bob said he has the feeling that council tends to want to take another look when a vote is very close. Sometimes the vote is close because we don’t have enough people. Linda said there was good discussion on the Crystal Palace and the minutes show that. I’m interested to see if it will be called up because it was a great discussion. Debbie pointed out that Council has called up a project that the vote was 7-0. On a call up if one person wants it called up they support it. Patrick said he doesn’t feet there is anything bad about projects being called up. HPC has opinions from an HPC perspective and Council has opinions from their perspectives. If they want to share that perspective with us that is what a call up is. I don’t find it negative when they do call it up. Michael agreed. Out board and P&Z have misplaced authority in that we are the final review for projects is mind boggling. We are appointed not elected. I’m suggesting if they don’t like our decision they can revoke the decision that was made. All they have right now is the ability to remand it back to us for further consideration. It is kind of misplaced authority. Linda asked about the I pads. Amy said everyone was open to the idea but no one wanted to get rid of the printed sets of drawings. A few members still want a printed packet. Linda said the packet can be put as one document in dropbox. You would then be able to annotate it. Michael said he would be fine with that but he still wants the large copies of the plans. P30 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 31 Patrick asked about showing the public at the meeting what design he is referring to. Linda said we can hook your I-pad up and you could mark your drawings and it could pop up on the screen. Nora said she would prefer a hard copy. Bob also agreed that he likes a hard copy. He sits down and yellow marks things that should be brought up. Linda said we want to do whatever is comfortable for the board. MOTION: Willis moved to approve the minutes of January 27th, 2016, second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Willis moved to approve the minutes of February 10, 2016, second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Willis moved to approve the minutes of February 24th, 2016, second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried. Bob didn’t vote. MOTION: Willis moved to approve the minutes of March 9th, 2016, second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried. Michael didn’t vote. Michael thanked Linda for the adjustments. MOTION: Patrick moved to adjourn, second by Willis. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk P31 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 1 Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Gretchen Greenwood, Patrick Sagal, Bob Blaich, Jim DeFrancia and Michael Brown. Absent were John Whipple and Nora Berko. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Linda Manning, City Clerk Justin Barker, Senior Planner Sara Nadolny, Planner Linda Manning, City Clerk Last year the Grey Lady put in a request for outdoor dining on their patio which is private space that is part of their leased restaurant space. They covered their patio with a tent. Last year the temporary use request was denied by the community development department and city council; however, they were approved for a ten day tent permit between XMAS and New Years. During the public hearings there was discussions about possibly expanding the outdoor dining program to winter. We have 27 restaurants that have private patio space that is included in their lease. We also have restaurants that lease city property. E-mails were sent out requesting who was interested in winter outdoor dining. Several are interested and some don’t think it will work with the type of restaurant they have. CCLC is in favor of the winter outdoor dining. They were against tents and you could do it with heaters. Possible a large tent down the center of the mall that would be clear and it could be rented out. This could be City sponsored. They said no tents on private patio spaces. Amy said this is similar to the airlock discussion we had several years ago. After years of struggling with their appearance of tents being applied over the buildings we have prohibited them in HPC design guidelines. We do so much to obtain the appearance of town and to have popups is something that has not been particularly supportive in the past. Maybe it can occur during the XMAS week where we have high demand in the community but not something of an extended period of time. P32 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 2 Michael said the enclosure of private space on private sites would have been theoretically public amenity spaces. Amy said another issue is employee mitigation because additional staff would be needed. Michael said they aren’t paying the employee mitigation and they are getting credit for public amenity space which they aren’t providing. Linda said the restaurant owners that she has talked to are willing to pay the employee mitigation at some prorated rate. Patrick agreed with the CCLC that there should be no tents. Tents change the entire character of Aspen on public or private space. Gretchen said she is in favor of vitality on the mall in the winter. Restaurants need to attract customers and maintain commerce. What else would be allowed besides heaters. Amy said if it is public amenity then it should be open to the sky and only low walls surrounding it, otherwise they can furnish it like they want. Gretchen said she is in favor of outdoor dining in the winter. Gretchen said when she moved here they had tables and chairs with food and drink available and it was charming. Visually tents feel unwelcoming. Willis said in private spaces the tents are over the top. Bob said he is PRO everything except tents. Jim said tents create the sense of a closed space rather than open. Michael said he would not support winter dining on the pedestrian malls in the winter months. On private space it is not what was intended and the areas should not be enclosed. Linda said in general HPC is in favor of winter dining on private space. Jim said tents do not add to vitality because they are closed. P33 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 3 Bob said in Germany or Holland when the sun comes out the tables are set out. 534 E. Cooper – Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review Debbie said the affidavit of public notice has been appropriately provided – Exhibit I Additional elevations – Exhibit II Sara said the property is at the corner of Cooper Ave. and Hunter Street, “Boogie’s retail” and in the commercial core. The current building was constructed in the 1980’s and the property is not designated. Onsite we have a two-story mixed use building with a voluntary AH unit on the second floor. In 2014 HPC approved a 3 story mixed use building with a free market resident at the top and additional commercial floor area. The applicant is scaling the design way back from that approval. They are proposing to maintain this as a two story commercial building. This is a remodel of the current building. The applicant is also proposing some exterior changes which include the removal of the corner atrium which would reduce the scale of the building down to two stories. They are looking to fill in the recessed area along Hunter Street and to bring the commercial space closer to the sidewalks edge. They propose to replace the upper story windows with punched openings and remove the second floor deck that is on the Hunter Street side and filling it in with internal commercial floor area. The proposed design maintains its primary entrance as the chamfered corner entrance and creates additional tenant entrances along Cooper Ave. and Hunter Street with one additional entrance on each side. The primary entrance is two stories with tall glazing with a parapet above the entry doors which does not include the chamfered condition. The building meets the height requirements maintaining 28 feet and has a flat roof throughout. The floor to ceiling height on the first floor is 13 feet and 9 feet on the second floor. It has been separated into modules along each street façade where the corner module is slightly higher. Staff has a few concerns. Regarding massing the guidelines suggest that the building modules be created to reflect the traditional lot widths. Along Cooper it is 40 feet in length and sets to around 20 feet for the corner module. The modules along Cooper Street should be closer to 30 feet to reflect the traditional lot width. The second concern has to do with scale. HPC may P34 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 4 want to consider the two story glazing at the primary entry corner whether it is in line with the pedestrian scale in this location. Sara said regarding public amenity two conditions include that the public amenity space be open to the sky and that it does not duplicate existing adjacent spaces such as sidewalks and pedestrian malls. The code does allow for a deficit of 25% required public amenity so long as it is no less than 10% that is provided for. Currently onsite we have 604 square feet with is about 9.6% of the site for public amenity. We are close to the 10% minimum requirement. The current application is suggesting losing some of the public amenity by filling in the space along Hunter Street. What is being proposed is 216 square feet or 3.4% that will be onsite that qualifies as public amenity. They are proposing to provide the remaining 6.6% through a fee-in-lieu payment. Staff acknowledges that it is difficult to provide the full 10% onsite. The code does prefer buildings in the commercial core to be brought close to the property edge to provide a better pedestrian experience, however staff is looking for a meaningful public amenity to be on this site. The applicant has shown onsite public amenity as a thin strip of open space between the building and the sidewalk along Hunter Street. The applicant has responded to staff’s concerns through Exhibit II. They have provided a bench and planters along Hunter Street. Staff feels there may be an opportunity to provide more onsite public amenity bringing the onsite square footage closer to what it is onsite today. If the parapet is removed it could count toward onsite public amenity. Staff is recommending that the applicant explore a way to create more onsite public amenity whether it is through the removal of the parapet or other ways. Utility and trash: Sara said the area already exists in the alley behind the building. The existing transformer is adequate. Per Environmental Health the trash and recycling area is currently adequate for the property and it is about 200 square feet if there is no commercial kitchen. If there is a kitchen for restaurant space it would require an upgrade of about 100 square feet per the standards today. To avoid future difficulties staff is recommending that the applicant provide a design that meets the code requirements prior to the completion of conceptual review. Parking: Sara said additional net commercial leasable square footage requires parking mitigation. Parking in the core is not required to be onsite and it may be P35 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 5 mitigated through a fee and lieu payment. The project is generating 3,479 square feet of new net leasable floor area and this is equivalent of 3.8 parking spaces. The applicant will pay fee-in-lieu payment for the spaces. Staff is recommending continuation to work on re-examining the modules along Cooper Ave. To maximize the onsite public amenity which may include the removal of the roof overhang at the corner entry. Resolve the issues of the size of the trash recycling area. Michael asked staff if the new renderings satisfy the breakup of the two story glazing at the front. Sara said that isn’t any different and hasn’t changed. Applicants: Sunny Vann, representing the applicant; Andy Wisnosky from Poss Architects; Gideon Kaufman, attorney; Jeff Ross owners representative Sunny said staff’s issues are the architecture as it relates to the roof overhang and the modules on the building. The public amenity space and the trash access area. Trash and recycling area Sunny said on aspect is the additional access to the alley and we can add another door at the rear of the property. The request that we build the larger trash/recycle area at this time to accommodate a future restaurant when no restaurant is planned has significant implications for the existing building. We would have to do the entire rear end of the building and the trash would have to be ten feet deeper and it changes considerably the architecture of the design. There is no public with a condition that says if in fact a restaurant is ever proposed then we would have to submit a compliant design for an appropriate trash area. If this was a new building I could be more understanding of what would be required to design it. A mandatory requirement that we provide for a restaurant that isn’t even proposed at this time is unreasonable and you can simply add a condition to the approval if a restaurant is proposed then the space would have to be modified. Public amenity space Sunny said public amenity space is extremely constraint. It is about 600 square feet and less than 10%. The 10% requirement applies to us. We propose to move the building edge to address Hunter Street. Our proposal is to provide 200 square feet and cash-in-lieu for the remainder. Parks P36 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 6 supported the proposal and it was an opportunity to use the cash-in-lieu about $41,000 for other improvements in the immediate area in particular the malls. Our client is willing to forgo the penthouse but needs to enhance the buildings functionality as 100% retail space. The building is less than the allowable in floor area cumulatively in the zone district. It meets the height requirements and it complies with all other requirement in the underlying zone district with the exception of the public amenity space. Given this I think it is a reasonable request to provide the remainder of the public amenity space with cash-in-lieu and that would also be consistent with the prior approval. The client is also willing to consider the enhanced sidewalk that was recommended by Engineering. It basically involves a bulb out and expansion of the sidewalk in a portion of the existing loading zone and additional street trees and bike racks. The reason why that was suggested by the Engineering Dept. was in connection with our transportation impact analysis. Basically we have to propose various enhancements to mitigate the additional trips that are generated by the expanded building and it is a formula. We had claimed points with the detached sidewalk and green strip and the Engineering disallowed it because they don’t feel it is sufficient enough to warrant the points that we claimed and suggested if we were to do the bulb out on Hyman that would probably go away. If we do provide the bulb out it is about 570 square feet and it is an expanded sidewalk with trees, bicycle storage and is in fact public amenity space. The regulations provide for onsite public amenity and off- site public amenity and cash-in-lieu. You can propose any combination. IF you provide off-site public amenity the value of what you divide has to be equal to or greater than that which would be required ordinarily under the cash-in-lieu. If we were to do the bulb out it would have to equal at least the $41,000 that we would be paying for the cash-in-lieu for not meeting the requirement. Assuming that the cost of doing that is reasonable then we would be more than happy to do it because it solves a couple of problems. It provides a better street scape and it solves our public amenity issue and it is far more workable than simply changing the entrance to the building and it solves our TIA problem. The question becomes what is it really going to cost to do that. If it has significant implications for the street that would have to remove and relocate the utilities, drainage improvements etc. then the cost could quickly escalate far beyond what is required as the cash-in- lieu payment but as an incentive to approve something like that we would certainly agree to some additional amount over and above the $41,000 thousand, call it $61,000 to cover additional costs. If we were able to do that we would be exceeding the cash-in-lieu payment. We would be willing to P37 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 7 take a condition that we should have to explore that and report back at final whether it is a viable alternative. In summary we would ask you to approve this as currently proposed which is the amount of public amenity space which takes into account the voluntary removal of the very valuable penthouse that is consistent where the community is going with its regulations. We also have a building that is in compliance with the underlying zone districts and other aspects of the code and we are willing to do the additional public amenity enhancement if we can do it at a cost that makes reasonable sense. Andy Wisnosky said we are remodeling an existing building that was designed to handle a single tenant. We are trying to rehabilitate the space to make it a functional building that responds to the historic nature of the downtown area. The building space along Hunter Street is stepped back and we are pushing that façade out to address the sidewalk in a pedestrian friendly environment. The design is to have the building operate in a more flexible manner if we happen to have multiple tenants. We have allowed three entrances with the primary entrance being at the corner. Those entrances recess of the street to offer some relief for the pedestrian experience and create another sense of vibrancy to the façade. We want this building to be functional from a perspective as to how you break the building down into multi tenants or a single tenant. The design connects the upper and lower spaces to be vibrant. The upper level has visibility and the design is sensitive to the street and has punched openings on the second level. We aren’t asking for additional height and the massing is significant smaller than any other building surrounding it. On the Cooper Street on the lower level we the introduction of appropriately scaled entrances and series of bays of windows. We have tried to address this in proportions and heights that are more than sensitive to its context. On Hunter the areas of larger glass are an opportunity for pedestrians to get to the upper level. We feel the proportions are appropriate for an existing condition. We have also contributed to the alley experience as well and created vibrancy on that alley corner. In summary the context is way better than what we have in the existing building. Questions Jim asked staff about the overhang. Amy said they brought it up because it is different than the chamfered condition that you find in traditional buildings downtown and it interferes with that space as fully being counted as public amenity. P38 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 8 Michael asked how many feet would it be of public amenity. Andy said 41 square feet. Bob said the location for the bike rack has been there and there is no parking there now and as a result of the proposal there still wouldn’t be any parking there. Jim asked how short they are with their public amenity space. Sunny said the requirement is 627 square feet and we have 216 square feet and the difference is made up of the $41,000. Jim said what is it if the bulb out was added? Sunny said we would be over because it would add about 570 square feet. Sunny said we don’t know the full impact of construction the bulb out as it is adjacent to a public street and as soon as we start messing around there might be utilities and other issues. To the extent if it exceeds a reasonable amount above the $41,000 we wouldn’t want to incur substantial costs for that condition when it is only being suggested was to mitigate the number of trips the project would do. We are treating this as one single commercial space; however, if you notice the layout of the elevators and stairways it will have multiple tenants and multiple tenants require clear and unobstructed access from hallways to the trash area so the net leasable will go down and we will give them a new calculation at building permit presumably when we have tenants. The trip mitigation and the issue of currently not meeting it will go away. Had we gotten credit for the new green planting are on Hunter Street we would not have this issue and they probably would not have recommended this as a solution to the problem. It is a great public private partnership if we can do it at some kind of reasonable cost it not only benefits us but benefits the City as a whole but on the other hand we aren’t anxious to write a blank check to redo Cooper Ave. We are already doing other improvements to Cooper as part of the original proposal. We are redoing the handicapped ramps, moving a fire hydrant, moving a light pole and other things in the right-of-way. We said cash-in-lieu plus 50%. Michael asked if the City could use money from their public amenity fund from other projects that have paid cash-in-lieu. P39 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 9 Amy said that is possible. Jim clarified that the area is a loading zone right now and they put the bike racks in the street in the summer. All you are talking about is pulling the curb out and filling it in with concrete. Sunny said it is a little more complicated because the street is crowned as you go out you create drainage issues. Maybe we could do it as a joint public/private partnership if the City has funds. Willis asked how many parking spaces would be eliminated with the bulb out? Andy said none because it is a loading zone right now. Patrick clarified that the parapet is to create a horizontalness rather than a verticalness to the front doorway. Andy said if you start clipping the corner the modulation on the corner becomes very vertical in its orientation. Buildings have had overhangs and we feel the proportions are much more substantially closer to what the intent of the modulation is. Jim asked for clarification of the MMLOS. Sara said MMLOS was taken off the concern list by the bulb outs and the bike racks that were along Cooper Ave. That may or may not occur depending on the amount of trips that need mitigated for the TIA/MMLOS. Amy said the bulb out is a requirement by other obligations that applicant has and it also claim it as credit for public amenity is a concern about double dipping. Sunny said MMLOS which stands for multi modal level of service. We claimed points to mitigate our trip generation based on the entire building being retail. We claimed the green strip on Hunter Street as meeting the requirement to get the points. Engineering said the green strip wasn’t enough to get the points. We are going to do the bulb out regardless of whether we need it for the TIA assuming we can afford to do it. If in fact P40 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 10 the building is divided up to multiple lease spaces then the trip generation is going to go down and the MMLOS issue is going away and there is no double dipping. It is just additional public amenity space. In our case I don’t think the MMLOS issue is going to be an issue because our trip generation is going to go down when the building is divided into lease hold spaces. We would have to have bathrooms that are accessible etc. I am asking you to approve this as originally proposed with the $41,000 for cash-in-lieu and it represents significant gives on the part of this applicant to the community by forgoing a very valuable penthouse. The one behind it sold for $21 million dollars and quite a bit larger. It is a building in compliance with the code and smaller than anything around it and should be a welcomed addition to our retail downtown. Patrick asked the applicant would support a condition as far as the interior being broken up so that you would lower the trip generation that you profess to have. Jeff Ross said they do expect there will be multiple tenants in the building. The reason we went with a single retail use rather than breaking it up we don’t know who the tenants are at this point. I would rather not have my team come to you with a proposal of chopped up spaces etc. that we aren’t sure of and look at the building as one big space knowing that we are going to subdivide it. Patrick asked if they would support a condition that says it will be broken up into x amount of things that will lower the MMLOS. Sunny said he would support that with one minor addition that if for some reason that did not reduce the trips sufficiently that we would be able at building permit with the Engineering Department to substitute another measure. There is an entire checklist of things you can do we just happen to pick this particular one. Jim clarified that the approval would call for a $41,000 cash-in-lieu donation and that would make up the shortfall of your public amenity space. The issue of the bulb out you’re taking the position that you are not obligated to do that period. Sunny said Engineering was trying to help us out and they suggested something we can do to solve the problem. We could have said we want to P41 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 11 do XYZ and if we can up with the same number of points on the spread sheet it would solve the problem. We don’t mind looking at the feasibility provided there is some cover on the overall cost and I suggested a 50% overrun. I believe cash-in-lieu is warranted given what the applicant is giving up and the fact that cash-in-lieu was approved with the townhouse when we had the third floor. Jim said in looking at the conditions that staff raised you are saying that you would keep the roof overhang because it is not going to make a big difference and that will figure into the shortfall, you’ll pay the $41,000 to deal with the shortfall on the public amenity space, the utility trash issue you propose to be addressed by a condition that the trash area be improve if ever there is a restaurant use proposed and the bulb out goes away. They are also proposing to put in the trees for the Parks referral. Gideon Kaufman said what we are saying is that we are willing to take the $41,000 and apply it to the bulb out and if it goes up to $60,000 we are willing to do that. Jim said a sweetener would be to say we’ll take our $41,000 and increase that to $60,000 and contribute that to the bulb out and you have satisfied both the public amenity and you are contributing to something that is a broad public benefit. Sunny said we would rather spend money on something that improve the streetscape in front of our building. Michael said it is a huge added value to the building. Sunny said it would be a wider sidewalk and trees and a place to park your bike. It would be a win win for everyone involved. We will explore doing the bulb out and spent up to $60,000 and if that won’t do it we’ll talk to the City and see if they have some way to also assist in getting it done since they think it is a great idea. If we don’t do it the City gets a check for $41,000. Michael said then we agree to a reduced public amenity. Sunny said no you agreed to cash-in-lieu. Sara said their obligation is to meet 10% however we reach the 10%. P42 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 12 Willis asked about the modules on Cooper Ave. Andy said there are no existing modules on Cooper, it is a straight façade. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Willis identified the issues: Mass and scale Trash and utility: the applicant has offered to have a condition regarding any future restaurant. Fee in lieu for parking, 3.8 parking spaces - $30,000 per space Public amenity Corner entry Bulb out. Patrick greed with what the applicant proposes. The parapet above the main door is appropriate to create a horizontalness to the building. They have also been sensitive to the historic character of downtown with the windows on the first and second floor. Gretchen said the applicant has exhausted their ideas for the public amenity and it is going in the right direction. The bulb out is a good thing in that part of down and it is a busy corner. Regarding the trash/recycle that can be worked out. My issue on this building is the corner entry with the large amount of glass that is out of proportion and scale with the other commercial development of Aspen. It is a one story entry into individual commercial spaces and I think it is out of scale and height. The entry on the east façade is more compatible with the scale of Aspen. The corner entry dominates the historic district across the street. The corner entry need to be redesigned and thought out differently and the roof height needs to be addressed. The fact that the spaces on Cooper Ave. have different facades seems odd but I am not totally opposed to it. One is in and one is out. Bob said the overhang is shelter and I don’t have a problem with it. It is a great improvement over what is currently there. I have no negative feelings about this proposal. Willis said the architectural plan gestures create a lot more vitality on the street. The recessed portion on Hunter is useless space and it is nice to see P43 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 13 that reclaimed and reactivated. I totally applaud the applicant for getting rid of the pent house and going for a modest looking two story commercial building which will be a nice replacement. The building is being scaled back. The corner may feel out of scale just for the fact that the two wings are recessive and much shorter than what is there now. We have talked about corners and scale of corner entries and there is nothing in our guideline. I’m sure it will be addressed in the future. The corner entry is broken down and has a nice organic feel as it turns the corner. The bulb is wonderful and I would agree to the condition if and ever it should come the trash and utility etc. would be made to work at that time. You can’t plan for every what if. The bulb out and green strip along Hunter St. are great things and we should encourage that to happen. Gretchen pointed out that historic buildings don’t have two stories of glass. Jim said he has no problem with the architecture and it is a modern building and the design is an improvement. The overhang should stay and it is a sensible use in the design. The trash issue can have an addition if a restaurant is even in place it can be addressed at that time. The cash- in-lieu is fine. The Parks Dept. referral on the trees is OK. The bulb out is a good idea. You have to spend $41,000 anyway for public amenity space anyway so you are really only contributing $20,000 toward the bulb out and that isn’t very much for what would be an enhancement of that building. It should be a bigger number. In my opinion you should put it in not to exceed $100,000. Michael agreed that it is a community win to see the free market unit removed from the building. The reduced height is also nice and I like the façade of the building being pulled out to Hunter Street. That existing area is a dark cavern. I really like the punched openings on the second floor. We have seen a lot of projects with huge glazing everywhere on the second floor and you really responded to community sensibility. The alley improvement is great as it wraps the corner and having that glass come around the façade. I don’t feel this is the right space for on-site amenity but you showed us the bulb out and it is important for the community and it is good for your building. I think $100,000 is nothing especially when only $60,000 is coming from the applicant. It adds a lot and I would hate to see it go away. It is good for the corner and the community. I have no issues with the trash. I like the building design the way it is and it is a huge improvement from the way Boogie’s looks today. It is also an improvement over the design of the P44 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 14 free market that was approved. I really like the architectural design and the architect has real talent. MOTION: Jim moved to approve resolution #10 for 534 E. Cooper for Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design subject to the conditions that the trash area be improved if a restaurant use is ever proposed for the building in accordance with the recommendation from staff. The tree plantings as recommended by the Parks Dept. on Hunter and Cooper are implements and that the public amenity open space be deemed satisfied with the contribution of $100,000 to be applied to the bulb out proposed on Cooper Ave. and not to exceed up to $100,000. Bob second the motion. Sara said the parking mitigation is in the resolution. Debbie pointed out in connection to the public amenity issue the code does have requirements for meeting that in certain regards and there is a calculation that is done based on the amount of square footage that is to come in. This applicant has offered to go above and beyond that and I don’t know that you have the authority to require them to go up and above that as a condition of approval. You can ask them to study and consider up to $100,000 but you should approve something that is consistent with the code. AMENDED MOTION: Jim amended the motion to accept the offer to not exceed $60,000 but ask that they consider in good faith before the come back to take it to $100,000. Motion second by Bob. Roll call vote: Jim, yes; Bob, yes; Patrick, yes; Michael, yes; Willis, no; Gretchen, no. Motion carried 4-2. Gretchen said her concern is the entry. Bob said they might go back and look at and they might agree with certain aspects of it. 530 E. Main St. (Courthouse Plaza) Major Public Project Review Bob recused himself. P45 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 15 Debbie said she received the affidavit of public notice and there was glitch in the publication in the newspaper. The newspaper inadvertently put the wrong heading of 534 E. Cooper instead of 530 E. Main. They published a second notification that included the proper heading. The content of the notice was accurate. Given that we have four methods of notice I believe that notice has been sufficiently provided and HPC can proceed. Justin said the property includes the courthouse, the jail building and the courthouse plaza building. The proposal is to renovate the existing plaza building as well as construct a three to four story addition that connects to the rear of the plaza building. The purpose is to consolidate a space for the vast majority of the Pitkin county offices. The project is subject to a newer process called pubic projects review that was adopted by City Council about 4 months ago. This is in order to comply with state statute requirement that any project submitted by a governmental agency would need to be reviewed by the city within a 60 day time frame and a decision provided within that time frame. There would be a hearing in front of HPC or P&Z with a final decision going to council. It is a recommendation from HPC tonight. If the decision is not provided within that 60 days the application is deemed approved. There is an option if the city denies the application in that time the applicant may over rule the decision with a vote of 2/3 by their board. There will be no final review by HPC and then it goes to council. There are three sections of the code that this application is subject to: planned development, commercial design and growth management. Staff’s main concern is the massing and height of the building on the north side which range from 31 to 54 feet depending on where it gets measured. This is a large building to be viewed from the Rio Grande side. The upper floor has been set back to help alleviate the height concerns. It still is a tall building and would be taller than what most of the surrounding zone districts would allow. The size of the addition is substantially larger than what exists on the site. Each building there range from 14 to 16 thousand square feet in floor area and the addition is 27,000 square feet in floor area. The proposed addition is 11 feet from the courthouse building. The iconic setting is the public green space surrounding it and the commercial guidelines call for retaining these settings for iconic structures if at all possible. Staff is recommending that the addition be pulled a little bit further away from the courthouse to help create the traditional setting. In terms of the architecture for this building staff feels that it doesn’t quite relate very well to the courthouse building or the plaza building next door. Some of the detailing doesn’t align and staff is recommending that it be re-evaluated to more P46 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 16 closely tie to the other two structures. In terms of the growth management this is an essential public facility so there are two important things to note about that. The first is that there is no annual allotment limit for this so it doesn’t need to receive an allotment other than state the amount of square footage that is provided. The employee generation is determined in this case by HPC. The code does provide a typical rate of 5.1employees per thousand square feet in the public zone district for an office use is what this typically is. Staff ran the calculations to about 101 or 102 employees that would typically be generated out of this type of proposal; however, it is important to note that this is a relocating of current employees that are in other spaces in town. It is not necessarily generating additional employees. APCHA will be reviewing the application at their next meeting. They will be recommending that a current audit of what the employees are now that will be working in the building and to do another evaluation within two years to determine if any actual employee generation occurs and if there is that would need to be mitigated. There is also concern from the Parks Department regarding some of the trees in Veteran’s Park and they will be working with the applicant and have that resolved by the time they submit for a building permit. Staff recommends that HPC recommend approval to City Council with the four mentioned conditions. Reduce the mass and scale of the north side of the building. Locating the addition further away from the courthouse building. Create a stronger architectural relationship to the adjacent buildings. Eliminate the corbel detail on the west façade. Michael asked what type of public outreach was done for the project. Justin said the applicant held two public meetings and they can speak in greater detail what specifically they had done in addition to that. Gretchen asked about the architectural style. Justin said the architectural style for the addition that faces Main Street doesn’t very closely relate to either the Victorian of the courthouse or the more AspenModern of the plaza building. It seems like a prairie style and it was suggested to pull some of the details from either the Victorian or plaza building styles into the addition. P47 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 17 Michael said you indicated in the memo that the max height proposed is 55 feet and I didn’t see anywhere where it hit that height. Justin said we didn’t get the specific measurement points but that would be where the garage entrance is coming from Rio Grande up to the highest point of the top floor addition. The property does slope up toward Main Street at that point and due to the upper floor being set back it might not actually get to 54 feet and might be measured at a slightly lower point than that but if it was viewed from the Rio Grande it would be 54 feet. Michael said unlike the Police Department proposal that section is way pushed in closer to Main Street. Justin said it does get approximately to the same point back as the police station but the difference is the police station is proposing affordable housing along that back area too which is much closer to the edge of the street. I believe they are both pushed back from the Rio Grande edge of the property roughly the same. Willis asked Justin to outline the differences in the review processes between the county vs the city’s police station proposal. Justin said the code amendment for the public project review does not require city projects (police station) to be reviewed within the 60 day time frame. Debbie said the City chose to go through the process like any other applicant. Michael said the county could have opted not to fast track under the new state statute. Justin said they could have gone through the typical review process but they also have the option to do the public project review. It is up to the applicant to decide which one they want to pursue. At the pre-application they were provided options for both and the decision was left up to them at that point. Willis pointed out that it isn’t a new state statute it is newly adopted by the city. Willis said he recalls working on the library regarding this subject and P48 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 18 you can’t pick one public entity that is funded by tax dollars against another funded by tax dollars. Applicant: Kin Weil, Poss Architecture Bill Poss, Rachel Richards, commissioner; John Peacock, county manager; Dave Detwiler, county project manager; Richard DeCampo, Poss architecture; Ron Ryan, under sheriff John Peacock said as a public project this starts off in a different context. This project is about public service. What is motivating this public project is a response to providing essential public services. Those services are driven by demand of the community and state laws that set requirements as to how the services are to be provided. Regarding the sheriff’s department we are doubling the space that they are in currently but not one position has been added to the department. What has changed are the requirements under which that department operates and space that is required to do the job. We are also required to have certain services located in Aspen. Aspen is the designated county seat for Pitkin County and under that statute we have to keep certain offices for essential services located in the county seat. We operate under a different set of motivations and a different set of rules that is driving the proposal that is in front of you. Because we are a public entity it also drives a different process for us. We established the programming needs for the essential services and then developed a vision paying attention to the importance of civic interaction, collaboration zones, good work environments, workflow efficiency. We reached out to the public and did open houses, videos, webpage outreach, CGTV, channel 11, press releases. We had a lot of feedback and asked the community what was important. In terms of architectural considerations we needed to bridge the design styles between the old court house and plaza building. The public said don’t replicate and don’t make a new civic statement. They talked about our energy goals and after taking everything together we asked the team to develop 4 different architectural concepts that we brought back to the public and asked for feedback in order to make modifications that the public wanted to see in their public building. We have been conscious to minimize the footprint while still meeting the minimum standards to effectively deliver the essential public services. The review process is vetted and we are following the letter of the law. Kim Weil, Bill Poss architects P49 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 19 The addition is essentially bridging from the courthouse plaza to the jail. Our addition connects to both buildings. We are set way back from the front of the courthouse and that was to respect Veterans Park. The Clerk’s dept. will be in the basement of the existing plaza building. The parking area will be below where the sheriff parks presently in the addition. It will be lowered 8 to 10 feet which will make the driveway less steep than it is now. On the main level are services for the public, BOCC meeting room, multi-purpose room, and Sheriff’s administration office. Community development will be in the second floor of the existing plaza bldg. Open Space and trails, assessor, IT, GIS, treasurer will be on the second floor. The third floor will hold County administration, BOCC rooms, attorney, conference rooms, HR and finance. Kim said our tallest point is 44 feet at the garage door to the top of the parapet. We are 12 feet floor to floor with a three foot floor pack. On the lower level we line up with the floor levels of the existing plaza building. The east elevation is 3 stories hidden by the proposed police station. On the materials there are cues taken out from the court house. There is brick, sandstone banding and a strong sandstone base and the vertical proportions on the windows are similar but at the same time it doesn’t replicate the courthouse. The height is to the courthouse cornice. It was important that everyone working for the county had access to some sunlight. The conference rooms on the second and third floor are glass on the outside and glass on the inside so that the light will filter through the building. The existing plaza building will be basically untouched. The upgrades include new windows and added insulation to improve energy performance. From Rio Grande Place the existing jail dominates the elevation. The Courthouse is the prominent building on Main Street. The new addition is 55 feet back from the courthouse and 80 feet back from the property line. The intent is to leave the plaza building a building of its own time. Questions and clarifications Michael asked about the process. Given this is a community project why did you opt for the 60 days rather than the traditional landuse application. Rachel Richard, BOCC commissioner Rachel said we had chosen this approach from the beginning. The public outreach was very important. We are on a time line and interest rates are important. These are public dollars that are at risk. We have to relocate all of our offices out of that building. We have signed leases in Basalt and this P50 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 20 is going to be a huge disruption workwise. Time is money. We want to be respectful and hear your comments and try to respond to those in the process. The process is part of the state law. Our City and County have good relationships. The process has been open and transparent and we have been inviting the public in and discussing it on the web. We are keying off the Civic Master plan that took ten years to create which talks about having historical human uses of having civic buildings in your downtown. Michael said he has not seen one letter or read one letter. This is a huge project and we are being asked to evaluate it, take it or leave it and we’re moving on. A lot of the uses in the new building currently exist in the courthouse. John Peacock said we have 18 positions that are in city hall and 44 positions that are in the old courthouse which includes the Sheriff’s department as well as the assessor and treasurer’s office. One of the goals is to make room for additional hearing room space and more space for the 9th judicial district. The state has told us to find hearing room space. As we relocate the treasurer’s office and sheriff’s we can use the courthouse as a true courthouse. We will also secure that building. We are trying to maintain the interior of the courthouse as well as the exterior. While it is a large space it is not an efficient space. We have been talking for some time as to how to meet the essential facility needs. Rachel said communications for 911 offices will be moved to the North 40 fire department. It is a 10 year contract. That will free up 1800 square feet in the jail and that will then be available for future expansion and use of the jail facility. Our current BOCC room is very inadequate facility for quite a while. Michael said he would recommend for Council to have full page renderings of each of the facades in 3D. Patrick asked the applicant if they have looked at going down one more floor to add more square footage below grade. Kim said the initial concepts had another level below but they were too expensive and we have budget constraints. P51 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 21 Rachel also said daylight is important for employees. There was a solid decision to not put employees down below. Veterans Park is sacred ground and there are relics that are buried there. Willis asked about the north courtyard with the corbel stone regarding staff’s comments. Kim said we are willing to look at that and have options. Willis asked about the north portico on the courthouse that is an non-historic addition to the courthouse. What is it repurposed as? Dave said they are still planning with the 9th Judicial district. This location is where people are presently being transported from the jail into the courthouse. Those items that are not historic could be considered for future consideration when we repurpose the courthouse. Rachel said that is a great point raised. It might not be needed when the remodel goes forward and we could take into consideration the remove or modification of non-historic structure on the courthouse could be appropriate. There is also consideration of emergency exits. Jim said this is a confined space to accommodate the needs of the county and there is not a lot you can do with moving buildings and creating separation. The space is needed for functional purposes to deal with modern requirements. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Willis identified the issues: Reduce the mass and scale of the north side of the buildings. Locate the addition further from the Courthouse building. Create a stronger architectural relationship to the adjacent buildings. Eliminate the corbel detail on the west façade. Jim reiterated that there is not much that can be done in reducing mass and moving the addition further away from the courthouse. P52 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2016 22 Gretchen said she is confused whether the applicant is trying to match the architecture of plaza building or the old historic building between the sandstone and vertical element and a horizontal element. It is a good project. The skylight idea between the two buildings is really nice. Perhaps the joining element could be reduced in height which may make it look less massive. The architecture is a little bit of both and feels like there is a lot of different architecture on the site. Maybe the new addition could be quieter. The building is appropriate for the site and it is a successful project. Willis said he agrees with staff’s recommendations and proposes they advance to city council. Patrick and Jim agreed. Willis said the corbel should be restudied as it is a confusing element. Gretchen agreed. Willis suggested when they get to re-programing the Courthouse when they come back to HPC to look at the non-historic elements that have accrued over time. The path from the courthouse plaza will be about five or six feet and that pinch point is going to be exacerbated with the number of pedestrians being funneled through there. Ron Ryan said that is one of our concerns from a safety perspective. Jim said the pedestrian pattern to Rio Grande Park is through Galena plaza. There is not much they can do regarding mass and scale. Dave said they have added an overhang on the east side of Veterans Park to improve that area and adds a shelter. MOTION: Jim moved that the commission recommends approval to City Council of the Major Pubic Project Review for 530 E. Main St. Courthouse plaza, resolution #11 with the conditions as recommended by staff; second by Patrick. . Roll call vote: Michael, no; Willis, yes; Jim, yes; Patrick, yes; Gretchen, yes. Motion carried 4-1. MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn; second by Gretchen. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk P53 II.B. C:\Program Files (x86)\Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\8846.doc 4/19/2016 HPC PROJECT MONITORS- projects in bold are under construction Nora Berko 332 W. Main 1102 Waters (new duplex) 1006 E. Cooper 100 E. Main 417/421 W. Hallam 602 E. Hyman 61 Meadows Road ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Bob Blaich Lot 2, 202 Monarch Subdivision 232 E. Bleeker 609 W. Smuggler ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Jim DeFrancia 435 W. Main, AJCC 420 E. Cooper 420 E. Hyman 407 E. Hyman Sallie Golden 206 Lake 114 Neale 212 Lake 400 E. Hyman 517 E. Hyman (Little Annie’s) Hotel Aspen Gretchen Greenwood 28 Smuggler Grove 135 E. Cooper 1280 Ute 211 E. Hallam ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Willis Pember 204 S. Galena Aspen Core 120 Red Mountain 233 W. Hallam 101 E. Hallam 229 W. Smuggler 407 E. Hyman Patrick Segal 204 S. Galena 701 N. Third 612 W. Main 212 Lake Holden Marolt derrick 333 W. Bleeker John Whipple Aspen Core 201 E. Hyman 549 Race 208 E. Main 420 E. Cooper 602 E. Hyman Hotel Aspen 610 E. Hyman 301 Lake Michael Brown 223 E. Hallam 1102 Waters Avenue Need: 530 W. Hallam P54 II.F. Hotel Jerome – HPC update 4/27/16 Page 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Justin Barker, Senior Planner THRU: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Update on Council review of Hotel Jerome expansion DATE: April 27, 2016 SUMMARY: The Hotel Jerome Planned Development was reviewed by HPC on December 10, 2014 for Conceptual Reviews as a recommendation to City Council. The design that was reviewed is attached as Exhibit A. HPC recommended City Council approve Conceptual Reviews with conditions by a vote of 4-0. In 2015, the properties changed ownership and the application was placed on hold for several months. During this time, the project was revised, which included elimination of the proposed fourth floor addition, but largely remained the same. The project then went to City Council for review. At first reading, Council expressed concern that more length of the Aspen Times building was not being retained. The applicant and staff performed further research and discovered that more of the building is likely historic than originally believed. The applicant has revised the design in response to this information. The new proposed design is attached as Exhibit B. There are three main differences in the revised design from what HPC reviewed: 1. Hotel Jerome – fourth floor addition removed from proposal. 2. Aspen Times building - the original proposal retained 30’ in length, while the revised design retains 53’ in length. 3. New structure - As a result of the increased length of the Aspen Times building, the proposed new structure has reduced in depth, but retains approximately the same height, width and rectangular form that was represented to HPC. There were also some changes in the materials and fenestration of the proposed new structure, however these will be reviewed by HPC as part of the Final Reviews. The application is scheduled for City Council second reading on May 9th. Does HPC have any comments regarding the revisions to include for City Council? EXHIBITS: A. Conceptual design reviewed by HPC on December 10, 2014 B. Revised design P55 II.G. HO T E L J E R O M E 1 P R E S E R V E 3 0 ’ A S P E N T I M E S D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 4 P56 II.G. P57 I I . G . P58 I I . G . P59 I I . G . P60 I I . G . P61 I I . G . P62 I I . G . P63 I I . G . P64 I I . G . P65 I I . G . HO T E L J E R O M E 2 P R E S E R V E 5 3 ’ A S P E N T I M E S M A R C H 2 0 1 6 P66 II.G. P 6 7 I I . G . P 6 8 I I . G . P 6 9 I I . G . P 7 0 I I . G . P 7 1 I I . G . P 7 2 I I . G . P 7 3 I I . G . P 7 4 I I . G . TYPICAL PROCEEDING Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH) Staff presentation (5 minutes) Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes) Applicant presentation (20 minutes) Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes) Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) (5 minutes) Applicant rebuttal (5 minutes) Chairperson identifies the issues to be discussed (5 minutes) HPC discussion (15 minutes) Motion (5 minutes) *Make sure the motion includes what criteria are met or not met. No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting of at least four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require the concurring vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes of the members of the commission then present and voting. Procedure for amending motions: A “friendly amendment” to a Motion is a request by a commissioner to the commissioner who made the Motion and to the commissioner who seconded it, to amend their Motion. If either of these two do not accept the “friendly” amendment request, the requesting commissioner may make a formal motion to amend the Motion along the lines he/she previously requested. If there is no second to the motion to amend the Motion, there is no further discussion on the motion to amend, it dies for a lack of a second; discussion and voting on the Motion may then proceed. If there is a second to the motion to amend the Motion, it can be discussed and must be voted upon before any further discussion and voting on the Motion for which the amendment was requested. If the vote is in favor of amending the Motion, discussion and voting then proceeds on the Amended Motion. If the vote on the motion to amend fails, discussion and voting on the Motion as originally proposed may then proceed. P75 II.K. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 541 Race Alley, Conceptual Major Development, Relocation and Variations review, PUBLIC HEARING DATE: April 27, 2016 ________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: 541 Race Alley is part of the Fox Crossing neighborhood, an area which received approval to be subdivided into 13 residential lots in 2005. The approvals included several historic preservation requirements, including landmark designation of a Victorian era home, designation of the two log cabins which are the subject of this review, creation of a small park fronting the historic resources, and redistribution of some of the development rights off of the historic sites and onto the surrounding new homes. These two log cabins, named Line Shack #1 and Line Shack #2 by the original owner, were built in 1964 to serve as rental units. At the time of their designation, one cabin was sitting on the subject site, Lot 6, and one was sitting behind the Victorian house, on Lot 5. The cabin that was sitting behind the Victorian has already been moved to a temporary site on Lot 4, with HPC’s approval, because construction of the Victorian project is about to begin. The intention has always been to re-unite the two log cabins on this property, with any alterations to be approved by HPC. HPC has approved two redevelopment concepts for these resources, but neither project moved forward. Since those approvals were granted, this applicant and a previous owner continued to remove development rights from the site in the form of TDRs. The allowed floor area is now just enough to cover the two historic structures, but the redevelopment can take advantage of several floor area exemptions in the land use code related to basement and garage space. This application uses those exemptions and includes a request for a 500 square foot floor area bonus. Setback and Residential Design Standards variances are requested as well. The first review step is Conceptual design (scale, massing and site plan), Relocation, and Variation review by HPC. Following Conceptual, staff will inform City Council of the HPC decision, allowing them the opportunity to “Call-Up” any aspects of the approval that they find require additional review. This is a standard practice for all significant projects. The last review step before applying for building permit is Final design (landscape, lighting and materials.) APPLICANT: Fox Crossing Properties Lots 4 & 6, LLC, represented by Willis Pember Architects. P76 III.A. CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT PARCEL ID: 2737-073-92-006. ADDRESS: 541 Race Alley, Lot 6, Fox Crossing Subdivision, City of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6. The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project’s conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list of the relevant HPC design guidelines is attached as “Exhibit A.” The proposal is to use the cabins as a single family home, with an attached garage. Ideally the original subdivision approval would have allowed a more generous lot for these two buildings, which were constructed side by side, close to Race Alley, with about 15’ between them. Preservation of these buildings was urged by the City, not the applicant at that time. The lot on which they are to sit is about 14’ wider than the footprint of the two structures combined. This does not allow for the project to comply with side setback requirements of 10’ per side, and/or the minimum distance between detached buildings on one lot, which is 5’. The architect has chosen to place the cabins relatively close to the side lot lines, so that each cabin is 3’ from the side lot line. The eaves of the cabins exceed the 18” exemption into setbacks and require the HPC to consider a larger setback reduction. This is discussed in more detail later in the memo. P77 III.A. Below is a photo of the cabins, prior to recent construction in Fox Crossing: Relocation of a historic buildings will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards: 1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. P78 III.A. Staff finds that the proposed relocation is the only option that results in these two resources being placed next to each other on the site provided for their preservation. The buildings will be set about 10’ further away from Race Alley than currently exists, but the architect has not moved them all the way to the allowed front setback. This preserves some sense of the deep front yard that has been characteristic of these buildings and maintains their secondary relationship to the Victorian building, which sits well downhill from the cabins. Staff recommends Relocation be approved with the standard conditions that the methodology be fully explained in the building permit and the applicant provide a $30,000 security for the safe relocation of each cabin. Regarding the HPC design guidelines for Conceptual Review, staff finds that the project complies and reflects HPC’s goals for small scaled additions that do not overwhelm the historic resource. Where connector elements are proposed, they slip below historic eavelines. The proposed additions are simple and take architectural cues from the historic cabins, but are clearly of a different time. HPC should take note that the architect plans to lower the interior floor level of the cabins to improve some existing clearance issues. This will not be noticed from the outside except if standing at the front door. There will be two steps down to the front door, screened behind an existing solid wall that runs around the porch. A panel will presumably need to be added to the bottom of the historic door to resolve this change in floor level. The drawing above illustrates this condition. The only other alterations to be made directly to the cabins are the construction of the two connectors. The connector between the northern line shack and the garage uses an existing window opening as an accessway into the mudroom/garage. The connector between the two cabins has more of an impact, removing about 18’ of wall on each resource. Staff finds that this dimension should be reduced. P79 III.A. Guideline 10.8 suggests that this connector should be at least 10’ back from the front façade of the cabins, rather than 5’ as proposed. This standard is written to address a connector between a historic structure and a new addition. This proposal to connect two historic homes is not typical and requires particular sensitivity, especially in the case that a floor area bonus is being requested. The applicant has some interesting proposals for cladding this element in mirror or glass that will cause the connector to disappear to a certain extent because of the reflections of the adjacent structures. The materiality of this addition is being deferred to Final review. Staff recommends that the west, park facing wall of the connector be set 10-15’ back from the front of the cabins. The proposal as designed requires setback variances. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. Staff Response: This area of the R-6 zone district has greater sideyard setback requirements than the West End, where most R-6 lots are located. This requirement was instituted when the William’s Addition neighborhood was annexed into the City in 1989. This peculiarity in the requirements is easy to miss in the land use code and has been overlooked in this application. The minimum side yards are 10’ and the combined sideyards are 20’. As stated above, there are limited options for the placement of the cabins. The 8’ of distance between them should not be reduced. The cabins are placed 3’ from each lot line, but their oversized eaves (24”, rather than the 18” eave exemption that is normally allowed) require that the setback is measured to the fascia, rather than the building wall. Strictly speaking, the setback provided on each side of the historic resources is 1’ where 10’ is required. The combined sideyard setback will be 2,’ where 20’ is required. Staff recommends HPC support these variances. The applicant will need 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is recommended. P80 III.A. to work closely with the Building Department to ensure that any fireproofing upgrades have little to no effect on the exterior of the cabins. The proposed garage has a 7’ sideyard setback and the sunken courtyard has a 5’ setback before terracing down to the lowest deck. Staff does not recommend shifting the garage further away from the north sideyard because this will block more views of the back of the historic resources. The setback of the courtyard has no real impact above grade, but could seemingly be modified so that the 10’ requirement is met. This is staff’s recommendation. The application includes a request for a 500 square foot floor area bonus. In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that: a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building; c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained. The property is permitted 1,500 square feet of floor area. In 2008, when three TDRs were approved to be removed from the site, the previous owner represented that 1,500 square feet was enough to cover the historic structures (742 square feet each, 1484 combined), with 16 square feet remaining unused. This applicant has calculated the existing floor area to be 1,511 square feet, slightly over the allowed limit. If HPC awards the bonus, the maximum floor area will be 2,000 square feet. The applicant must remove at least 11 square feet from the project in order to remain within floor area limits. This will be partially accomplished by reducing the size of the connector between the two resources. Staff finds that the project meets bonus criteria B, D, and E. We recommend that the connector be reduced in size as described above to better meet criteria A and F. The bonus is a valuable preservation incentive that must be held to the highest standards. In addition to the HPC guidelines, the project must meet the Residential Design Standards. Two standards are not met: P81 III.A. 1. Build-to lines. On parcels or lots of less than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, at least sixty percent (60%) of the front façade shall be within five (5) feet of the minimum front yard setback line. On corner sites, this standard shall be met on the frontage with the longest block length. Porches may be used to meet the sixty percent (60%) standard. 2. A covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six (6') feet, shall be part of the front facade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than one (1) story in height. The applicant may ask for a variance to allow the use of a reflective material to side the connector element. This will be addressed at Final. In order to grant variations, HPC must find that the proposal will: a) Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting, or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or, b) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Staff finds that these variations are appropriate. The cabins have always had a deep setback on the site and moving them further forward to be more prominent would change their character. The original front porches should not be altered in depth to meet this standard. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant Conceptual approval with the following conditions: 1. For Final review, move the west facing wall of the connector between the two cabins so that it is 10-15’ back from their front facades. 2. HPC hereby grants a 500 square foot floor area bonus. 3. HPC hereby grants sideyard setback variations to allow the eaves of the historic structures to be placed 1’, instead of the required 10’ from the north and south property lines. The combined sideyard setback requirement will be 2’, rather than 20.’ HPC allows the new garage to be 7’, rather than 10’ from the north lot line. 4. HPC grants a waiver from Build-to Lines and front porch depth. 5. As part of a building permit review, the applicant will be required to submit a report from a licensed engineer, architect or housemover demonstrating that the structures can be moved, and the method for moving and protecting the structures must be submitted with the building permit application. In addition the applicant P82 III.A. must provide a bond, letter of credit or cashier’s check in the amount of $30,000 per cabin to be held by the City during the duration of the relocation process. 6. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of April 27, 2016, the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A: Design Guidelines Exhibit B: Application Exhibit C: Public comment Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Design Guidelines for 541 Race Alley, Conceptual review Historic Preservation Guidelines 1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a rehabilitation project. This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk, proceeding along a "semi-public" walkway, to a "semi-private" porch or entry feature and ending in the "private" spaces beyond. Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry. Meandering walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree. Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style. Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles. 1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic structures. The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material and sod, and not covered with paving, for example. 5.1 Preserve an original porch. Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions and spacing of balusters when replacing missing ones. P83 III.A. Unless used historically on the property, wrought iron, especially the "licorice stick" style that emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, is inappropriate. Expanding the size of a historic porch is inappropriate. 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Instead, maintain the perceived line and orientation of the roof as seen from the street. Retain and repair roof detailing. 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. The shadows created by traditional overhangs contribute to one's perception of the building's historic scale and therefore, these overhangs should be preserved. 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house. The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. 9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the boundaries of its historic parcel. If a historic building straddles two lots, then it may be shifted to sit entirely on one of the lots. Both lots shall remain landmarked properties. 9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. P84 III.A. 9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic elevation above grade. Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it substantially above the ground level is inappropriate. Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances the resource. 9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space. In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential Design Standards). The size of a lightwell should be minimized. A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and will be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it should be surrounded by a simple fence or rail. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. P85 III.A. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is recommended. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate. Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. 14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts. New curb cuts are not permitted. If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it. P86 III.A. HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2016 Page 1 of 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, RELOCATION AND VARIATIONS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 541 RACE ALLEY, LOT 6, FOX CROSSING SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2016 PARCEL ID: 2737-073-92-006 WHEREAS, the applicant, Fox Crossing Properties Lots 4 & 6, LLC, represented by Willis Pember Architects, has requested HPC approval for Conceptual Major Development, Relocation and Variations review for the property located at 541 Race Alley; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that “no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;” and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, for approval of Relocation, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.090.C, Relocation of a Designated Property; and WHEREAS, the HPC may approve setback variations according to Section 26.415.110.C.1.a, Variances; and WHEREAS, in order to receive approval for a floor area bonus, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.110.F; and WHEREAS, the HPC may approve variations to the Residential Design Standards according to Section 26.410.020.D; and WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on April 27, 2016. HPC considered the application, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and granted approval with conditions by a vote of __ to __. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: HPC grants Conceptual Major Development, Relocation and Variations review with the following conditions: P87 III.A. HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2016 Page 2 of 2 1. For Final review, move the west facing wall of the connector between the two cabins so that it is 10-15’ back from their front facades. 2. HPC hereby grants a 500 square foot floor area bonus. 3. HPC hereby grants sideyard setback variations to allow the eaves of the historic structures to be placed 1’, instead of the required 10’ from the north and south property lines. The combined sideyard setback requirement will be 2’, rather than 20.’ HPC allows the new garage to be 7’, rather than 10’ from the north lot line. 4. HPC grants a waiver from Build-to Lines and front porch depth. 5. As part of a building permit review, the applicant will be required to submit a report from a licensed engineer, architect or housemover demonstrating that the structures can be moved, and the method for moving and protecting the structures must be submitted with the building permit application. In addition the applicant must provide a bond, letter of credit or cashier’s check in the amount of $30,000 per cabin to be held by the City during the duration of the relocation process. 6. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of April 27, 2016, the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 27th day of April, 2016. Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: ___________________________________ _____________________________ Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney James DeFrancia, Acting Chair ATTEST: ___________________________ Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk P88 III.A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT January, 2015 City of Aspen | 130 S. Galena St. | (970) 920-5090 Land Use Review Fee Policy The City of Aspen has established a review fee policy for the processing of land use applications. A flat fee or deposit is collected for land use applications based on the type of application submitted. A flat fee is collected by Community Development for applications which normally take a minimal and predictable amount of staff time to process. Review fees for other City departments reviewing the application (referral departments) will also be collected when necessary. Flat fees are cumulative – meaning an application with multiple flat fees must pay the sum of those flat fees. Flat fees are not refundable. A review fee deposit is collected by Community Development when more extensive staff review is required. Actual staff time spent will be charged against the deposit. Various City staff may also charge their time spent on the case in addition to the case planner. Deposit amounts may be reduced if, in the opinion of the Community Development Director, the project is expected to take significantly less time to process than the deposit indicates. A determination on the deposit amount shall be made during the pre-application conference by the case planner. Hourly billing shall still apply. All applications must include an Agreement to Pay Application Fees. One payment including the deposit for Planning and referral agency fees must be submitted with each land use application, made payable to the City of Aspen. Applications will not be accepted for processing without the required application fee. The Community Development Department shall keep an accurate record of the actual time required for the processing of a land use application requiring a deposit. The City can provide a summary report of fees due at the applicant’s request. The applicant will be billed for the additional costs incurred by the City when the processing of an application by the Community Development Department takes more time or expense than is covered by the deposit. Any direct costs attributable to a project review shall be billed to the applicant with no additional administrative charge. In the event the processing of an application takes less time than provided for by the deposit, the department shall refund the unused portion of the deposited fee to the applicant. Fees shall be due regardless of whether an applicant receives approval. Unless otherwise combined by the Director for simplicity of billing, all applications for conceptual, final, and recordation of approval documents shall be handled as individual cases for the purposes of billing. Upon conceptual approval all billing shall be reconciled and all past due invoices shall be paid prior to the Director accepting an application for final review. Final review shall require a new deposit at the rate in effect at the time of final application submission. Upon final approval all billing shall again be reconciled prior to the Director accepting an application for review of technical documents for recordation. The Community Development Director may cease processing of a land use application for which an unpaid invoice is 30 or more days past due. Unpaid invoices of 90 or more days past due may be assessed a late fee of 1.75% per month. An unpaid invoice of 120 days or more may be subject to additional actions as may be assigned by the Municipal Court Judge. All payment information is public domain. All invoices shall be paid prior to issuance of a Development Order or recordation of development agreements and plats. The City will not accept a building permit for a property until all invoices are paid in full. For permits already accepted, an unpaid invoice of 90 or more days may result in cessation of building permit processing or issuance of a stop work order until full payment is made. The property owner of record is the party responsible for payment of all costs associated with a land use application for the property. Any secondary agreement between a property owner and an applicant representing the owner (e.g. a contract purchaser) regarding payment of fees is solely between those private parties. P89 III.A. P90 III.A. ATTACHMENT 2 - Historic Preservation Land Use Application PROJECT: Name: Location: (Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)___________________________________________________________ APPLICANT: Name: Address: Phone #: _______________________Fax#:___________________E-mail:_____________________ REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Address: Phone #: _______________________Fax#:___________________E-mail:______________________ TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): Historic Designation Certificate of No Negative Effect Certificate of Appropriateness -Minor Historic Development -Major Historic Development -Conceptual Historic Development -Final Historic Development -Substantial Amendment Relocation (temporary, on or off-site) Demolition (total demolition) Historic Landmark Lot Split EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: April 30, 2015 P91 III.A. Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: April 30, 2015 General Information Please check the appropriate boxes below and submit this page along with your application. This information will help us review your plans and, if necessary, coordinate with other agencies that may be involved. YES NO Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: April 30, 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 - Dimensional Requirements Form (Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.) Project: Applicant: Project Location: Zone District: Lot Size: Lot Area: (For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing:__________Proposed:___________________ Number of residential units: Existing:__________Proposed:___________________ Number of bedrooms: Existing:__________Proposed:___________________ Proposed % of demolition:__________ DIMENSIONS: (write n/a where no requirement exists in the zone district) Floor Area: Height Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ Principal Bldg.: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ Accessory Bldg.: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ On-Site parking: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ % Site coverage: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ % Open Space: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Front Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Rear Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Combined Front/Rear: Indicate N, S, E, W Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Combined Sides: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Distance between buildings: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued: ____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ Variations requested (identify the exact variances needed): ______________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ P93 III.A. P94 III.A. P95 III.A. P96 III.A. P97 III.A. P98 III.A. P99 III.A. P100 III.A. P101 III.A. P102 III.A. P103 III.A. P104 III.A. P105 III.A. P106 III.A. P107 III.A. P108 III.A. WPA #1403 HPC major development application | 541 race alley | Aspen, CO 11.24.2015 current LS#1 location property line p r o p e r t y l i n e proposed LS#2 temporary re-location 2’ between roof eaves 4’-5’ between f.o. walls P109 III.A. From:Hillary Seminick To:Willis Pember Cc:Amy Simon Subject:541 Race Ally Calcs and Measures Questions Date:Monday, October 12, 2015 12:27:42 PM Hi Willis, Here are the follow up sections of code you requested. I’ve included the code section reference, the section of code highlighting pertinent information and a short summary of how this affects your project. Feel free to contact me with any questions. Thanks, Hillary 1. The courtyard calculation- why is this considered deck and not patio within 6” of finished grade, which is exempt from floor area calculations. Finished grade1 is where the ground meets the exterior wall of the building. The patio is beyond 6” of this point, therefore, it is considered deck. 1 Definitions, 26.104.100 p. 24 Grade, finished. The elevation of the ground surface measured where it meets the exterior wall of a structure upon completion of construction. http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/clerk/municode/coaspent26-100.pdf 2. The deck area exemption is only available on the floor area allowed for the lot, exclusive of severed TDRs and floor area bonuses. 2 The following features are considered deck3 and are calculated as such: courtyard surface, fireplace, retaining walls. The planter feature will not be calculated as deck4 provided it is 30” above the courtyard surface. Calcs and Measurements, 26.575.020.D.4 p.6 Decks, Balconies, Loggias, Gazebos, Trellis, Exterior Stairways, and non-Street-facing porches. The calculation of the Floor Area of a building or a portion thereof shall not include decks, balconies, trellis, exterior stairways, non-Street facing porches, gazebos and similar features, unless the area of these features is greater than fifteen percent (15%) of the allowable floor area for the property and the use and density proposed, or as otherwise exempted by this Section. If the area of these features exceeds fifteen percent (15%) of the property’s allowable Floor Area (for that use and density proposed) only the areas in excess of the fifteen percent (15%) shall be attributed towards the allowable Floor Area for the P110 III.A. property. The allowable Floor Area for the purpose of this calculation refers to the Floor Area calculation based on the Net Lot Area, as defined in this chapter or as prescribed by a site specific approval, 2 with the following exceptions: Floor Area bonus, or established or extinguished Transferrable Development Right certificates are not included. Decks, balconies, exterior stairways, trellis, and similar features of a mixed use, commercial, or lodge building located within the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District, Mixed Use (MU) Zone District, the Commercial (C-1) Zone District, the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Zone District, the Lodge (L) Zone District, or the Commercial Lodge (CL) Zone District shall be exempt from Floor Area calculations. 3 The area of the following features count toward deck calculation: railing, permanently fixed seating, permanently fixed grills, and similar permanently fixed features. 4 Permanent planter boxes and green roofs that are a minimum of 30” in height above or below the deck surface, measured from the deck surface to the bottom of the planter box or green roof surface, and that are permanently built into the structure of the roof or deck are not included in the deck calculation. Permanent planter boxes and green roofs that do not meet the minimum requirement count toward deck calculation. Unenclosed areas beneath decks, balconies, and exterior stairways shall be exempt from Floor Area calculations unless that area is used as a carport. (See provisions for garages and carports, Subsection 7.) Enclosed and unconditioned areas beneath porches, gazebos, and decks or balconies when those elements have a finished floor level within thirty (30) inches of the surrounding finished grade shall be exempt from Floor Area calculations regardless of how that area is used. http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/clerk/municode/coaspent26-500.pdf 3. The retaining wall must be no more than 30” above and below grade simultaneously5. There is an exception for the portions of the feature that are required for structural integrity. The applicant may obtain approval for the top of the retaining wall is in excess of 30” if it is required for building code compliance6. The dimensional requirements for different features cannot be combined; therefore, a fence cannot be placed atop a retaining wall to exceed the 30” restriction7. 26.575.020.E.5.k, p18 5 Uncovered porches, landscape terraces, slabs, patios, walks, landscape walls, earthen berms, retaining walls, steps and similar structures, which do not exceed thirty (30) inches vertically above or below natural grade or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive. (Also see Chapter 26.410 – Residential Design Standards for limits on the location of berms.) Improvements may be up to thirty (30) inches above and below grade simultaneously, for P111 III.A. up to a sixty (60) inch total. Improvements may exceed thirty (30) inches below grade if determined to be necessary for the structural integrity of the improvement. (See Figure 16). 26.575.020.K, p. 29 6 K. Exceptions for Building Code Compliance. The Community Development Director may approve exceptions to the dimensional restrictions of this Section to accommodate improvements required to achieve compliance with building, fire, or accessibility codes in or on existing buildings when no other practical solution exists. The Community Development Director must first determine that the visual impact of the exemption is minimal and that no other reasonable way to implement code compliance exists. The Director may require notice be provided to adjacent landowners. Approval shall be in the form of a recordable administrative decision. 26.575.020.B 7Limitations. The prescribed allowances and limitations, such as height, setbacks etc., of distinct structural components shall not be aggregated or combined in a manner that supersedes the dimensional limitations of an individual structural component. For example, if a deck is permitted to be developed within five feet of a property boundary and a garage must be a minimum of ten feet from the same property boundary, a garage with a deck on top of it may not be developed any closer than ten feet from the property boundary or otherwise produce an aggregated structural component that extends beyond the setback limit of a garage. http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/clerk/municode/coaspent26-500.pdf http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/clerk/municode/coaspent26-500.pdf 4. Lastly, because landings are a required element of stairs per building code, the entire feature is included in the exterior stairway calculation. Hillary Seminick Planner Technician Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 970-429-2741 www.aspenpitkin.com Notice and Disclaimer: This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt from disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Further, the information or opinions contained in this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If applicable, the information and opinions contain in the email are based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations P112 III.A. that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and information contained herein do not create a legal or vested right or any claim of detrimental reliance. P113 III.A. 541 Race Street, November 29, 2015 | WPA | 412 N. Mill Street | Aspen, CO 81611 | vc 970 920 1727 Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer 11.29.15 130 S. Galena Street, third floor Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Relocation of Line Shack #1, 541 Race Street, Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Amy, We have inspected both Line Shacks #1 and #2, surveyed them and find them both in excellent structural condition and relatively unaltered since erected in the mid-1960’s. Line Shack #2 has already been relocated and is being supported in the manner described in the photos at right; four wide flange steel purlins directly under the East-West bearing points over two steel wide flange beams running North-South. The temporary ‘foundation’ consists of six solid bearing pads, three under each of the beams resting on well draining gravel. Visiting the interior of LS#2 in October offered no discernible signs of shifting or settlement during the interior survey. Given the move already evidenced of LS #2 strongly suggests a similar, repeat performance for LS#1, as both structures are modular, simple kit constructions and are virtually identical with respect to framing, structure and CMU block perimeter foundations. The same moving line shack #2 company will be engaged to do further relocations. Please reference relocation sketch, Exhibit #4 and as-built plans, elevations and sections within the drawings package for further information. Sincerely, line shack #2 Willis Pember AIA, Principal WPA, Inc. P114 III.A. CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Amy Simon, 970.429.2758 DATE: 9.29.2015 PROJECT: 541 Race Alley DESCRIPTION: 541 Race Alley, Lot 6 Fox Crossing Subdivision, is a landmarked 6,068 square foot lot. The property contains two 1960s era log buildings that are considered to be representative of postwar construction in Aspen in the Rustic style. The property owner would like to covert the two free-standing cabins into one single family home with a full basement and an attached garage. According to the original Fox Crossing Subdivision approval, the property was allowed 3,250 square feet of floor area. However, since that time seven TDRs have been created and removed from the site, reducing the allowed floor area by 1,750 square feet. It appears that the remaining allowable floor area of 1,500 square feet is just enough to cover the existing buildings, with less than 20 square feet remaining. The project is eligible to request a 500 square foot floor area bonus if it is found to be an outstanding preservation effort, meeting several of the criteria below: In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that: a) The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; b) The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building; c) The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; d) The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; e) The construction materials are of the highest quality; f) An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; g) The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h) Notable historic site and landscape features are retained. The first review step will be Conceptual design review (scale, massing and site plan), On-Site Relocation and variation review for setbacks, Residential Design Standards variances, and floor area bonus if requested by the applicant. Following Conceptual, HPC will inform City Council of their decision, allowing them the opportunity to “Call-Up” any aspects of the approval that they find require additional HPC review. This is a standard practice for all significant projects reviewed by HPC. The last review step before applying for building permit is HPC Final design (landscape, lighting and materials.) HPC will use the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and the Residential Design Standards to make their determinations. P115 III.A. Relevant Land Use Code Section(s): 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.410 Residential Design Standards 26.415.070 Development involving designated properties (Major) 26.415.090 Relocation 26.415.110 Benefits 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements 26.610 Impact fees 26.710.040 Medium-Density Residential (R-6) Review by: Staff for completeness and recommendations. HPC for design approval and benefits. Public Hearing: Yes, at Conceptual and Final HPC review. Referral Agencies: None Planning Fees: $1,950 for 6 billable hours (additional or less billable hours are at $325 per hour) for HPC Conceptual and again for Final. Referral Fees: $0 Total Deposit: $1,950 for Conceptual and $1,950 for Final. Land Use Code: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Title-26- Land-Use-Code/ HPC Design Guidelines: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Historic-Preservation/Historic- Properties/ To apply for Conceptual and to apply for Final, first submit one copy of the following information:  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 (Attached)  List of adjacent property owners within 300’ for public hearing P116 III.A.  Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status, certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado.  As-built documentation of the existing structures. Clear photographs are acceptable.  Scaled drawings of all proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their form, including their height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the primary features of all elevations.  At Conceptual application only, provide graphics identifying preliminary selection of primary exterior building materials.  At Final application only, drawings of the street facing facades must be provided at ¼” scale.  At Final application only, provide final selection of all exterior materials, and samples or clearly illustrated photographs. Samples are preferred for the presentation to HPC.  At Final application only, provide a lighting plan and landscape plan.  Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the designated historic property or historic district including at least one (1) of the following: diagrams, maps, photographs, models or streetscape elevations.  A written description of the proposal and an explanation of how the proposed development, and any requested variances or bonuses, complies with the review standards and design guidelines relevant to the application.  Verification that the proposal complies with Chapter 26.410, Residential design standards or a written request for a variance from any standard that is not being met. Once the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted:  Please email the complete application to amy.simon@cityofaspen.com. Provide text and graphics as separate files, in .pdf format.  12 sets of all graphics, printed at 11”x17.”  Total deposit for review of the application. Applicants are advised that building plans will be required to meet the International Building Code as adopted by the City of Aspen, the Federal Fair Housing Act, and CRS 9.5.112. Please make sure that your application submittal addresses these building-related and accessibility regulations. You may contact the Building Department at 920-5090 for additional information. 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. P117 III.A. P118 III.A. WPA #1403 HPC major development application | 541 race alley | Aspen, CO 11.30.2015          application request               Post War Aspen Rustic Line Shacks ‐ 541 Race Alley, Aspen, CO   rev 4. 11.2016/11.16.2015           This is an application for HPC major development approval to relocate two landmarked, free‐ standing 1960’s era cabins, combining them into a single family residence, constructing a full  basement underneath both cabins, and adding a two garage behind the historic landmark  structure.  The legal description of the subject property is Lot 6, Fox Crossing Subdivision,  according to the Plat recorded June 20, 2005 in Plat Book 74 at Page 17, County of Pitkin, State  of Colorado.  The property’s Parcel ID # 273707392007.  The survey states that it is approximately  +/‐ 6,068.38 SF in size.  The property is zoned R‐6 Residential.  A vicinity map locating this property  is included in the drawings section of this application booklet.    This application is being submitted by the owner of the property, Fox Crossing LLC Lots 4 &6,  managed by Mr. John Morton (hereinafter, "the applicant").  Proof of the ownership of the  property is provided by Exhibit #1, the General Warranty Deed and Title Insurance Policy.  A letter  from Mr. Morton authorizing Willis Pember Architects, Inc to submit this application is attached as  Exhibit #2.    The staff has issued a pre‐application conference summary for this project (see Exhibit #7, Pre‐ Application Conference Summary).  This summary indicates that this proposal is considered to be a  major development requiring conceptual and final review and approval by the Historic  Preservation Commission pursuant to Section 26.415.070 C of the Aspen Land Use Regulations.   HPC will also consider the applicant’s request for a side yard setback variance, a 500SF floor area  bonus for the property and two RDS variations; the first regarding porches: a minimum six foot  depth where historically only 5 ft exists, and the second regarding reflective materials.    This application has been organized to respond to the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines for  relocation and building additions, followed by Exhibits #1‐7.  First, however, a description of  existing conditions and summary of the prior City development approvals granted to this property  is presented to establish the context for this application.              Cc:  John Morton, Fox Crossing LLC, Lots 5+6        P119 III.A. WPA #1403 HPC major development application | 541 race alley | Aspen, CO 11.30.2015      II. Existing and Proposed Conditions  The subject property is a 6,068 sq. ft. parcel of land located along the edge of Fox Crossing Park,  within the Fox Crossing Subdivision.   The property is improved with a one storey residence that is  estimated to have been built in the 1960’s.  The property was designated by the City as a landmark  structure via the Aspen Modern Program.  A second, identical residence historically was located in  alignment to the other and collectively both were known as Line Shack #1 and Line Shack #2.  Both  are landmarked structures; the second being currently located in temporary, on‐site holding on  adjacent Lot 5.  The owner is in the process of selling  Lot 5 and will retain ownership of Lot 6.   Relocation of both structures is justified as the Fox Crossing Subdivision approvals re‐drew  property lines, and both shacks can only be co‐located on Lot 6, if both are relocated.    The property has previously received approval for two scenarios that have not moved forward. In  2005 HPC reviewed and approved a single family home the linked the log cabins together as one  free market house.  In 2008, HPC approved a design which proposed one of the cabins would  function as a free market home, including a small addition, and the other cabin would be a  voluntary, ‘for sale’ affordable housing unit. The ’for sale’ affordable housing unit was proposed so  that the second cabin would be exempt from counting in floor area.  The project also received a  500 SF floor area bonus from HPC.    The owner did not go forward with the 2008 approvals, but did create and sever three TDR’s from  the site, as did the Fox Crossing subdivision when originally created in 2005 leaving just 1,500 SF of  allowable floor area for Lot 6, enough to cover both cabins with less than 20 SF of FAR remaining.  The requested 500 SF bonus is the only way this proposal can go forward. (Ref. response to  guidelines 26.415.110, benefits.)     lll. Conformance to Land Use Guidelines    26.410   Residential Design Guidelines    This proposal will meet or exceed all requirements of these guidelines with the exception of the  following:  materials:  ‘highly reflective surfaces shall not be used’. We propose to glaze the  connector windows in mirror glass, as a gesture of architectural erasure,  whereby, in real lived experience; its mass will effectively disappear, becoming  ambient exterior landscape.  (see model photos) Current energy efficient glazing  and coatings are more reflective than their predecessors, and under many  conditions behave as mirrors in spite of themselves, so the request is not as large  or outrageous as it might otherwise seem.  We propose to introduce this subject  at final review, letting the conceptual mass and scale succeed or fail on its own  merits.       P120 III.A. WPA #1403 HPC major development application | 541 race alley | Aspen, CO 11.30.2015      front porches:  ‘Must be a minimum of 6' deep’. The existing historic porches are only 5'                 and technically requires an exemption from this guideline.    Build‐to lines: Because the property’s front yard is a public park, not building towards the  front yard setback seemed a better approach and will require a variation from this standard.     26.415.070  Development involving Designated Properties (Major) Conceptual    This application includes the following:  1)  The general application information required in Section 26.304.030.  2) A site plan and survey showing property boundaries, the location and orientation of  existing and proposed improvements and predominant site characteristics.  3)  Scaled drawings of all proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their form,  including their height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the primary  features of all elevations.  4)  Preliminary selection of primary building materials to be used in construction  represented by samples and/or photographs.  5)  Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the  designated historic property or historic district including at least one (1) of the  following: diagrams, maps, photographs, models or streetscape elevations.  6)  Verification that the proposal complies with Chapter 26.410, Residential design  standards or a written request for a variance from any standard that is not being met.    26.415.090  Relocation    Relocation standards    The standard for relocation most relevant is #4, within section 26.415.090 B, ‐ “The relocation  activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and  integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of  the Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or  aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties;”     Response Indeed, the relocation exercise for both cabins is a foregone conclusion given  the lot size and the pre‐existing subdivision approvals.    For approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met:    1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the  physical impacts of relocation;    Response Yes, Line Shack #2 has already demonstrated an ability to be moved, as it is  currently secured over a structure of steel beams bearing on six temporary footing pads.  P121 III.A. WPA #1403 HPC major development application | 541 race alley | Aspen, CO 11.30.2015            2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and    Response: Yes. The applicant no longer retains use of Lots 4, 5 and 6. A request to  temporarily relocate line shack #2 from Lot 5 to Lot 6 was approved by staff and monitor  under Lot 5’s approvals.  During  construction, on‐site holding, suspending both  resources over the excavation is the preferred, and safest option.  Micro‐piles are  anticipated on the North and South property e dges. An on‐site, interim relocation  sketch is attached as an Exhibit #4, proposing LS#2 temporarily relocated to the NW  corner of Lot #6, until approvals are in place for Lot #6, enabling the suspension of the  resources on‐site, over their proposed footprints. The SW corner of Lot #6 is also an  option.    3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and  preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary  financial security.     Response: Yes, please reference Exhibit #4 and the letter from the Architect Exhibit #6.  The applicant is prepared to post the required assurance at the time of building permit,  typically $30k per building.       26.415.110  Benefits    Floor area bonus.  1. In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square  feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be  considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that:    a) The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines;  Response Yes, we believe we have satisfied, or exceeded all applicable guidelines.  Additionally, we believe we have developed a unique and exciting solution to a standard  problem in restoration and that this solution will create a benchmark for the fledgling Aspen  Modern Program that all parties can be proud of.    b) The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is  incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building;  Response  The gross area of additions, including connectors, is less than a third of the  original size of the historic resource.  Moreover, the effect of additional mass has  either been ‘erased’ via de‐materializing effect of mirrored cladding, or allocated to  P122 III.A. WPA #1403 HPC major development application | 541 race alley | Aspen, CO 11.30.2015      the rear corner of the site, resulting in virtually no affect to the front appearance of  the historic resource and negligible effect to the alley. Additionally, historic fabric is  created and extended into the reflection of the mirrored glazing, and in a  phenomenal sense, visually restoring what has been lost.  Finally, the remaining FAR  is allocated to below grade development, further establishing the resource as the  ‘key element’ of the project.      c) The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance;  Response  Yes. The proposed addition and additional FAR is virtually invisible from the front  yard, the main Public right of way. The bonus, if granted is generally deployed  underground, minimizing above grade mass.  It is truly rare (and exemplary) that an  addition to a resource is a fraction of the historic resource’s scale and moreover,  virtually invisible from the front yard.    d) The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic  building's form, materials or openings;  Response Yes.    e) The construction materials are of the highest quality;  Response Yes, materials will be of the highest quality. Cedar rain screen siding, and board  formed concrete are anticipated for the new construction, while the original CMU  foundation of the resource will be replaced as originally designed.    f) An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building;  Response Yes, the connectors are significantly recessed behind the plane of the existing  construction, 5’ from the front and moreover, have been subject to architectural ‘erasure.’   The center connector between the two cabins will perceptually not be present, eliminating  any understanding of its dimensionality, depth or presence via the use of mirrored glazing  on the east and west faces.  Again, we would like the conceptual review to focus on the  mass and scale of the proposal, letting the fenestration, and materials be a part of the   final review process.    g) The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or  Response   N/A    h) Notable historic site and landscape features are retained  Response Yes, the two cabins are paired on the site as originally existed, (albeit a bit closer)  P123 III.A. WPA #1403 HPC major development application | 541 race alley | Aspen, CO 11.30.2015      and will appear to be un‐touched by development from the front yard, retaining the  open park setting from the public right of way.  The resources proposed exterior  relationship to grade will be unchanged as little as possible from its relationship  historically.      26.575.020   Calculations and Measurements    The design team has had one meeting with Hillary Seminick and a follow‐up phone call.  FAR  questions and allowable deck area calculations were reviewed by Claude Salter and Jim  Pomeroy.  See attached e‐mail correspondence, October 12th, 2015, Exhibit #5.    Additionally a detailed review took place with Claude Salter on 4.4.16 with follow up the next  day, regarding allowable elements in the setbacks and retaining walls.    Additional meetings took place with the Engineering department on 4.4.16 to coordinate the  drainage easement information between lots 5 and 6, as well as with Stephen Kanipe and Denis  Murray at the building department to review IEBC code, ceiling height minimums and ramps on  March 25.    26.610   Impact Fees    Response:  The applicant is prepared to post the required assurances for relocation as well as  all other impact fees assessed by the City of Aspen at time of building permit.     26.710.040 Medium Density Residential (R‐6)     Response:  The applicant is compliant with all dimensional requirements of R6 zoning with one  exception; the applicant is requesting a side‐yard setback variation as the combined side yard  setback required is 15', while 6' is proposed, three feet on each side.  (This may have already  been memorialized in the prior subdivision planning.)    lV. Conformance to Historic Preservation Guidelines    Chapter 2‐10, 14    Following are the applicant’s responses to two chapters of the Historic Preservation Design  Guidelines – Chapter 10, which addresses building additions, and Chapter 14, the general  guidelines, demonstrating how the proposed addition complies with the applicable guidelines.          P124 III.A. WPA #1403 HPC major development application | 541 race alley | Aspen, CO 11.30.2015      Building Additions    10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right.    10.2  A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed.     Response:  NA    10.3  Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the  primary building is maintained.    Response:  The proposed garage will be located behind the addition to the historic structure.  It  is attached to the historic structure via a 10’x10’ connector whose roof eave line tucks under  the historic cabin’s roof eave line. The preservation of the historic eave is made possible only  because of the proposal to lower the existing finish floor by +/‐ 16”, allowing a minimum 7’‐0”  finished ceiling height at the connector.  This gesture, while entirely invisible from the exterior  of the project, will also permit a safe, code compliant ceiling height over the historic porch,  which currently stands at an unsafe dimension of 6’‐3” at its leading edge, and not at all  compliant with current building codes.  100% of the existing historic porch roof/ceiling is non‐  code compliant, i.e. less than 7’‐0”, (R305.1, IRC 2009).     10.4  Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.    Response:  The proposed addition has a modern design, yet retains the low slope vocabulary of  the resource’s roofs. The proportions of the windows and other openings, and the materials  from which it will be built, will be further developed at final review.    10.5  When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic  alignments that may exist on the street.    Response:  The addition has the same alignment with the rear yard alley as the existing  residence.    10.6  Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.    Response:  The garage has been designed to be considerably lower in size and scale as  compared to the historic residence.  It is compatible in size and scale with the restored line  shacks, but is also lower in height.    10.7  If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back  substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic building.    Response:  The garage will not be taller than the historic landmark structure.  P125 III.A. WPA #1403 HPC major development application | 541 race alley | Aspen, CO 11.30.2015        10.8  Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the  visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to  remain prominent.    Response:  The proposed garage has been placed at the rear of the property, along the alley.    10.9  Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building.    Response:  The low slope roof form was chosen in an effort to minimize the mass and scale of  the new addition and to ensure that the single storey historic structures remain the most  prominent features on the property. Please note the garage does not have a flat roof. Eave  thicknesses are compatible with the resource’s vocabulary.  All roofs – new and old – have  pitches.    10.10  Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure  historically important architectural features.    Response:  All connectors are attached so as to minimally impact or obscure the architectural  features of the historic residence.  All points of contact are set back from the edge of the  primary facades of the resource so that they do not obscure or reduce the visual prominence of  the historic shacks.  The connector between line shacks is setback 5’ from the main wall of the  resource on the front, while from the rear yard, the connector is setback three feet.    10.11  On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials  of the primary building.     Response:  The exterior materials and detailing have been chosen to reference the historic  construction of the residence via complimentary contrast.  Please see the drawings.    10.12  When constructing a rooftop addition, keep the mass and scale subordinate to that of a  historic building.    10.13  Set a rooftop addition back from the front of the building.    Response:  A rooftop addition is not proposed; indeed lowering the main living level floor  permits the connectors to tuck under existing eave lines and remedying unsafe and non‐ compliant ceiling heights while preserving the character of the resource’s roof line from the  exterior.    10.14  The roof form and slope of a new addition should be in character with the historic  building.    P126 III.A. WPA #1403 HPC major development application | 541 race alley | Aspen, CO 11.30.2015        Response:  Please see the response to Guideline 10.9 above.    Chapter 14 – General Guidelines    Accessibility    14.1 These standards should not prevent or inhibit compliance with accessibility laws.    14.2 Generally, a solution that is independent from the historic building and does not alter its  historic character is encouraged.    Response: The garage and ground level of the residence will be accessible.  However, since  this is a single family residence proposal, regulations regarding accessibility do not apply.      Color    14.3 Keep color schemes simple    14.4 Coordinating the entire building in one color scheme is usually more successful than  working with a variety of palettes.    14.5 Develop a color scheme for the entire building front that coordinates all the façade  elements.    Response: A complimentary color scheme will be proposed at final review and will relate well  to the resource and the garage, preserving the light colored chinking as the dominate expression  of log construction.    Lighting    14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that used  traditionally.    14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting.    14.8 Minimize the visual impact of light spill from a building.    Response: The proposed garage and exterior lighting will use simple lighting fixtures that are  down‐cast and shielded.  Cut sheets will be provided at final review.    On‐Going Maintenance of Historic Properties  P127 III.A. WPA #1403 HPC major development application | 541 race alley | Aspen, CO 11.30.2015        14.9 Use the gentlest means possible to clean the surface of materials and features.    14.10 Repair deteriorated primary building materials by patching, piecing‐in, consolidating or  otherwise reinforcing the material.    14.11 Plan repainting carefully    14.12 Provide a weather protective finish to wood surfaces.    14.13 Leave natural masonry colors unpainted where feasible    Response: The applicant will follow these guidelines in maintaining the historic cabins.        Mechanical Equipment and Service Areas    14.14 Minimize the visual impacts of service areas as seen from the street.    14.15 Minimize the visual impacts of mechanical equipment as seen from the public way.    14.16 Locate standpipes, meters and other service equipment such that they will not damage  historic façade materials.    Response: The applicant will comply with these guidelines to the extent that they apply to this  small residential proposal.  Mech. equipment is located on the north side, out of the setback on  between the garage and the resource.    Driveways and Parking    14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact.    14.18 Garages should not dominate the street.    14.19 Use a paving material that will distinguish the driveway from the street.    14.20 Off‐street driveways should be removed, if feasible.    14.21 For existing driveways that cannot be removed, provide tracks to a parking area rather  than paving an entire driveway.    P128 III.A. WPA #1403 HPC major development application | 541 race alley | Aspen, CO 11.30.2015      14.22 Driveways leading to parking areas should be located to the side or rear of a primary  structure.    14.23 Parking areas should not be visually obtrusive.    14.24 Large parking areas, especially those for commercial and multi‐family uses, should not be  visually obtrusive.    Response: The applicant has followed these guidelines in the design of the garage and the  walkways/driveway providing access to the garage and home.      Signs    14.25 Locate signs to be subordinate to the building design.    14.26 Sign materials should be similar to those used historically.    14.27 Use signs to relate to other buildings on the street and to emphasize architectural features.    14.28 Pictographic symbols are encouraged on signs.    14.29 Illuminate a sign such that it complements the overall composition of the site.    Response: The applicant would like to retain the historic ‘line shack #1’ and ‘line shack #2’  signs located on the south side of each cabin.  Additional signage includes the code required  address numerals depicted on the proposed east elevation drawings.  The bird houses will remain  intact on both shacks.  P129 III.A. 7/22/15 P 1 3 0 I I I . A . I S S U E : P R O G R E S S : P E R M I T : C O N S T R U C T I O N : P R O J E C T # 1 4 0 3 F I L E N A M E : 1 4 0 3 A R C H I T E C T W I L L I S P E M B E R A R C H I T E C T S , I N C 4 1 2 N . M I L L S T . A S P E N , C O C O N T A C T : W I L L I S P E M B E R ( V ) 9 7 0 9 2 0 1 7 2 7 S T R U C T U R A L E N G I N E E R X X X , C O 8 1 6 2 1 C O N T A C T : X ( V ) 9 7 0 . X S U R V E Y O R H I R E D G U N S U R V E Y I N G P . O . B O X 9 S N O W M A S S , C O 8 1 6 5 4 C O N T A C T : T O M Y O K U M ( V ) ( 9 7 0 ) 9 2 3 - 2 7 9 4 L A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T N A C I V I L E N G I N E E R N A S O I L S E N G I N E E R T . B . D . M E C H A N I C A L C O N S U L T A N T N A G E N E R A L C O N T R A C T O R B L U E R I V E R C O N S T R U C T I O N 2 0 0 B R I S T L E C O N E D R I V E C A R B O N D A L E , C O 8 1 6 2 3 C O N T A C T : R I C K H A L E V Y ( V ) 9 7 0 . 7 0 4 . 1 9 6 3 F O X C R O S S I N G P R O P E R T I E S L O T S 4 & 6 L L C 6 3 3 0 M E R C E R S T R E E T H O U S T O N , T E X A S 7 7 0 0 5 C O N T A C T : J O H N M O R T O N X 1 . 1 0 1 4 6 * P131 I I I . A . 2 4 A C 1 3 B I S S U E : H P C : 1 1 . 3 0 . 2 0 1 5 P R O G R E S S : P E R M I T : C O N S T R U C T I O N : P R O J E C T # 1 4 0 3 F I L E N A M E : 1 4 0 3 A R C H I T E C T W I L L I S P E M B E R A R C H I T E C T S , I N C 4 1 2 N . M I L L S T . A S P E N , C O C O N T A C T : W I L L I S P E M B E R ( V ) 9 7 0 9 2 0 1 7 2 7 S T R U C T U R A L E N G I N E E R X X X , C O 8 1 6 2 1 C O N T A C T : X ( V ) 9 7 0 . X S U R V E Y O R H I R E D G U N S U R V E Y I N G P . O . B O X 9 S N O W M A S S , C O 8 1 6 5 4 C O N T A C T : T O M Y O K U M ( V ) ( 9 7 0 ) 9 2 3 - 2 7 9 4 L A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T N A C I V I L E N G I N E E R N A S O I L S E N G I N E E R T . B . D . M E C H A N I C A L C O N S U L T A N T N A G E N E R A L C O N T R A C T O R B L U E R I V E R C O N S T R U C T I O N 2 0 0 B R I S T L E C O N E D R I V E C A R B O N D A L E , C O 8 1 6 2 3 C O N T A C T : R I C K H A L E V Y ( V ) 9 7 0 . 7 0 4 . 1 9 6 3 F O X C R O S S I N G P R O P E R T I E S L O T S 4 & 6 L L C 6 3 3 0 M E R C E R S T R E E T H O U S T O N , T E X A S 7 7 0 0 5 C O N T A C T : J O H N M O R T O N X 2 . 1 0 1 4 6 * 0146*P132 I I I . A . I S S U E : P R O G R E S S : P E R M I T : C O N S T R U C T I O N : P R O J E C T # 1 4 0 3 F I L E N A M E : 1 4 0 3 A R C H I T E C T W I L L I S P E M B E R A R C H I T E C T S , I N C 4 1 2 N . M I L L S T . A S P E N , C O C O N T A C T : W I L L I S P E M B E R ( V ) 9 7 0 9 2 0 1 7 2 7 S T R U C T U R A L E N G I N E E R X X X , C O 8 1 6 2 1 C O N T A C T : X ( V ) 9 7 0 . X S U R V E Y O R H I R E D G U N S U R V E Y I N G P . O . B O X 9 S N O W M A S S , C O 8 1 6 5 4 C O N T A C T : T O M Y O K U M ( V ) ( 9 7 0 ) 9 2 3 - 2 7 9 4 L A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T N A C I V I L E N G I N E E R N A S O I L S E N G I N E E R T . B . D . M E C H A N I C A L C O N S U L T A N T N A G E N E R A L C O N T R A C T O R B L U E R I V E R C O N S T R U C T I O N 2 0 0 B R I S T L E C O N E D R I V E C A R B O N D A L E , C O 8 1 6 2 3 C O N T A C T : R I C K H A L E V Y ( V ) 9 7 0 . 7 0 4 . 1 9 6 3 F O X C R O S S I N G P R O P E R T I E S L O T S 4 & 6 L L C 6 3 3 0 M E R C E R S T R E E T H O U S T O N , T E X A S 7 7 0 0 5 C O N T A C T : J O H N M O R T O N X 3 . 1 P133 I I I . A . I S S U E : P R O G R E S S : P E R M I T : C O N S T R U C T I O N : P R O J E C T # 1 4 0 3 F I L E N A M E : 1 4 0 3 A R C H I T E C T W I L L I S P E M B E R A R C H I T E C T S , I N C 4 1 2 N . M I L L S T . A S P E N , C O C O N T A C T : W I L L I S P E M B E R ( V ) 9 7 0 9 2 0 1 7 2 7 S T R U C T U R A L E N G I N E E R X X X , C O 8 1 6 2 1 C O N T A C T : X ( V ) 9 7 0 . X S U R V E Y O R H I R E D G U N S U R V E Y I N G P . O . B O X 9 S N O W M A S S , C O 8 1 6 5 4 C O N T A C T : T O M Y O K U M ( V ) ( 9 7 0 ) 9 2 3 - 2 7 9 4 L A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T N A C I V I L E N G I N E E R N A S O I L S E N G I N E E R T . B . D . M E C H A N I C A L C O N S U L T A N T N A G E N E R A L C O N T R A C T O R B L U E R I V E R C O N S T R U C T I O N 2 0 0 B R I S T L E C O N E D R I V E C A R B O N D A L E , C O 8 1 6 2 3 C O N T A C T : R I C K H A L E V Y ( V ) 9 7 0 . 7 0 4 . 1 9 6 3 F O X C R O S S I N G P R O P E R T I E S L O T S 4 & 6 L L C 6 3 3 0 M E R C E R S T R E E T H O U S T O N , T E X A S 7 7 0 0 5 C O N T A C T : J O H N M O R T O N X 4 . 1 P134 I I I . A . P 1 3 5 I I I . A . willis pember architects, inc | 412 n mill street | aspen, co | 81611 | 970 920 4461 P 1 3 6 I I I . A . P 1 3 7 I I I . A . P 1 3 8 I I I . A . P 1 3 9 I I I . A . P140 III.A. P141 III.A. P142 III.A. P143 III.A. P144 III.A. P145 III.A. P146 III.A. P147 III.A. P148 III.A. P149 III.A. P150 I I I . A . P151 I I I . A . P152 I I I . A . P153 I I I . A . P154 III.A. P155 I I I . A . April 21, 2016 Jon Busch 548 Race St. (Alley) Aspen, Co. 81611 Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 130 S. Galena Aspen, Co. 81611 Re: 541 Race Alley Public Hearing Dear HPC members and staff: Dear HPC members and staff: I have several concerns about the Fox Crossing application for variances for the historic cabins proposed for Lot 6. Starting with the unique setting and use of Race, the terms “street” and “alley” have always been used interchangeably. Though officially an alley, it is paved and virtually the only entrance to most of the dwellings situated along it. Street addresses are all referenced to this “Alley” including mail delivery. All of the approved Fox Crossing lot building plans along Race “Alley” effectively have their main access off of it. In the case of this application, the frequent references to the “front yard” facing the internal park are at odds with the reality that access to this front yard is only accessible by foot and a substantial walk. Globally my concern is that Race Alley/Street is in actuality the front yard of all adjacent Fox Crossing lots as well as the Williams Addition 7,500 sq ft lots which allow duplexes. It is what virtually all people see. As such I am greatly concerned that Race Street not be a wall of building garages 5ft from the street/alley property line. From that perspective the applicant’s “B” proposal presented to illustrate how much better their “A” official proposal is, may in fact be the better proposal. It would more effectively break up the “wall.” It would also better protect the historic integrity of the cabins. Whatever the final outcome of this application, one important element of the application is missing and I hope will be addressed – fencing or railing. In the applicant’s submitted plan clearly some sort of safety barrier would be needed around the sunken patio. It could effectively be a wall hiding the historic structures from most public view up to the height limit of 6’ or something more modest and transparent. The “B” plan would not require any fencing. The applicant states that by backing up the development to Race Alley/Street he preserves and enhances the “front” yard – which no one can see except the occasional pedestrian walking through Fox Crossing’s internal open space that has been passed off as a park. I feel that the public’s welfare would be better served by repositioning the P156 III.A. building envelope to better preserve the predominant public view along Race Street/Alley. The applicant presents a case for needing to further compromise the side yard setbacks in order to squeeze the two cabins onto lot 6. This need is illustrated by the 8’ connecting addition between the two cabins which has been incorporated into an enlarged living room space. I question its need to be that wide. Thank you for your consideration. Jon Busch 548 Race Street P157 III.A. Page 1 of 15 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: 540 E. Main – Aspen Police Station (McMurchy–Zupancis Site) Major Development (Conceptual), Demolition, Relocation, Planned Development (Project Review) – Resolution No. , Series 2016 – Continued Public Hearing MEETING DATE: April 27, 2016 APPLICANT /OWNER: City of Aspen REPRESENTATIVE: Alan Richman, Alan Richman Planning Services and Charles Cunniffe Architects LOCATION: 540 E. Main Street CURRENT ZONING & USE Located in the Public (PUB) zone district, development within the zone district requires adoption of a site specific plan via Planned Development SUMMARY: The Applicant is requesting to demolish two buildings on the property, develop a new police station and a residential building in their place and, based on the last HPC meeting, applicant has proposed two site plans: one with the historic resources on site and one with the resources relocated off-site. Applicant prefers the latter proposal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the site plan relocating the resources to the Marolt property. Current image of building along Main Street. P158 IV.A. Page 2 of 15 SPECIAL NOTE: Since the March 23rd hearing, the applicant has updated the design of the project by providing two site plans for consideration based on the comments from the previous hearing. Changes are discussed by topic. Specific staff concerns and recommendations related to the update are outlined below, with a recommended motion. The body of the February 24th memo is included (without changes) at the end of the update for reference. Historic Resources: Based on the direction provided by the Commission at the last meeting, the applicant has proposed two site plans. • Option 1 maintains the historic house and shed on the site with the barn being demolished; however, the building is proposed to be converted into an affordable housing unit. No changes to the multi-family residential building are proposed. • Option 2 proposes a site plan where the historic house, barn and shed are relocated to the Marolt Open Space. As a result of the relocation, the footprint and massing of the multi- family residential building is modified. In both scenarios a small non-historic addition is proposed to be removed from the rear of house and the height of the police station has been reduced. If the resources are moved to the Marolt property, the three resources will be stabilized while if the two resources remain on site (house and shed) the buildings will need to meet current building codes. The applicant prefers option 2, relocating the resources off-site. Staff supports option 2, allowing for the historic resources to be maintained off-site as an interpretive resource, rather than maintained on-site as an affordable housing unit. The modified site plan proposed in option 2 provides a better scale for the housing component on site and provides more open space on the site. Temporary location of the resources: For Option 1, applicant still proposes that the temporary storage of the resources be at Burlingame if the two resources are to rehabilitated and remain on site. A second site at Anderson Park is being evaluated if the buildings are required to stay within the S curves. If Option 2 is approved, applicant believes only one move is necessary and anticipates construction of suitable foundations on the Marolt property and setting the buildings directly on the property. This issue is still not resolved and can be a condition of final review; however, staff wants to be very clear that Burlingame has not been approved and the applicant will need to work with staff prior to submission for final review. Resources maintained as an interpretive building: Applicant is currently exploring how the buildings can be maintained as interpretive buildings at the Marolt property. Options, including stabilizations plans, are proposed to be provided to HPC at final review. P159 IV.A. Page 3 of 15 This issue is still not resolved and can be a condition of final review. Height of the police building: The height of the building has been reduced from the initial design. Included in the drawings are floor sections showing head heights and how the building’s heating and cooling will work. Both of the modules have been reduced in height. The overall western module’s height has been reduced from an initial 33’-4” to 29’-11” while the eastern module has been reduced from 28’ to 25’. The changed elevations are much more in line with the allowances for the adjacent CC and C-1 zone districts. Staff recommends approval of the modified police building. The height is less than some adjacent buildings and in line with or close to the allowances for a two story building in adjacent zone districts. Provide more renderings, particularly from the north side of the property: Additional renderings have been provided. A fully functional sketch-up model will be shown at the hearing if requested. Overall, staff is concerned with some of the features of the police garage and the rear of the site along Rio Grande Place. The basement level appears to be completely exposed with no landscaping or ground to soften the basement and staff has put a condition to look at softening the appearance of that level. Staff supports site plan option 2 which lessons the perceived mass of the housing building and the elevator as viewed from the rear of the site. RECOMMENDATION: During the hearing, staff recommends the Commission focus on the two options for the historic resources and what is the preferred site plan: an off-site or on-site option. Staff recommends the option 2 site plan be approved which would relocated the resources to Marolt. PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve the police master facilities plan. Approving Option 2 which allows for the relocation of the historic resources to the Marolt property.” ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – Staff Findings, PD Review Criteria (provided 2/24/16, 3/23/16, and 4/27/16) Exhibit B – Staff Findings, Preservation Guidelines & Commercial Design Review Criteria (provided 2/24/16, 3/23/16, and 4/27/16) Exhibit C – Staff Findings, Demolition Review Criteria (provided 2/24/16, 3/23/16, and 4/27/16) Exhibit D – Staff Findings, Relocation Review Criteria (provided 2/24/16, 3/23/16, and 4/27/16) Exhibit E – Staff Findings, General Commercial Design Review Criteria (provided 2/24/16, 3/23/16, and 4/27/16) Exhibit F – Staff Findings, Conditional Use Review Criteria (provided 2/24/16, 3/23/16, and 4/27/16) Exhibit G – Development Review Committee Comments (provided 2/24/1 and3/23/16) Exhibit H – Application (provided 2/24/16, 3/23/16, and 4/27/16) Exhibit I - Drawings (provided 2/24/1 and 3/23/16) P160 IV.A. Page 4 of 15 Exhibit J – Applicant written responses (provided 3/23/16) Exhibit K – Amended graphics (provided 3/23/16) Exhibit L – Elevation showing height change (provided 3/23/16) Exhibit M – Rio Grande perspective (provided 3/23/16) Exhibit N – Storypoles photo (provided 3/23/16) Exhibit O – Applicant memo dated, 4/12/16 Exhibit P – Updated Drawings ______________________________________________________________________________ STAFF MEMO FROM FEBRUARY 23RD. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Historic Preservation Commission to undertake the redevelopment of the site: • Conceptual Major Development with the development of two new buildings (police station and residential multi-family), possible on-site renovation of three historic structures and site improvements pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415.070 (D) (The Historic Preservation Commission is the final review authority, who may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposal). • Conceptual Commercial Design Review (Chapter 26.412, and the Commercial Design Guidelines) for construction of a mixed-use development. (The Historic Preservation Commission is the final review authority. City Council has the option to call-up the decision.) • Relocation and Demolition of structures on the site pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415.080 and 26.415.090 (The Historic Preservation Commission is the final review authority, who may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposal). • Planned Development - Project Review (Chapter 26.445) to establish dimensional requirements for the project as required for property located within the Public zone district. (The Historic Preservation Commission makes a recommendation to City Council. City Council is the final review authority.) • Conditional Use for the development of affordable housing on the site pursuant to Land Sue Code chapter 26.425 (The Historic Preservation Commission is the final review authority.) • Employees generated. The Historic Preservation Commission determines the number of employees generated pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.100 as the proposed police station is considered an Essential Public Facility. This is forwarded as a recommendation to City Council. BACKGROUND: P161 IV.A. Page 5 of 15 540 E. Main Street is a 26,440 sq. ft. lot that is owned by the city. The property contains five buildings. Along the southern part of the lot is a ranch style house along Main Street that is currently being used by the Parking department and a more modern concrete block outbuilding, also used for city operations. The northern part of the property includes a number of historic resources including a historic house and shed dating back to 1885, and a circa 1938 barn. The property is zoned Public (PUB) and any development within the zone district is required to be developed via a Planned Development, where all dimensional requirements are determined as part of the review of the proposal. The historic home on this site was built in at least three phases, beginning in approximately 1885. The original structure was a log cabin, approximately 13’ wide and 16’ deep; 200 square feet. The owner associated with the property through at least 1896 was William McMurchy, described as a prospector in the book Aspen, The Quiet Years. This appears to be an understatement. McMurchy was a prominent early citizen, who owned several mining claims and also owned an insurance business. The size of the McMurchy property was substantial (see the map below) and it was used for agriculture. An 1885 notice in the Aspen Times indicated that on April 7th, 1885, “200,000 cabbage and 5,000 cauliflower plants will be available at McMurchy’s place, at the foot of Hunter Street.” McMurchy also served as a sergeant of the voluntary Aspen Militia Company, which appears to have served some early police functions for the City. P162 IV.A. Page 6 of 15 By 1890, McMurchy expanded his home by about 700 square feet, to the size that exists today (minus a small addition in the northeast corner with an unknown date of construction.) The additions to the house were frame construction and sided with clapboards. The house featured a decorative front porch, detailed doors and screen doors, but was otherwise very simple in character. Like other original log structures that remain in Aspen, it appears that when the expansion took place, the log cabin was covered with clapboards like the newer part of the house. The photo below is dated 1939. During McMurchy’s ownership, there were outbuildings behind the house, one of which is still standing. McMurchy left Aspen for Nevada, according to a 1911 newspaper article stating the whereabouts of “Old Time Aspenites.” P163 IV.A. Page 7 of 15 At least two other owners are believed to have been involved in the property before it was purchased by the Zupancis family in 1930, according to title information. At some point, the clapboards were removed from the log cabin and much of the house was re-sided with board and batten. In Aspen, The Quiet Years, Zupancis daughter Elizabeth Zupancis Callahan, stated that her family built the garage that sits west of the historic house (post 1930). They also built the 1960s era ranch house and garage at the front of the site. The Zupancis family retained the property until it was purchased by the City of Aspen in 2002. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: The applicant, City of Aspen, has requested approval to demolish the two structures on the southern part of the property (ranch house and concrete block outbuilding) and replace these structures with a new police station fronting Main Street and located on the western side of the property. Behind the new building, in the area where the historic resources are currently located, a new multi-family residential building is being proposed. This building is also proposed along the western boundary of the property. The historic resources are to be relocated: either off-site or on the east side of the subject lot. Following is an aerial of the current site. P164 IV.A. Page 8 of 15 The general programming for the site includes: Police station • Basement level: 20 parking spaces, trailer and bike storage, mechanical area, trash area (for all uses on the property), gym, evidence storage and future expansion area • Ground level: front desk, police operations • Second level: public meeting room, police operations Multi-family residential building • Ground level: 2 – 2 bedroom units, 1 – 1 bedroom unit, and 1 studio • Second level: 2 – 2 bedroom units, 1 – 1 bedroom unit, and 1 studio • Third level: 1 -3 bedroom unit and 1-1 bedroom unit • Parking is provided in the garage at Obermeyer Place Historic resources (two options are proposed, a third is identified by staff) P165 IV.A. Page 9 of 15 • Off-site proposal: Relocation of the 3 structures to the Marolt open space as part of the Aspen Historical Society’s Holden Marolt interpretation site. • On-site proposal: Relocate on-site, the house is to be remodeled as a two bedroom affordable housing unit and the accessory structures are to provide storage. • On-site option identified by staff: Relocate on-site, the house to be used for historic interpretation. Accessory structures could provide storage. Site Planning • A public courtyard is provided in front of the police station and a private, outdoor seating area is provided to the rear of the building. • The existing pedestrian access from Main Street to Obermeyer Place (and Rio Grande Park) is to be rerouted to allow for a secondary exit from an underground parking garage. STAFF FINDINGS: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) – PROJECT REVIEW (EXHIBIT A) The property is located within the Public zone district and fronts Main Street. The adjacent county property to the west is also located with the Public (PUB) zone district. Property across the street (south side) is located within the Commercial Core (CC) zone district as well as the Commercial Core historic district. Property to the east is located within the Commercial (C-1) zone district, while Obermeyer Place is located within the Service, Commercial, Industrial (SCI) zone district. Figure 2: Zone districts Through the PD process the dimensional requirements are set for the project, neighborhood context should be used to assist in determining the requirements as the underlying zone district does not have any requirements. The Project Review shall focus on the general concept for the development and shall outline any dimensional requirements of the project. Dimensions Proposed: Overall, the project proposes approximately 27,750 square feet of Floor Area or a 1.05:1 Floor Area Ratio. Comparatively, the CC zone district has a maximum Floor P166 IV.A. Page 10 of 15 Area of 2:75:1 , the C-1 zone district allows for up to a 2:5:1 Floor Area and the SCI zone permits up to a 2.25:1 Floor Area. The proposed development’s Floor Area is less than what surrounding properties permit. Table 1: Dimensions Proposed minimum lot size 26,440 sq. ft. minimum lot width 97.60’ (Main Street) front yard (Main St.) see site plan – 10.5’ side yard (west) see site plan - 0' side yard (east) see site plan – 0’ (basement) rear see site plan - 4’ maximum height 11’-6” to 46’-6” cumulative floor area 27,750 sq. ft. Police building floor area 15,570 sq. ft. Multi-family building floor area 9,900 sq. ft. Historic resources floor area 1,631 number of affordable housing units 10-11 minimum off-street parking spaces (police) 22 garage spaces 2 at the rear of the property for short term parking minimum off-street parking spaces (affordable housing) 12 spaces in the adjacent parking garage in Obermeyer Place Public Amenity Space NA With regard to height, the SCI zone district permits 35 feet, while a two story building in the C-1 or CC zone district is permited 28 feet for two story buildings. If a building contains lodging the allowance in the CC zone district is 38-40 feet and 36-38 feet for the C-1 zone district. The height for the proposal ranges from the one story outbuildings to the police station at 34’-3” and the affordable housing building at 46’ (at the rear). Site Planning: The site plan includes a public courtyard along Main Street that is expected to be used for different public functions. A private, fenced, courtyard is provided at the rear of the police building. Greenspace is provided on the eastern half of the property. A reworking of the existing trail from Main Street connecting to Obermeyer Place and continuing to Rio Grande Park is proposed to accommodate the second exit for the parking garage to the alley. P167 IV.A. Page 11 of 15 Staff recommends additional review of the proposed development in a number of areas including reviewing some of the dimensions proposed for the side yard setbacks of both the police station and residential building along the western boundary. A zero setback provides no ability to maintain a building without trespassing onto a neighboring property if no easement is present. In addition, buildings in this area of town do not generally abut each other. They are freestanding buildings with sideyards. The height of the buildings should be detailed better and restudied. Two story buildings are permitted up to 28 feet in the adjacent CC and C-1 zone districts. Parts of the police building do not meet this standard and the building provides very little height differential between the adjacent county building. The second story appears to have excess height on each floor, as well as in the circulation tower on the west side where the module’s second story is much taller than the first story. The applicant should also provide more detail on the affordable housing. The building is three stories with a portion that steps down at the rear. There is a grade drop from front to rear and how the building will be perceived from the rear perspective is not clearly shown. Additionally if the historic resources are relocated off-site, the footprint of the residential building should be reconsidered. In the Civic Master plan, the advisory group found “the need to establish pedestrian routes that are both clearly visible and inviting to pedestrians.” With regard to the Obermeyer Place route, the ten foot easement established should be used to improve north south pedestrian movement between Main Street, Obermeyer Place and Rio Grande Park. Additional consideration on how people and bikes move through the site is needed. The changes to the access through Obermeyer by rerouting of the pedestrian way appears to be a less desirable solution than the current configuration and more thought should be given to the design and ensuring that any easements are available if work goes beyond the lot’s boundaries. The property is being used partly as a civic function and privatization of the rear courtyard reduces the civic use of the property and inhibits the view to the historic resource. DESIGN REVIEW (EXHIBIT B) Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. The design guidelines for conceptual review of this project are located in the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and the “Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives.” The applicable guidelines are listed in “Exhibit B.” The redevelopment of this site requires HPC to first make determinations on a couple of threshold issues; demolition of two structures which are considered to be non-historic, and relocation of three structures that are considered to be significant. The structures proposed for P168 IV.A. Page 12 of 15 demolition are a ranch style home and a concrete block outbuilding located at the front of the site. Staff has attached the review standards as Exhibit C and made findings that the demolition proposal is appropriate. Regarding relocation of the three contributing buildings, staff has identified a number of issues that require policy input from HPC, along with and more detailed information from the applicant. The buildings, which are a house, a shed and a garage, cannot remain untouched. The site is to be entirely excavated for a parking garage. At the least, temporary relocation off of the site is necessary. In the attached staff findings and discussion of this issue, see Exhibit D, more information and perhaps other temporary storage locations are requested. The method for moving the house must be carefully studied to avoid unnecessary destruction of historic fabric. This is highly important if the building’s next use will be historic interpretation. The house will likely need to be separated into more than one piece for relocation, and the applicant is currently proposing storage at Burlingame, transportation to which could have negative impacts to the historic structure. Part of the purpose of the staff recommendation to continue this application to a future meeting date is for the applicant to respond to concerns about the relocation process and to ensure that everyone understands what will be preserved and how. HPC input is needed on the final location and use of the historic resources. If they are returned to the 540 E. Main site, they could perhaps be put in their original siting, but this would significantly change the plan for the affordable housing structure and would very much isolate the resources in the northwest part of the site, with no visibility and limited access. Staff does not recommend this alternative. The applicant proposes to place the structures in a group on the north eastern edge of the site. The initial proposal was to adapt the house to new use as an affordable housing unit. Staff is very concerned with the total destruction of the building interior that will be necessary for this proposal. This property presents an extremely unique opportunity to preserve a completely intact Victorian era building interior. Not only is the building a nearly pristine representation of Victorian history, but it is in public ownership, allowing possibilities that are not normally available. The structures could be brought back on the 540 E. Main property for use as a historic interpretation site (a house museum.) The same possibility exists in a relocation of the structures to the Aspen Historical Society’s Holden Marolt Mining Museum. In the staff findings we have expressed numerous pro’s and con’s of these options. Putting the buildings back at 540 E. Main maintains more authenticity in terms of location within the historic fabric of Aspen. The buildings could be easily accessed by the public and could be a wonderful and unexpected experience for those seeking police services. People approaching the property primarily to see the historic house might end up learning more about the Police Department during their visit. That said, management of a historical interpretation site is not a traditional role for the City. Relocation to Holden Marolt consolidates historic experiences in one location. The Aspen Historical Society is the natural organization to manage these resources. Staff is hesitant to group structures together in a way that could misrepresent history, however we see many public benefits in this unprecedented situation. The topic of relocation is a top priority for HPC direction so that the applicant can continue to develop their project. P169 IV.A. Page 13 of 15 HPC should be aware that, with regard to the historic house, the proposed drawings have some additional issues that must be resolved. The drawings are labeled to indicate that many exterior materials, windows and doors will be replaced to match. This is technically a matter for final review, but the work will not meet HPC’s guidelines (restore vs. replace historic fabric whenever possible). The application also indicates that part of the back of the house is to be demolished. After further research, as shown in the drawings on this page, only a small area of the house appears to be arguably non- contributing and appropriate for removal. The date of construction is not known. P170 IV.A. Page 14 of 15 In addition to the direction needed for the resources, staff has some concerns with the massing and placement of the two being buildings being proposed. Location and height was discussed previously, under Planned Development, as was site planning and mass and scale Additional discussion on the Public Amenity Space is necessary, to clarify the amount, type and location of space being provided on the site. Staff recommends HPC provide direction on the three options proposed for the resources 1) off- site interpretive site, on-site interpretive site or on-site affordable housing unit. Additionally, more information is needed for the temporary relocation request. Staff recommends developing some privatized outdoor living space for each unit. Staff also recommends developing some additional storage for the units as the storage provided is quite limited. If the historic resources remain on the site the barn and shed may provide an opportunity for storage. If the resources are relocated, a second look at the massing and design of the building should be considered to reconfigure the housing on-site. Currently no windows are provided on the west façade of the building and the bulk of windows on the east faced area adjacent to circulation corridors, limiting privacy. Finally, it has been represented that access to the parking in Obermeyer Place will be through the Crescent building. Verification that access through this building is guaranteed and that the access is as direct as possible. CONDITIONAL USE (EXHIBIT F) Affordable housing is permitted as a conditional use within the Public zone district. Residential uses are located adjacent to the property along the eastern side and rear of the property. The residential use proposed on the site is compatible with the neighborhood and meets the Civic Master Plan. The affordable housing building is a flat-roofed structure that measures 32.3’ (from the lot) in height but is higher due to the garage located below the building (46’-6”) and contains approximately 9,900 sq. ft. of floor area. While the majority of the building is three stories, the structure is proposed to step down at the rear to two stories to minimize its presence towards Rio Grande Park. This structure is situated on the rear half of the lot and will not be visible from Main Street. Parking for the units is proposed at Obermeyer Place, within the Crescent building and there are two, exterior, short two parking spaces accessed via an elevator by the building. Although the use is appropriate for the site, staff recommends additional study of the building as mentioned previously. EMPLOYEE GENERATION RECOMMENDATION As an Essential Public Facility, City Council is the final review authority with regard to employee generation. The Historic Preservation Commission determines the number of employees generated and makes a recommendation to the City Council. City Council “may assess, waive or partially waive affordable housing mitigation requirements as is deemed appropriate and warranted for the purpose of promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals.” The Public zone district provides for a generation rate of 5.1 employees per 1,000 feet of net leasable area, but was based upon an office-type public use. The Land Use Code notes that “each Essential Public Facility proposal shall be evaluated for actual employees generated.” The P171 IV.A. Page 15 of 15 applicant states that construction of the police department building is designed to accommodate its current force size. According to the City’s Facilities Master Plan that number is 39 employees. APCHA has also recommended that the employees generated be 39 employees. Staff recommends that the generation rate for the proposed building be 39 employees and that the HPC make this recommendation to City Council. P172 IV.A. Historic Preservation Commission Resolution No. --, Series 2016 Page 1 of 4 RESOLUTION NO. --- (SERIES OF 2016) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL GRANT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT – PROJECT REVIEW APPROVAL AND GRANTING CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL, MAJOR DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL, DEMOLTION APPROVAL, RELOCATION APPROVAL, CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL AND EMPLOYEES GENERATED FOR A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE ASPEN POLICE STATION LOCATED ON PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 540 E. MAIN STREET, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-073-24-003 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application for a new Aspen Police station (the Application) from the City of Aspen (Applicant), represented by Alan Richman Planning Services for the following land use review approvals: • Planned Development – Project Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.445. • Commercial Design Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.412; • Major Development Conceptual Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.415; • Demolition Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.415; • Relocation Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.41; • Conditional Use Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.425; ] • Employees Generated, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.100; • Growth Management Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470; and, WHEREAS, all code citation references are to the City of Aspen Land Use Code in effect on the day of initial application – December 16, 2015 as applicable to this Project; and, WHEREAS, the Application for the property proposes: 18,515 sq. ft. of Floor Area for a police station. 8,290 sq. ft. of Floor Area for a residential, multi-family building; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Environmental Health Department, Parks Department, and the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Application and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the Application at a duly noticed public hearing on February 24, 2016, continued to March 23, 2016, continued again to April 27, 2016, during which the recommendations of the Community Development Director and P173 IV.A. Historic Preservation Commission Resolution No. --, Series 2016 Page 2 of 4 comments from the public were requested and heard by the Historic Preservation Commission; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 27, 2016, the Historic Preservation Commission approved Resolution --, Series of 2016, by a ----- to ---- (- - -) vote recommending City Council approve the police station application and all necessary land use reviews, with the recommended conditions of approval listed hereinafter. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1:Approvals Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Historic Preservation Commission hereby recommends City Council grant Planned Development – Project Review approval for the development of the site. The Commission hereby approves Major Development - Conceptual Review, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Demolition Review, Relocation Review, Conditional Use, and Employees Generated for a Site Specific Development Plan for the Aspen Police Station and affordable housing development, subject to the conditions of approval as listed herein. The approved project is for the demolition of two buildings on the site, the redevelopment of the site with a new police station and separate building containing affordable housing units, and a rerouted pedestrian path from Main Street connecting to the Obermeyer property. Additionally, the relocation of the historic house and outbuildings to the Marolt Open Space is permitted with the buildings being stabilized on the new site and used as interpretive site. Section 2: Subsequent Reviews Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Applicant is required to obtain Planned Development – Project Review and a Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility from the City Council. Prior to second reading of the ordinance by the City Council, applicant shall submit: A. A general overview of the city’s commitment to relocate, stabilize, and have the resources used as an interpretive site on the Marolt property. B. A general rendering of the bus stop improvements proposed. Once both reviews are granted by City Council, the Applicant may apply for Final Commercial Design Review and Final Major Development Review. The applicant shall combine these applications, and they shall be made no later than one (1) year following the City Council approval. The application to be submitted shall include the following items to meet the conditions of the Historic Preservation Commission: C. The exposed garage level along the rear of the lot and Rio Grande Place shall be minimized with the addition of landscaping. P174 IV.A. Historic Preservation Commission Resolution No. --, Series 2016 Page 3 of 4 D. Owner consent for improvements proposed on neighboring properties is required with the submission. E. A detailed plan on how the resources shall be relocated, stabilized and maintained as an interpretive building for the Marolt site. F. A detailed plan on the restoration and repair of the materials on the historic resources shall be provided. The rear non-historic addition to the cabin may be removed. G. A finalized TIA plan. Section 3: Affordable Housing As part of the Conditional Use review to permit affordable housing on the site, the Commission has determined that affordable housing is an appropriate, compatible use for the neighborhood as residential development is located along two adjacent parcels. The proposed development on the site is for eight multi-family residential units. Section 4: Employees Generated The Historic Preservation Commission has determined that the Employees Generated, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.100 for the police station is thirty-nine (39) employees. The rate of affordable housing mitigation required for the development of the police station is determined by the City Council. Section 5: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department, the Historic Preservation Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. Section 6: 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 7: 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. FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of _________, 2016. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: P175 IV.A. Historic Preservation Commission Resolution No. --, Series 2016 Page 4 of 4 __________________________ ______________________________ Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Willis Pember, Chair Attest: _______________________________ Kathy Strickland, Deputy Clerk Attachments: Exhibit A: Recommended Dimensional Requirements Exhibit B: Site Plan and Elevations Dimensions Proposed minimum lot size 26,440 sq. ft. minimum lot width 97.60’ (Main Street) front yard (Main St.) see site plan side yard (west) see site plan side yard (east) see site plan rear see site plan maximum height 29’-11” (police building) 46’-6” (affordable housing) cumulative floor area 26,805 sq. ft. Police building floor area 18,515 sq. ft. Multi-family building floor area 8,290 sq. ft. number of affordable housing units 8 minimum off-street parking spaces (police) 26 garage spaces (some tandem) 2 at the rear of the property for short term parking minimum off-street parking spaces (affordable housing) 12 spaces in the adjacent parking garage in Obermeyer Place Public Amenity Space NA P176 IV.A. Exhibit A Planned Development – Project Review 1 26.445.050. Project Review Standards. The Project Review shall focus on the general concept for the development and shall outline any dimensional requirements that vary from those allowed in the underlying zone district. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. The underlying zone district designation shall be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the dimensions which may be considered during the development review process. Any dimensional variations allowed shall be specified in the ordinance granting Project Approval. In the review of a development application for a Project Review, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, and City Council shall consider the following: A. Compliance with Adopted Regulatory Plans. The proposed development complies with applicable adopted regulatory plans. Staff Response: The proposed development is subject to the Civic Master Plan, a regulatory document adopted in 2006. Core principles include the following: • “Civic & Arts/Cultural uses belong in the heart of downtown.” • “Mixed use buildings and mixed use areas create vibrant, memorable places.” • “Focus on creating great people places.” • “Affordable housing and affordable commercial space ensures viability of civic functions and vitality of town.” • “Civic planning must address the need for parking while not inducing additional traffic.” • “Pedestrian orientation creates connections between neighborhoods.” Within the document section III, Local Government, notes that the Zupancis property should be used for a civic use and, “if not used for a civic purposes, the site would be appropriate for arts and cultural uses or a mixed use building with affordable housing.” As proposed, the project includes both civic and affordable housing uses on the site, meeting some of the core principles of the document. Under section V, Pedestrian Movement, the advisory group found “the need to establish pedestrian routes that are both clearly visible and inviting to pedestrians.” With regard to the Obermeyer Place route, the ten foot easement established should be used to improve north south pedestrian movement between Main Street, Obermeyer Place and Rio Grande Park. The uses proposed meet the core principles. The changes to the access through Obermeyer by rerouting of the pedestrian way, continues to move people through the site, while improvements on Main Street make the rout safer. Staff finds the Pedestrian Movement section of the document to be met. B. Development Suitability. The proposed Planned Development prohibits development on land unsuitable for development because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the P177 IV.A. Exhibit A Planned Development – Project Review 2 property, including flooding, mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep, rock falls, rock slides, mining activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snowslide areas, slopes in excess of 30%, and any other natural or man-made hazard or condition that could harm the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Affected areas may be accepted as suitable for development if adequate mitigation techniques acceptable to the City Engineer are proposed in compliance with Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards. Conceptual plans for mitigation techniques may be accepted for this standard. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Response: The lot currently contains development. The lot is adjacent to Main Street and is a relatively flat site with some topography and retainage towards the rear of the site. The Engineering Department outlined specific information needed to comply with the Engineering Design Standards including URMP, snow storage, curb and gutter, etc. (see DRC comments). These comments are incorporated into the draft resolution as conditions of approval that are required to be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Changes to the project that result from compliance with the Engineering Design Standards may require an amendment to the PD approval. Staff finds this criterion is met with conditions. C. Site Planning. The site plan is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: 1. The site plan responds to the site’s natural characteristics and physical constraints such as steep slopes, vegetation, waterways, and any natural or man-made hazards and allows development to blend in with or enhance said features. Staff Response: The site is currently developed with a ranch style building, modern outbuilding and three historic resources, the rest of the site is essentially a parking lot – devoid of vegetation. The applicant proposes a landscape plan that improves greenspace on the lot. Staff finds this criterion is met. 2. The project preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation, and structures or features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological importance or contribute to the identity of the town. Staff Response: The applicant proposes two options with regard to the historic resources on the site: either maintain them on the site or relocate them to the Marolt property. 1) On-site option. The on-site option proposes to move all three resources from the rear of the property and bring the structures closer to the middle of the property. The residence would become a habitable two bedroom unit, while the accessory shed becomes storage, and the barn is to be demolished. 2) Off-site option. The off-site option is to relocate the three structures onto the Marolt property, stabilizing the structures so no further deterioration occurs to the P178 IV.A. Exhibit A Planned Development – Project Review 3 resources with the expectation that the house will provide a glimpse into how people lived in the late 1800s/early 1900s in Aspen. Either option will preserve the resources, just in a different manner. Staff finds this criterion met. 3. Buildings are oriented to public streets and are sited to reflect the neighborhood context. Buildings and access ways are arranged to allow effective emergency, maintenance, and service vehicle access. Staff Response: The police building is oriented toward the street to reflect the pattern of development along Main Street. The parking garage has two access points proposed, one being at an alley accessible by an alley. Staff finds this criterion is met. D. Dimensions. All dimensions, including density, mass, and height shall be established during the Project Review. A development application may request variations to any dimensional requirement of this Title. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to the following criteria: 1. There exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such variations. Staff Response: As a property located in the Public zone district, all dimensions must be established through the Planned Development. There are no underlying requirements for this zone district, requiring no variations. Staff finds this criterion not applicable. 2. The proposed dimensions represent a character suitable for and indicative of the primary uses of the project. Staff Response: The proposed dimensions with regard to Floor Area are suitable for the use of the property, additional study of the police station’s height and the massing of the affordable housing have resulted in an overall reduction in building height and massing. The police building is shorter than its neighbors and reflects a height that is closer to that allowed in the CC and C-1 zone district for a two story building. Both buildings fit into the neighborhood context are appropriate for the development. Staff finds this criterion met. 3. The project is compatible with or enhances the cohesiveness or distinctive identity of the neighborhood and surrounding development patterns, including the scale and massing of nearby historical or cultural resources. Staff Response: Overall, the project is compatible with the Main Street context. Additional consideration of the massing of the affordable housing building has assisted in better relating to the site. With the relocation of the historic resources the project is compatible with the neighborhood. Staff finds this criterion met. 4. The number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the probable number of cars to be operated by those using the proposed development and the nature of P179 IV.A. Exhibit A Planned Development – Project Review 4 the proposed uses. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development, and the potential for joint use of common parking may be considered when establishing a parking requirement. Staff Response: The off-street parking provided for the police station is reasonable for their current needs and provides some ability for additional stalls in the future. The number of parking spaces for the residential use of the property meets the off- street parking requirement; however, the spaces are not on-site but access is available to the Obermeyer garage by two ways. Staff finds this criterion met. 5. The Project Review approval, at City Council’s discretion, may include specific allowances for dimensional flexibility between Project Review and Detailed Review. Changes shall be subject to the amendment procedures of Section 26.445.110 – Amendments. Staff Response: This criterion is not applicable as the application has not yet been reviewed by City Council. E. Design Standards. The design of the proposed development is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: 1. The design complies with applicable design standards, including those outlined in Chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards, Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Standards, and Chapter 26.415, Historic Preservation. Staff Response: Overall, with the changes that have been incorporated to the site plan and design during the HPC review, the massing and placement of the two new being buildings being proposed is appropriate. Staff finds this criterion met. 2. The proposed materials are compatible with those called for in any applicable design standards, as well as those typically seen in the immediate vicinity. Exterior materials are finalized during Detailed Review, but review boards may set forth certain expectations or conditions related to architectural character and exterior materials during Project Review. Staff Response: At this point in project review, staff has no concerns with regard to materials for the new buildings proposed on site. Staff finds this criterion met. F. Pedestrian, bicycle & transit facilities. The development improves pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. These facilities and improvements shall be prioritized over vehicular facilities and improvements. Any vehicular access points, or curb cuts, minimize impacts on existing or proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The City may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Response: The applicant represents that they will upgrade pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities for this project. Bicycle parking is provided on-site, improvements in the adjacent transit stop is proposed and a rapid flash beacon at the intersection of Main and P180 IV.A. Exhibit A Planned Development – Project Review 5 Hunter is required. Due to the need to exit the garage at the alley, the rerouting of the pedestrian way meets the intent of providing a connection from Main Street to Rio Grande Park. Staff finds this criterion met. G. Engineering Design Standards. There has been accurate identification of engineering design and mitigation techniques necessary for development of the project to comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Response: The applicant represents that they will meet applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). This is included as a condition of approval. Staff finds that this criterion is met with conditions. H. Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed Planned Development shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at the sole costs of the developer. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Response: The applicant represents that they will upgrade public infrastructure as needed to serve the project and the public. This is included as a condition of approval. Staff finds that this criterion is met with conditions. I. Access and Circulation. The proposed development shall have perpetual unobstructed legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed Planned Development shall not eliminate or obstruct legal access from a public way to an adjacent property. All streets in a Planned Development retained under private ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure adequate public and emergency access. Security/privacy gates across access points and driveways are prohibited. Staff Response: Access and circulation for vehicles is proposed at two points. To access the parking garage from Rio Grande Place, vehicles will turn onto the adjacent county property and drive into the garage. The city will need to obtain an access easement from the county to establish a legal vehicular access for this access point. A secondary access point, anticipated as exiting from the garage, connects to the public alley between the Concept 600 building and Obermeyer Place. Staff finds this criterion is met with the condition of obtaining an appropriate easement. P181 IV.A. Exhibit B Preservation Guidelines & Commercial Design Review 1 Historic Preservation Guidelines Chapter 1: Streetscape and Lot Features Walkways 1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a rehabilitation project. This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk, proceeding along a "semi-public" walkway, to a "semi-private" porch or entry feature and ending in the "private" spaces beyond. Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry. Meandering walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree. Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style. Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles. Staff Response: The proposal in option 1 to convert the historic log cabin into an affordable housing unit is considered as the rehabilitation aspect of this project. The property begins with public space at the Main St. frontage in the form of a public courtyard with tables and seating. A paved walkway leads from the sidewalk along Main St. to the rear of the site, where it curves west to lead the user past the historic log cabin, ending at the new affordable housing building. The paving material used for this walkway will be discussed at Final Review. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Streetscape 1.16 Preserve historically significant landscape designs and features. This includes the arrangement of trees, shrubs, plant beds, irrigation ditches and sidewalks in the public right-of-way. Staff Response: The sidewalk on Main St. will be retained, as well as the 10’ wide trail easement for the Hunter Creek Trail Access. There is one tree at the front of the property that cannot be removed, per the Parks Dept. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P182 IV.A. Exhibit B Preservation Guidelines & Commercial Design Review 2 Chapter 8: Secondary Structures Secondary Structures 8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved. When treating a historic secondary building, respect its character-defining features. These include its primary and roof materials, roof form, windows, doors and architectural details. If a secondary structure is not historically significant, then its preservation is optional. Staff Response: The shed and garage are the secondary historic structures on this site. The applicant has plans to restore the shed if maintained on site while respecting the original materials, roof form, windows, doors and architectural features (although if located on site there is discussion of replacement of the historic fabric). If the buildings are moved off-site, the buildings will be stabilized. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 8.5 Avoid moving a historic secondary structure from its original location. A secondary structure may only be repositioned on its original site to preserve its historic integrity. Staff Response: The application outlines two options for moving the garage and shed structures, together with the historic log cabin home. The first option involves relocating a secondary structure and log cabin on the subject site. The buildings are proposed to be shifted towards the center of the property, and squared to the street. This relocation will allow the historic resources to be viewed from Main St. while they are currently less visible due to their historic existing locations on the site. The second option involves the relocation of all three historic resources off- site to the Holden-Marolt property. Since the HPC was established moving historic resources to an entirely different site has not been permitted; however, this is a unique situation. The garage and simple Victorian-style shed were constructed later in the 1930’s, and although they are not built in the same year as the historic log cabin, Staff feels strongly that these three structures should be maintained together. Although this option does remove them from their original location, it will give them greater visibility than in their current location or even if they were to be maintained on-site. P183 IV.A. Exhibit B Preservation Guidelines & Commercial Design Review 3 However, both options involve the relocation of the structures off-site, and therefore Staff finds this criterion to not met. Chapter 11: New Buildings on Landmarked Properties/Historic Landmark Lot Splits Building Orientation 11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street. The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of the site. Staff Response: The police station building is proposed with a front entryway facing Main St, and is parallel to the lot lines. The affordable housing building is proposed towards the rear of the lot with a front entryway facing to the east. Given the length of this property, the fact that the affordable housing will not be visible from Main St. Staff finds this to be an appropriate orientation. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Mass and Scale 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel. Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. Staff Response: The proposed police station is a two-story building, and the proposed affordable housing building is a three-story building which steps down to two-stories at the rear of the site. The historic buildings on the parcel include the log cabin house, a small shed, and a barn. The historic structures are one-story in height. There is some relief between the police station and the proposed locations of the historic structures; however the affordable housing building is adjacent to these buildings. The affordable housing, at three-stories and 32 feet in height should be reviewed to ensure it does not overwhelm the historic structures. Staff finds this criterion to not be met for option 1. If option 2 is approved, which removes the resources, staff finds the criterion not applicable. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. P184 IV.A. Exhibit B Preservation Guidelines & Commercial Design Review 4 The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure. The front should include a one-story element, such as a porch. Staff Response: The historic log cabin has a small entry porch. A one-story covered entryway is part of the police station buildings’ front façade. The affordable housing has no front porch element. The scale of both buildings are much larger and have little to nothing to do with the historic resource. Staff finds this criterion to not be met if the resources stay on the site and not applicable if the resources are relocated. Building & Roof Forms 11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property. They should not overwhelm the original in scale. Staff Response: The building forms for both the police station and the affordable housing are not similar to that of the one-story historic property; however the context of the neighborhood is one with predominantly flat roofs and the residential gable form of the house is somewhat of an anomaly. Staff finds this criterion to be met within the greater context. 11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block. Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms. Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context. On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the context. Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames. Staff Response: Both of the new buildings have been proposed with flat roofs. A flat roof is a common roof form that is found throughout the Main Street area and Commercial Core historic district. Nearby examples can be found at the neighboring Courthouse Plaza building, the Jerome Hotel, the First Bank building, and the Sotheby’s building at the corner of Main St. and Galena St. The roof form proposed at the police station, which fronts Main St., is consistent with many roof forms found throughout the area. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. P185 IV.A. Exhibit B Preservation Guidelines & Commercial Design Review 5 This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history are especially discouraged on historic sites. Staff Response: Both of the proposed buildings are more modern in design and in no way imitate the historic Victorian-era buildings on the site. Staff finds this criterion to be met. ______________________________________________________________________ COMMERCIAL, LODGING AND HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN OBJECTIVES AND GUIDELINES, COMMERCIAL CORE HISTORIC DISTRICT- CONCEPTUAL REVIEW (Replaces Chapter 13 of the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines) 6.1 Maintain the established town grid in all projects. The network of streets and alleys should be retained as public circulation space and for maximum public access. Streets and alleys should not be enclosed or closed to public access, and should remain open to the sky. Staff Response: The subject site is bordered on the south by Main St. and on the north by Rio Grande Pl. Neither street will be affected as a result of the proposed project. Staff finds this criterion is met. 6.2 Public walkways and through courts, when appropriate, should be designed to create access to additional commercial space and frontage, within the walkway and/or to the rear of the site. Staff Response: There is no commercial space associated with this application. Staff finds this criterion to be not-applicable. 6.3 Develop an alley façade to create visual interest. Use varied building setbacks and changes in materials to create interest and reduce perceived scale. Balconies, court yards and decks are also appropriate. Providing secondary public entrances is strongly encouraged along alleys. These should be clearly intended for public use, but subordinate in detail to the primary street-side entrance. Staff Response: There is alley associated with the exit for the parking garage associated with this parcel. Scored concrete is proposed which should provide some visual interest. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P186 IV.A. Exhibit B Preservation Guidelines & Commercial Design Review 6 6.4 Structured parking should be placed within a 'wrap' of commercial and/or residential uses. The exposure of auto entry areas should be minimized. Staff Response: Parking on the site is for the exclusive use of the police department, and is subgrade with the entry access point off of Rio Grande Pl. Parking for the affordable housing has been proposed in the subgrade space at the adjacent Obermeyer Place property. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6.5 Structured parking access should not have a negative impact on the character of the street. The access shall be: Located on an alley or secondary street if necessary. Designed with the same attention to detail and materials as the primary building façade. Integrated into the building design. Staff Response: Access to the site for the police department is at the rear of the property, off of Rio Grande Place. The parking is fully subgrade so it will have minimal visual impact on the site. Rio Grande Pl. is also the access for the Rio Grande parking garage and for subgrade parking at Obermeyer Place, therefore it is an appropriate location for the parking entry. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6.6 A street facing amenity space shall meet all of the following requirements: Abut the public sidewalk Be level with the sidewalk Be open to the sky Be directly accessible to the public Be paved or otherwise landscaped Staff Response: The applicant has proposed a public amenity space at the front of the site, directly accessible from the Main St. sidewalk. This public amenity is a courtyard space that includes table and seating and bike racks. The space is level with the sidewalk, open to the sky, is directly accessible to the public, and is paved with a landscaped border. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6.7 A street-facing public amenity space shall remain subordinate to the line of building fronts in the Commercial Core. Any public amenity space positioned at the street edge shall respect the character of the streetscape and ensure that street corners are well defined, with buildings placed at the sidewalk edge. P187 IV.A. Exhibit B Preservation Guidelines & Commercial Design Review 7 Sunken spaces, which are associated with some past developments, adversely affect the street character. Where feasible, these should be replaced with sidewalk level improvements. Staff Response: The proposed street-facing public amenity space is set back a few feet from the street edge with a sidewalk path leading into the space. This is not a sunken space. Staff finds this review criterion to be not-applicable. 6.8 Street facing amenity space shall contain features to promote and enhance its use. These may include one or more of the following: Street furniture Public art Historical/interpretive marker Staff Response: The public amenity space has been proposed with street furniture as well as a memorial marker element. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6.9 Mid-block walkways shall remain subordinate in scale to traditional lot widths. Mid-block public walkways shall be between 8 ft. and 10 ft. in width. Staff Response: There is one mid-block walkway to this site. It is the realigned pedestrian/bicycle trail access that is proposed to follow the eastern edge of the property. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6.10 A mid-block walkway should provide public access to the following: Additional commercial space and frontage within the walkway Uses located at the rear of the property Staff Response: The above-referenced mid-block walkway serves the interior of the site and north south pedestrian movement between Main Street, Obermeyer Place and Rio Grande Park Staff finds this criterion to be met. Alley Side Amenity Space and second Level Amenity Space are not applicable to this application so standards 6.11 through 6.15 have not been addressed. 6.17 Front and side yard amenity space should be considered in the context of a historic one story residential type building. Staff Response: The front yard public amenity space that is proposed with this application is in front of the police station which relates to the more open paten of the courthouse and St. Mary’s church. The historic resources are located further back on the site, currently obscured from view by the existing P188 IV.A. Exhibit B Preservation Guidelines & Commercial Design Review 8 Parking Department and storage buildings. If these resources are moved on the site they will be grouped together towards the middle of the site and brought in a more visible area. If maintained on-site visibility of the resource and maintenance of some greenspace is important and should be discussed as it relates to side yard amenity space and some of the other site improvements such as the rear courtyard and screening that is proposed. Staff finds this criterion not to be met for the side yard. 6.18 Maintain the alignment of façades at the sidewalk’s edge. Place as much of the façade of the building at the property line as possible. Locating an entire building front behind the established storefront line is inappropriate. A minimum of 70% of the front façade shall be at the property line. Staff Response: The front façade of the police station building is proposed to be set back approximately 18’ from the front property line in order to accommodate a courtyard style public amenity space at the building’s front façade. The civic use for this building is not the typical commercial use that is found in the downtown. The development pattern in this area is typically not to the property line and some flexibility in placement is encouraged. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 6.19 A building may be set back from its side lot lines in accordance with design guidelines identified in Street & Circulation Pattern and Public Amenity Space guidelines. Staff Response: The police station building and the affordable housing are both situated on the property’s western lot line. The proposed location of the police station allows the eastern part of the façade to be used for public amenity space and an access way. Staff finds this criterion to be generally met as it relates to circulation and public amenity design. 6.20 Orient a new building to be parallel to its lot lines, similar to that of traditional building orientations. The front of a primary structure shall be oriented to the street. Staff Response: Approximately half way through the property the east side lot line shifts at a diagonal angle towards the western lot line. Likewise, the rear yard lot line is at an angle. This is a large lot measuring approximately 26,440 sq. ft. in size. The new Aspen Police Station building is situated on the front half of the site, has a street-oriented entrance towards Main St., and has been proposed parallel to the front and side yard lot lines at this location. The new affordable housing building is located on the rear half of the parcel and is on the western side yard lot line. This building is proposed parallel to this lot line, and while it does not angle toward the rear of the building to match the P189 IV.A. Exhibit B Preservation Guidelines & Commercial Design Review 9 rear lot line, Staff finds the straight finish to be appropriate for the site. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6.21 Orient a primary entrance toward the street. Buildings should have a clearly defined primary entrance. For most commercial buildings, this should be a recessed entry way. Do not orient a primary entrance to an interior court. Providing secondary public entrances to commercial spaces is also encouraged on larger buildings. Staff Response: The primary entrance to the Aspen Police Department building is clearly defined by a walkway, is recessed, and is oriented directly towards Main Street. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6.22 Rectangular forms should be dominant on Commercial Core façades. Rectangular forms should be vertically oriented. The façade should appear as predominantly flat, with any decorative elements and projecting or setback “articulations” appearing to be subordinate to the dominant roof form. Staff Response: The Aspen Police Dept. building as viewed from Main Street, is proposed as a tall rectangular building that steps down to a broader two- story rectangular form to the east. The facades appear as predominantly flat. The projecting second story porch also appears flat, and follows the roof form. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6.23 Use flat roof lines as the dominant roof form. A flat roof, or one that gently slopes to the rear of a site, should be the dominant roof form. Parapets on side façades should step down towards the rear of the building. False fronts and parapets with horizontal emphasis also may be considered. Staff Response: The police station building is proposed with a flat roof. The affordable housing building is also proposed with a predominantly flat roof. The flat roof lines are the dominant form of each new building on the site, and therefore Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6.24 Along a rear façade, using building forms that step down in scale toward the alley is encouraged. Consider using additive forms, such as sheds, stairs and decks to reduce the perceived scale. These forms should however, remain subordinate to the primary structure. P190 IV.A. Exhibit B Preservation Guidelines & Commercial Design Review 10 Use projecting roofs at the ground floor over entrances, decks and for separate utility structures in order to establish a human scale that invites pedestrian activity. Staff Response: The proposed affordable housing building is located at the rear of the site. The rear of this building does step down from three-stories to two-stories for part of the building. Units have attached balconies that further serve to soften the building mass in this area. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6.25 Maintain the average perceived scale of two-story buildings at the sidewalk. Establish a two-story height at the sidewalk edge, or provide a horizontal design element at this level. A change in materials, or a molding at this level are examples. Staff Response: The police station building fronts Main St. and is two-stories in height. The building does not come directly to the sidewalk’s edge, but rather has been designed with a courtyard style public amenity space with tables and seating at the front of the building. The building is a horizontal rectangular form at this location. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6.26 Building façade height shall be varied from the façade height of adjacent buildings of the same number of stories. If an adjacent structure is three stories and 38 ft. tall, new infill may be three stories, but must vary in façade height by a minimum of 2 ft. Staff Response: The proposed police station building, Concept 600 building and Courthouse Plaza building all front Main St. The height of the police station building is proposed to be just under 30 feet at its highest point. The Courthouse Plaza building to the west of this property measures 35.3’ in height and the Concept 600 Building to the east measures 46.6’ in height. While the Concept 600 Building is significantly taller, the Courthouse Plaza building is about five feet taller than the police station. These buildings are proposed to be located relatively close to each other, and will appear to have variation in height between the buildings. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. 6.27 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of the Commercial Core. Refer to the zone district regulations to determine the maximum height limit on the subject property. A minimum 9 ft. floor to ceiling height is to be maintained on second stories and higher. P191 IV.A. Exhibit B Preservation Guidelines & Commercial Design Review 11 Additional height, as permitted in the zone district, may be added for one or more of the following reasons: - In order to achieve at least a two-foot variation in height with an adjacent building. - The primary function of the building is civic. (i.e. the building is a Museum, Civic Building, Performance Hall, Fire Station, etc.) - Some portion of the property is affected by a height restriction due to its proximity to a historic resource, or location within a View Plane, therefore relief in another area may be appropriate. - To benefit the livability of Affordable Housing units. - To make a demonstrable (to be verified by the Building Department) contribution to the building's overall energy efficiency, for instance by providing improved day- lighting. Staff Response: This property is located in the Public (PUB) zone district, and the dimensional standards for this zone district will be set by the adoption of a Final Planned Development approval. The police station is a two-story building that is planned at height of just under 30 feet for some of it. Floor to ceiling, including exposed mechanical will meet the minimum of nine feet Staff finds this criterion to not be met. 6.28 Height variation should be achieved using one or more of the following: Vary the building height for the full depth of the site in accordance with traditional lot width. Set back the upper floor to vary the building façade profile(s) and the roof forms across the width and the depth of the building. Vary the façade (or parapet) heights at the front. Step down the rear of the building towards the alley, in conjunction with other design standards and guidelines. Staff Response: The police station building height is varied from 29’-11” for approximately the first half of the building and then steps down to 25’ along Main Street. These heights are maintained for the full depth of the building on the site. The upper floor of the building’s second module is set back to provide a second story deck space, which provides further variation to the façade. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6.29 On sites comprising more than two traditional lot widths, the façade height shall be varied to reflect traditional lot width. The façade height shall be varied to reflect traditional lot width. P192 IV.A. Exhibit B Preservation Guidelines & Commercial Design Review 12 Height should be varied every 60 ft. minimum and preferably every 30 ft. of linear frontage in keeping with traditional lot widths and development patterns. No more than two consecutive 30 ft. façade modules may be three stories tall, within an individual building. A rear portion of a third module may rise to three stories, if the front is set back a minimum of 40 feet from the street façade. (e.g. at a minimum, the front 40 feet may be no more than two stories in height.) Staff Response: The height of police station building is varied in that it measures 29’-11” in height, and then steps down (along the eastern portion) to a height of 25’ for the remaining width of the building. This is a two-story building. Each module is less than the typically preferred 30’, however the reduction in width allows for better public space and access on the east side of the lot as well as visibility to the historic structures. Additionally, this property is on the very edge of the Commercial Core Historic District, and there is no surrounding development that reflects the traditional lot width. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6.30 On sites comprising two or more traditional lots, a building shall be designed to reflect the individual parcels. These methods shall be used: Variation in height of building modules across the site Variation in massing achieved through upper floor setbacks, the roofscape form and variation in upper floor heights Variation in building façade heights or cornice line Staff Response: The front lot line of the site is approximately 97’ long. A traditional city lot width is 30’, therefore the front lot width of the subject parcel is approximately 3.23 traditional lot widths. The width of the police station building is approximately 50’. The design of the building is articulated such that after 24’ feet the building steps down to in height for the remainder of the building. The upper floor of this second, shorter module is set back to allow for a second story deck. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6.31 A new building should step down in scale to respect the height, form and scale of a historic building within its immediate setting. Staff Response: The proposed affordable housing building is the closest new building on the site to historic resources, if they are approved by HPC for relocation on the site as proposed in option 1. This building does not step down in scale towards the historic resources. Consideration should be given to ensure this building does not overwhelm the historic resources with its P193 IV.A. Exhibit B Preservation Guidelines & Commercial Design Review 13 height. Staff finds this criterion to not be met; however if the resources are relocated off-site, staff finds this criterion not applicable. 6.33 New development adjacent to a single story historic building that was originally constructed for residential use shall not exceed 28 ft. in height within 30 ft. of the side property line adjacent to the historic structure, within the same block face. Staff Response: As stated above, the proposed affordable housing building measures approximately 32’ in height. The one-story historic log cabin residence, if approved for relocation on the site, is situated approximately 17’ to the east of the affordable housing building. Staff finds this criterion to not be met by the option 1 site plan and not applicable if the resources are relocated off-site. Chapter 14: General Guidelines Accessibility 14.2 Generally, a solution that is independent from the historic building and does not alter its historic characteristics is encouraged. Staff Response: Part of the proposal of option 1 involves relocating the historic buildings on the site and repurposing the historic log cabin into an ADA accessible affordable housing unit. If that idea is granted by HPC the applicant has proposed that the home will be made accessible by either angling the concrete walkway to the front door of the building or by creating a ramp to the front door. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Mechanical Equipment & Service Areas 14.14 Minimize the visual impacts of service areas as seen from the street. When it is feasible, screen service areas from view, especially those associated with commercial and multifamily developments. This includes locations for trash containers and loading docks. Service areas should be accessed off of the alley, if one exists. Staff Response: The applicant has shown the garage plan to contain a generator/electrical room and a separate mechanical room. These features will be subgrade for the police station building. A subgrade trash/recycling P194 IV.A. Exhibit B Preservation Guidelines & Commercial Design Review 14 room has also been proposed in the basement that will be accessed from the rear of the site and will serve both the police station as well as the affordable housing units. Staff has not received a roof plan at this time to indicate whether there will be rooftop mechanical equipment, such as an a/c unit or wireless equipment that will need to be accessible to service repair, and properly screened. At this time Staff finds this criteria to be met, but will request further information regarding the rooftop plans prior to Final review. Driveways & Parking 14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts. New curb cuts are not permitted. If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it. Staff Response: The driveway to the site is a short access point from Rio Grande Pl. to the subgrade parking garage. There is no existing curb cut at this location, and there is no alley that serves this property. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 14.18 Garages should not dominate the street scene. Staff Response: The on-site garage is exclusively for the use of the Aspen Police Dept. and is fully subgrade, so it will not dominate the street scene. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 14.19 Use a paving material that will distinguish the driveway from the street. Using a change in material, paving pattern or texture will help to differentiate the driveway from the street. Porous paving materials will also help to absorb potential water runoff typically associated with impervious surfaces such as asphalt or concrete. Staff Response: The applicant has not provided this level of detail for the Conceptual review application; materials are a topic that is addressed at Final review. Staff finds this criterion to be not-applicable. 14.20 Off-street driveways should be removed, if feasible. Non-historic parking areas accessed from the street should be removed if parking can be placed on the alley. P195 IV.A. Exhibit B Preservation Guidelines & Commercial Design Review 15 Staff Response: The site does have an alley to use as a means of accessing the property. The access to the subgrade parking garage is proposed from Rio Grande Pl. rather than from Main Street, where the curb cut is to be removed. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 14.22 Driveways leading to parking areas should be located to the side or rear of a primary structure. Locating drives away from the primary facade will maintain the visual importance the structure has along a block. Staff Response: The short driveway leading into the subgrade parking area is found at the rear of the site, accessed from Rio Grande Pl. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 14.23 Parking areas should not be visually obtrusive. Large parking areas should be screened from view from the street. Divide large parking lots with planting areas. (Large parking areas are those with more than five cars.) Consider using a fence, hedge or other appropriate landscape feature. Automobile headlight illumination from parking areas should be screened from adjacent lots and the street. Staff Response: The proposed parking for the site is primarily subgrade, for the exclusive use of the police department. There are two on-grade spots that are intended for short-term use by the property’s residents at the rear of the site, adjacent to Rio Grande Pl. Staff does not consider any portion of the proposed parking to be visually obtrusive. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 14.24 Large parking areas, especially those for commercial and multifamily uses, should not be visually obtrusive. Locate parking areas to the rear of the property, when physical conditions permit. An alley should serve as the primary access to parking, when physical conditions permit. Parking should not be located in the front yard, except in the driveway, if it exists. Staff Response: The proposed parking for the site is primarily subgrade, for the exclusive use of the police department. There are two on-grade spots that are intended for short-term use by the property’s residents at the rear of the P196 IV.A. Exhibit B Preservation Guidelines & Commercial Design Review 16 site, adjacent to Rio Grande Pl. Staff does not consider any portion of the proposed parking to be visually obtrusive. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P197 IV.A. Exhibit C Demolition Criteria 1 26.415.080.A Procedures for considering requests for demolition of designated properties or properties within a Historic District. 4. The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the property owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the standards for demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a) The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, Staff Response: There are two (or three depending on the site plan options) buildings on the subject site that are proposed for demolition. These include a ranch-style residential building located along Main Street, which is the current home of the Parking Department, and a cinder block building behind the Parking Dept. used as a storage garage, and a barn. These buildings are estimated to have been built in the 1960’s except for the barn, and are not considered to be historic structures, however neither building has been found to be an imminent hazard to public safety. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. b) The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, Staff Response: There is no evidence that the structures proposed for demolition are not structurally sound, nor is there any evidence of the owner failing to properly maintain the structures. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. c) The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen or Staff Response: The structures have not been studied to see if they can be moved to another location in Aspen; however, they are not viewed by Staff as contributing to the historic significance of the site, and so a study of this nature is not found to be relevant. One structure (the barn) is proposed for relocation if site plan option 2 is chosen. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. d) No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and Staff Response: There is no existing documentation to support or demonstrate the two structures that are proposed for demolition as having historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance. The structure occupied by the Parking Dept. is a ranch-style house building in 1960. This house type is not particularly common in Aspen and was not identified as an influential building style eligible for Aspen Modern designation. The second structure is directly behind the Parking Dept. office is a non-descript cinder block building that serves as a storage garage. According to Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. who performed a historical analysis and field survey of the property, neither of these buildings has historical significance, nor lends to the P198 IV.A. Exhibit C Demolition Criteria 2 cultural significance of the site. The barn is of a later construction period, apart from the historic resource and shed. Staff finds this criterion to be met. With Staff finding criterion d) to be met, this requirement is considered complete. Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a) The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic District in which it is located and Staff Response: The 2 later period structures proposed for demolition have been reviewed by the Historic Preservation Planner and Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. and have not been found to contribute to the significance of the parcel or the adjacent Commercial Core Historic District. The barn, which is not of the same period of construction as the home and shed, has also been discussed by the Commission and approved for demolition of the resource stays on the site. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b) The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and Staff Response: The loss of these buildings will not adversely affect the integrity of the adjacent Commercial Core Historic District nor adversely affect the adjacent designated parcel that is home to the Pitkin County Courthouse and administrative buildings. Staff finds this criterion to be met. c) Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. Staff Response: The demolition of these two structures (and possibly the barn) will have no consequence on the historic preservation needs of this site or the general area. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P199 IV.A. Exhibit D Relocation Criteria 1 26.415.090.C Standards for the relocation of designated properties. Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards: 1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or Staff Response: The subject parcel is not located within a historic district. Staff finds this criterion not applicable. 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or property; or Staff Response: While this parcel is not located within a historic district it is adjacent to the Commercial Core historic district. The three historic structures on the subject site have never fronted Main Street but contribute to the individual parcel. As seen in the two images below, the historic home, shed and barn were built close to E. Bleeker Street, over 200 feet north of Main St. In the 1960’s the historic garage was obscured from view from Main St. by the construction of the ranch-style residence at the front of the property. Over time uses on the site have caused the historic house and shed to also become obscured from view from Main St. The relocation of the home on or off of the site may heighten the visibility of theis historic resource. A more thorough discussion of relocation will follow, in criterion 4 below. Staff does not find this criterion to be met. P200 IV.A. Exhibit D Relocation Criteria 2 3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or Staff Response: The owner has not requested a certificate of economic hardship or claimed that preservation of these structures is financially infeasible. Staff finds this criterion to not be applicable. 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Staff Response: The historic structures are not located within a historic district. Again, the structures do not front Main Street but rather are far back within the property, and as such are not a contributing element to the adjacent historic district. The applicant is proposing two options in relation to these structures. The first option involves the on-site relocation and rehabilitation of two buildings (the house and shed), converting the historic cabin into an affordable housing unit. The shed is proposed to be used as on-site storage. In this scenario the two structures are grouped together towards the center of the property. A second scenario is to relocate all three buildings to the Marolt property, for use as an interpretive site. The new police station building will be situated such that a corridor will be created to the historic structures so that they may be viewed from Main Street. These structures have a high level of significance, particularly the house, which is one of the oldest structures in the city. Log cabins were the first buildings constructed in Aspen. Any relocation of the house needs to be carefully planned. Relocation of the shed and barn are more straightforward. The typical methodology wherein microlam beams are attached to the interior framing of a home at about windowsill height, several courses of exterior siding are removed, and steel beams are slipped under the microlams is not appropriate in this case, especially if the home is to be used for historic interpretation with all finishes preserved. Holes should not be created in the log portion of the building, and in this case, separating the house from the historic floor would result in substantial loss of significant building fabric. The historic log cabin was built in three phases and a combination of construction techniques. More information is needed about the possibility that the structure may be separated into pieces for relocation. The project involves excavation of the whole site for a subgrade parking garage. The applicant has proposed temporary storage of the three buildings at the City- owned Burlingame property. HPC has typically not allowed structures to be moved so far away from their original site. This proposal should carefully consider the potential impacts of highway travel to the Burlingame property. If relocation to Marolt is approved, applicant is considering only one move from the site and onto an appropriate foundation at Marolt. P201 IV.A. Exhibit D Relocation Criteria 3 There are positive aspects to both of these two scenarios: 1) The structures (house and shed) remain on the site of their authentic historic location; 2) No additions will be made to the historic resources; 3) The relocation of the structures on the site will cause them to become more visible; and 4) Repairs and restoration will occur that will prolong the life of these historic resources. There are also a number of less favorable aspects to both of these scenarios that HPC should consider: 1) The buildings will be shifted on the site and squared to the street, close together, rather than the more “organic” layout that currently (historically) exists; 2) Features such as the original below-grade potato cellar under the house will be lost; 3) Converting the log home to an affordable housing unit will require updating to today’s residential codes and standards, and will involve gutting the building and destroying the last, irreplaceable example of authentic Victorian- era interior within Aspen. The second option involves the relocation of all three structures to the Holden- Marolt property. The moving of structures in Aspen has occurred in some instances during the Victorian period, as well as during the 1950’s to 1970’s. Since the HPC was established moving historic resources to an entirely different site has not been allowed; however, this is a unique situation. The interior of the cabin is in incredible condition, reflecting what life was like in Aspen at the turn of the century. The garage and simple Victorian-style shed were constructed later in the 1930’s; however Staff feels strongly that these structures should be maintained together. If they are moved from the subject parcel they will be grouped together and maintained as museum pieces with no storage or other uses, so code-related upgrades can be limited. Although this option does remove them from their original location, it will give them greater visibility than in their current location or even if they were to be maintained on-site. The house would not be occupied and the historic finishes and artifacts could be preserved. HPC direction is needed on this complex policy decision before a finding on this criterion can be made. Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; Staff Response: The log cabin structure is a pristine example of life in Aspen during the turn of the century; there is no historic piece like this in existence anywhere else in the City. Whether it is relocated within the site or to the Holden-Marolt property Staff is not supportive of cutting the building from the floor, leaving behind any portion of the historic structure, nor in this case is Staff in favor of the common method of relocating structures, which involves creating openings into the sides of the building to raise it. Exhibit #8 of the application includes a letter from Bailey House Movers. This letter references a plan to relocate the structures onto the Burlingame Affordable Housing property during the construction of the police station building. Staff would prefer the structures be moved to a location closer to the site to minimize potential damage during P202 IV.A. Exhibit D Relocation Criteria 4 the relocation. The plan is to separate the home into at least two pieces. Staff will require additional information as to how these buildings will be moved and a study indicating their capability of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation. If the structures were relocated to the Holden-Marolt property they would be moved one time, rather than twice as would be required by maintaining the structures on the subject site. HPC should take this into account when considering the impacts of relocation. Staff finds this criterion to not be met at this time. 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and Staff Response: The structures (house and shed) may be maintained on the current site, but grouped together in a new configuration, or may be relocated to the Holden- Marolt property. If the structures are relocated to Holden-Marolt they will be managed by the Aspen Historical Society; however the burden should not be placed on the Historical Society to manage the restoration of the buildings on the site. If this option were to be chosen the applicant would need to outline a plan to restore these buildings and work in conjunction with the Aspen Historical Society. In terms of finding appropriate receiving sites, Staff finds this criterion could be met. It is important to remember that the Holden-Marolt property is highly significant in its own right. Part of the site is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Relocation of the McMurchy/Zupancis buildings to that site should not be within the National Register area. The buildings should not negatively impact any resources on that site. 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. Staff Response: Staff requires information from the application regarding the repair and preservation of the structures. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. P203 IV.A. Exhibit E General Commercial Design Review 1 Commercial Design Review 26.412.050. Review Criteria. An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the standards. Staff Response: Overall, staff supports site plan option 2 as it provides better massing for the affordable housing building with the relocation of the resources. Both options reduce the height of the police building providing a better fit and differentiation between adjacent buildings. Staff finds this criterion met. B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the façade of the building may be required to comply with this Section. Staff Response: No commercial development is proposed, staff finds this criterion not applicable. C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means. Staff Response: Overall, staff supports site plan option 2 as it provides better massing for the affordable housing building with the relocation of the resources. Both options reduce the height of the police building providing a better fit and differentiation between adjacent buildings. Detailed responses to the criteria are provided in Exhibit B. Staff finds this criterion met. 26.412.060. Commercial Design Standards. The following design standards, in addition to the commercial, lodging and historic district design objectives and guidelines, shall apply to commercial, lodging and mixed-use development: A. Public Amenity Space. Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive, exciting and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and P204 IV.A. Exhibit E General Commercial Design Review 2 entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights-of-way or private property within commercial areas. On parcels required to provide public amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Public amenity, the following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity. Acceptance of the method or combination of methods of providing the public amenity shall be at the option of the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, according to the procedures herein and according to the following standards: 1. The dimensions of any proposed on-site public amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of uses and activities to occur, considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants and uses. Staff Response: The applicant is not required to provide public amenity space as the property is zoned Public; however, a public courtyard allows for a variety of uses to occur. Staff finds this criterion met. 2. The public amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade trees, solar access, view orientation and simple at-grade relationships with adjacent rights-of-way are encouraged. Staff Response: Public benches are provided with the front courtyard, allowing for active and passive uses and contributing to the civic use of the property. Staff finds this criterion met. 3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures, rights-of-way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment. Staff Response: There are a number of civic uses on this block, with a mix of landscaping and some hardscape. The design on this lot provides for the front courtyard, allowing for active and passive uses and contributing to the civic use of the property. Staff finds this criterion met. 4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls, sidewalks or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian environment. Staff Response: Of the civic buildings in the area, this is the first clearly provided courtyard so the feature is not duplicated. Staff finds this criterion met. 5. Any variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity, Subsection 26.575.030.F., promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements. Staff Response: At this point, staff does not believe any variation is requested. Staff finds this criterion not applicable. B. Utility, delivery and trash service provision. When the necessary logistical elements of a commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success P205 IV.A. Exhibit E General Commercial Design Review 3 of the district. Poor logistics of one (1) building can detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The following standards shall apply: 1. A trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum size and location standards established by Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, unless otherwise established according to said Chapter. Staff Response: The size requirement is met as the trash area exceeds 200 sq. ft. Staff finds this criterion met. 2. A utility area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum standards established by Title 25, Utilities, of the Municipal Code, the City’s Electric Distribution Standards, and the National Electric Code, unless otherwise established according to said Codes. Staff Response: Utilities has noted that the electric line needs to be rerouted. It appears an utility (electrical) area is provided within the building; however, staff does not see any provision for an unenclosed transformer area. Staff finds that this criterion is not met but can be addressed at final review. 3. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located and combined to the greatest extent practical. Staff Response: The trash and recycle area are collocated. Staff finds this criterion met. 4. If the property adjoins an alleyway, the utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be along and accessed from the alleyway, unless otherwise approved through Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. Staff Response: The property is adjacent to an alley. Staff finds this criterion not met. 5. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be fenced so as not to be visible from the street, unless they are entirely located on an alleyway or otherwise approved though Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. All fences shall be six (6) feet high from grade, shall be of sound construction, and shall be no less than ninety percent (90%) opaque, unless otherwise varied through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. Staff Response: The trash and utility area is proposed is enclosed. Staff finds this criterion met. 6. Whenever utility, trash, and recycle service areas are required to be provided abutting an alley, other portions of a building may extend to the rear property line if otherwise allowed by this Title, provided that the utility, trash and recycle area is located at grade and accessible to the alley. P206 IV.A. Exhibit E General Commercial Design Review 4 Staff Response: Applicant does not propose to provide trash service along the alley and the building does not extend to the rear property line. Staff finds this criteria not applicable. 7. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property. Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall be minimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site conditions, such as an historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed. Staff Response: Applicant proposes to provide utility service on site. Staff finds this criterion met. 8. All commercial and lodging buildings shall provide a delivery area. The delivery area shall be located along the alley if an alley adjoins the property. The delivery area shall be accessible to all tenant spaces of the building in a manner that meets the requirements of the International Building Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. All non-ground floor commercial spaces shall have access to an elevator or dumbwaiter for delivery access. Alleyways (vehicular rights-of-way) may not be utilized as pathways (pedestrian rights-of-way) to meet the requirements of the International Building Code. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged. Staff Response: The building is not a commercial or lodging builidng. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. 9. All commercial tenant spaces located on the ground floor in excess of 1,500 square feet shall contain a vestibule (double set of doors) developed internal to the structure to meet the requirements of the International Energy Conservation Code as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen, or an air curtain. Staff Response: The building is not proposed for commercial use. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. 10. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical. Staff Response: Applicant has not provided any information on venting for the buildings. Staff finds this criterion not met but can be addressed at final. 11. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a public right-of-way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for future ventilation and ducting needs. Staff Response: Staff Response: Applicant has not provided any information on venting and ducting for the buildings. Staff finds this criterion not met but can be addressed at final review. P207 IV.A. Exhibit E General Commercial Design Review 5 12. The trash and recycling service area requirements may be varied pursuant to Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code. All other requirements of this subsection may be varied by special review (see Chapter 26.430.040.E, Utility and delivery service area provisions). Staff Response: The proposed size of the trash and recycle area meets minimum area dimensions. Staff finds this criterion met. P208 IV.A. Page 1 Memo To: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission From: Alan Richman Planning Services and Charles Cunniffe Architects Date: April 21, 2016 Re: Response to HPC Directions On March 23, a continued public hearing was held, at which a revised design for the Aspen Police Station was presented to HPC. At the conclusion of the meeting HPC gave direction to the applicant to make further changes to the project and to return for a continued hearing on April 27. Following are the topics for which HPC requested additional information, as stated in a message from staff to the applicant. 1. The height of the police station building should be lowered. Documentation should be provided to explain why the proposed height of the building is necessary. Response: Throughout this process, the Police Station has been presented as a building with two distinct modules – a western module adjacent to the Courthouse Plaza Building, attached to an eastern module that opens into a public courtyard. The eastern module would be several feet lower than the western module, allowing the buildings to gradually step down from the County building complex, to the western module to the eastern module. This step down is illustrated in the south elevation and Main Street context elevation drawings we are providing to you. The design presented on March 23 proposed a maximum height of 33’- 4” for the western module and 28’ for the eastern module. These heights have both been lowered as follows: • Western Module: Lowered from 33’-4” to 29’-11” (3.5’ reduction) • Eastern Module: Lowered from 28’-0” to 25’-0” (3.0’ reduction). Alan Richman Planning Services P209 IV.A. Page 2 The western module is comprised of two main floor levels, as well as a clerestory architectural element with upper windows. The clerestory is an important building element as it provides valuable natural daylighting to the interior portion of the western module (which is blocked on the west side by the existing County Annex building) and also provides for natural venting of the building. These features assist with the LEED/WELL Building qualifications of the building. The proposed height is the minimum necessary to achieve an interior floor-to-ceiling structure height of 11’-6” on both floors. This leaves a usable ceiling height of about 8’-10’ on the interior, once the depths of structural and mechanical elements are accounted for. Drawings have been provided illustrating the proposed floor-to-ceiling heights and the functional elements that will be contained within the building levels. 2. Provide two site plan options. One site plan should continue to show the historic resources (house and shed) preserved on-site. The second site plan should reflect removal of the resources from the site, allowing the massing of the affordable housing building to be modified. Response: Two site plan options have been provided. Site Plan Option 1 (Sheet L-1) is the site plan that was first presented on March 23. It shows the Police Station at the front of the site, a single Affordable Housing Building behind the Police Station, and the Historic House and Shed relocated toward the center of the property. During the March 23 hearing some members of HPC began to question the wisdom of preserving the historic resources on site. While the applicant had originally proposed that the historic resources be restored for use as affordable housing and storage (their historic uses), staff and HPC had suggested that the interior of these resources be preserved so they could function as a historic interpretative center. While this concept initially had considerable appeal, significant concerns arose as the concept was further evaluated. First, the Historic Society provided public comment indicating that it would be difficult for them to provide the staffing necessary to operate and maintain an interpretive center at this site. Representatives also pointed out that when they take students to the sites they already operate, those groups can contain as many as 100 to 120 children. A site such as this simply would not have the room to accommodate that number of visitors (or to park their busses). Moreover, the planned uses of the site for a Police Station and affordable housing would not be compatible with a third use of this site as an interpretive center. P210 IV.A. Page 3 It was also made clear that the City of Aspen does not have the capability to operate this site as an interpretative center. The City does not maintain a staff with this type of expertise nor would they want to create a new City department charged with this type of task. Given all of these concerns, and considering the statements made by the Historic Society that they would welcome having the house, shed and barn moved to the Holden/Marolt Museum Site so they can properly manage the resources (see attached aerial photo showing where those structures would be located at the museum site), HPC asked the applicant to present a second site plan for 540 East Main. That site plan, which assumes that the resources would be relocated off-site, is shown on Sheet L-2. The Police Station is unchanged from Sheet L-1. However, the Affordable Housing Building has been reduced in length, width and height, and a smaller second building has been positioned to the east of the original building. This allows the overall scale and mass of the Affordable Housing Building to be reduced, making it more compatible with surrounding structures. These changes are further described below. 3. Re-examine the footprint and massing of the Affordable Housing Building. Evaluate whether a different footprint can allow for less height and mass. Consider providing some relief for the proposed mass at the north end of the building. Continue to address the livability of the proposed affordability housing units. Response: The footprint and massing of the Affordable Housing Building has been fully re-examined. Sheet L-2 shows two major changes to the footprint, these being a reduction in the length and the width of the building and the establishment of a small second building to the east of the original building. The length has been reduced to create a greater setback from Rio Grande Place and the width has been reduced to create more outdoor amenity space and a greater setback from the Obermeyer Crescent Building. In addition, under Option 2 the applicant proposes only one unit on the third level where previously there would have been two units on this level. This allows for a much greater step back of the mass of the building towards the rear of the site (this is illustrated on the sheet entitled “Proposed East Elevations and Context Section”). The floor plans which have been provided show the individual units in the building and calculate the floor area of the two options. Option 1, P211 IV.A. Page 4 which was presented on March 23, proposed 10 affordable housing units and a total floor area of nearly 10,500 square feet. Option 2 proposes just 8 affordable housing units and a total floor area of just over 8,000 square feet. The applicant is continuing to evaluate the bedroom mix for these units but is confident in presenting this massing concept and site layout for the affordable housing units. The floor plans and site plans show all of the livability improvements that have been made to the housing units. Private balconies and decks and individual storage units have been provided for each unit under Options 1 and 2. Two landscaped patios, for use by the housing units, have also been shown on the east side of the housing building for Option 2. Option 1 shows a single outdoor amenity space for the housing units behind the historic structure. Conclusion The applicant has made every possible effort to respond to all of HPC’s comments and concerns. Elevation drawings have been provided from every possible perspective to make the design understandable to all reviewers. A fully functional sketch-up model has been provided to staff and will be available at the hearing. We look forward to reviewing this proposal with HPC on April 27. The applicant requests that the HPC approve Site Plan Option 2, which would relocate the historic resources to the Holden-Marolt Museum and accommodate the Police Station and Affordable Housing on-site as shown on the attached drawings. P212 IV.A. P 2 1 3 I V . A . S P 2 1 4 I V . A . ASPEN POLICE DEPARTMENT ENLARGED SOUTH ELEVATION BUILDING HEIGHT COMPARISON 12 APRIL 2016 P 2 1 5 I V . A . ASPEN POLICE DEPARTMENT ENLARGED EAST ELEVATION BUILDING HEIGHT COMPARISON 12 APRIL 2016 P 2 1 6 I V . A . ASPEN POLICE DEPARTMENT SOUTH ELEVATION BUILDING HEIGHT COMPARISON EAST ELEVATION BUILDING HEIGHT COMPARISON 11 APRIL 2016 P 2 1 7 I V . A . HPC REVIEW ASPEN POLICE DEPARTMENT MAIN STREET CONTEXT ELEVATIONS SITE OPTION 1 SITE OPTION 2 23 MARCH 2016 P 2 1 8 I V . A . HPC REVIEW ASPEN POLICE DEPARTMENT ENLARGED MAIN STREET CONTEXT ELEVATIONS SITE OPTION 1 SITE OPTION 2 23 MARCH 2016 P 2 1 9 I V . A . HPC REVIEW ASPEN POLICE DEPARTMENT PROPOSED VIEW FROM MAIN STREET CROSSWALK SITE OPTION 1 SITE OPTION 2 23 MARCH 2016 P 2 2 0 I V . A . HPC REVIEW ASPEN POLICE DEPARTMENT SITE OPTION 1 SITE OPTION 2 PROPOSED MAIN STREET CONTEXT VIEW 23 MARCH 2016 P 2 2 1 I V . A . HPC REVIEW ASPEN POLICE DEPARTMENT SITE OPTION 1 SITE OPTION 2 PROPOSED SOUTH FACADE AND PUBLIC COURTYARD 23 MARCH 2016 P 2 2 2 I V . A . HPC REVIEW ASPEN POLICE DEPARTMENT PROPOSED MAIN STREET CONTEXT VIEW SITE OPTION 1 SITE OPTION 2 23 MARCH 2016 P 2 2 3 I V . A . ASPEN POLICE DEPARTMENTHPC REVIEW PROPOSED HISTORIC/HOUSING PERSPECTIVE SITE OPTION 1 SITE OPTION 2 23 MARCH 2016 P 2 2 4 I V . A . ASPEN POLICE DEPARTMENT PROPOSED EAST ELEVATIONS AND CONTEXT SECTION SITE OPTION 1 SITE OPTION 2 HPC REVIEW 11 APRIL 2016 P 2 2 5 I V . A . ASPEN POLICE DEPARTMENT PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATIONS AND CONTEXT SITE OPTION 1 SITE OPTION 2 HPC REVIEW 11 APRIL 2016 P 2 2 6 I V . A . ASPEN POLICE DEPARTMENT PROPOSED HOUSING SECTION AND CONTEXT HPC REVIEW SITE OPTION 1 SITE OPTION 2 11 APRIL 2016 P 2 2 7 I V . A . ASPEN POLICE DEPARTMENT SITE OPTION 1 SITE OPTION 2 PROPOSED PERSPECTIVE FROM RIO GRANDE PLACE 11 APRIL 2016 P 2 2 8 I V . A . ASPEN POLICE DEPARTMENT SITE OPTION 1 SITE OPTION 2 PROPOSED PERSPECTIVE FROM RIO GRANDE PLACE 11 APRIL 2016 P 2 2 9 I V . A . ASPEN POLICE DEPARTMENT BUILDING FLOOR TO FLOOR AND SYSTEMS SKETCH 11 APRIL 2016 •Overall building height = 29-11” reduced 3’-5” from 33’-4” •Height at T.O. clerestory = 29’-6” •Height of T.O. second story roof = 25’-0 reduced 3’-0” from 28’-0” •25’ to the T.O. second story roof provides a minimal floor to ceiling height of 11’-6” and 8’-10” useable ceiling height •The clerestory provides natural daylight to the west portion of the interior of the building(which is blocked on the west side by the existing County Annex building). • The clerestory also provides for natural venting of the building and allows upper level views to the exterior. • These features assist with the LEED/WELL Building qualifications of the building. P 2 3 0 I V . A . Page 4MKK Consulting Engineers, Inc. ASPEN POLICE DEPARTMENT 100% Schematic Design Narrative - MEP Design + Sustainability Exectutive Summary System Section - Full Heating Mode MEP OVERVIEW APD APPENDIX C 100%SD 10-28-15 P 2 3 1 I V . A . Page 5MKK Consulting Engineers, Inc. ASPEN POLICE DEPARTMENT 100% Schematic Design Narrative - MEP Design + Sustainability Exectutive Summary System Section - Full Cooling Mode MEP OVERVIEW APD APPENDIX C 100%SD 10-28-15 P 2 3 2 I V . A . Page 6MKK Consulting Engineers, Inc. ASPEN POLICE DEPARTMENT 100% Schematic Design Narrative - MEP Design + Sustainability Exectutive Summary System Section - Natural Ventilation Mode MEP OVERVIEW APD APPENDIX C 100%SD 10-28-15 P 2 3 3 I V . A . FLOOR AREA GARAGE AREA FA R T A B U L A T I O N _ _ _ _ ________________________________ __OVERHANGS OVER 8'-0"DECKS ABOVE 30" 35 2 8 S F FI R S T L E V E L HO U S I N G 13 6 S F BA L C O N Y 63 S F ST A I R 1 63 S F ST A I R 2 62 S F EL E V A T O R 20 5 S F DE C K 84 S F DE C K 35 2 8 S F SE C O N D L E V E L HO U S I N G 84 S F BA L C O N Y 19 9 S F BA L C O N Y 62 S F EL E V A T O R 65 4 S F SE C O N D L E V E L WA L K W A Y 63 S F ST A I R 1 63 S F ST A I R 2 13 6 S F BA L C O N Y 21 2 8 S F TH I R D L E V E L HO U S I N G 43 0 S F TH I R D L E V E L WA L K W A Y 63 S F ST A I R 1 63 S F ST A I R 2 62 S F EL E V A T O R 12 3 S F BA L C O N Y 87 S F BA L C O N Y EX T E R I O R F L O O R A R E A C A L C U L A T I O N S TO T A L B U I L D I N G F L O O R A R E A 9 , 3 7 0 S F EX T E R I O R A R E A A L L O W E D 1,406 SF TO T A L E X T E R I O R F L O O R A R E A 2 , 5 1 4 S F 15% X 9,370 SF EX T E R I O R A R E A A P P L I E D T O F . A . R . 1,108 SF 2,514 SF - 1,406 SF FL O O R A R E A R A T I O C A L C U L A T I O N S 1,108 SF BU I L D I N G F L O O R A R E A 9 , 3 7 0 S F EX T E R I O R A R E A A P P L I E D T O F . A . R . 10,478 SF TO T A L F . A . R . CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS C610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557www.cunniffe.com SHEET NO.DRAWING:JOB NO. 3 / 1 6 / 2 0 1 6 1 : 3 9 : 2 7 P M A0.41506FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS540 HOUSING 540 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO ISSUE: D A T E : ISSUE X X / X X / X X HPC/PLANNING 1 5 / 1 2 / 1 6 ISSUE X X / X X / X X ISSUE X X / X X / X X 1 MA I N L E V E L A R E A 2 SE C O N D L E V E L A R E A 3 TH I R D L E V E L A R E A GROSS FLOOR AREA SCHEDULE Name A r e a C o m m e n t s FI R S T L E V E L H O U S I N G 3 5 2 8 S F EL E V A T O R 6 2 S F SE C O N D L E V E L H O U S I N G 3 5 2 8 S F EL E V A T O R 6 2 S F TH I R D L E V E L H O U S I N G 2 1 2 8 S F EL E V A T O R 6 2 S F 9370 SF GROSS EXTERIOR FLOOR AREA SCHEDULE Name A r e a C o m m e n t s BA L C O N Y 1 3 6 S F ST A I R 1 6 3 S F ST A I R 2 6 3 S F DE C K 2 0 5 S F DE C K 8 4 S F BA L C O N Y 8 4 S F BA L C O N Y 1 9 9 S F SE C O N D L E V E L W A L K W A Y 6 5 4 S F ST A I R 1 6 3 S F ST A I R 2 6 3 S F BA L C O N Y 1 3 6 S F TH I R D L E V E L W A L K W A Y 4 3 0 S F ST A I R 1 6 3 S F ST A I R 2 6 3 S F BA L C O N Y 1 2 3 S F BA L C O N Y 8 7 S F 2514 SF *C A L C U L A T I O N S A R E ESTIMATED BA SED ON CURRENT DESIGN AS S U M P T I O N S A N D S U B J E C T T O CHANGE PENDING FINAL GRADE AN D L A Y O U T D I R E C T I O N . P234 IV.A. CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS C610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557www.cunniffe.com SHEET NO.DRAWING:JOB NO. 4 / 8 / 2 0 1 6 9 : 1 5 : 5 9 A M A2.21506MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN540 HOUSING 540 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO ISSUE: D A T E : ISSUE X X / X X / X X HPC/PLANNING 1 5 / 1 2 / 1 6 ISSUE X X / X X / X X ISSUE X X / X X / X X 3/16" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL 3/16" = 1'-0"2 SECOND LEVEL 3/16" = 1'-0"3 THIRD LEVEL P235 IV.A. MA I N L E V E L 10 0 ' - 0 " SE C O N D L E V E L 11 0 ' - 0 " TH I R D L E V E L 12 0 ' - 0 " RO O F 13 0 ' - 0 " MAIN LEVEL 100'-0"SECOND LEVEL 110'-0"THIRD LEVEL 120'-0"ROOF 130'-0"MAIN LEVEL 100'-0"SECOND LEVEL 110'-0"THIRD LEVEL 120'-0"ROOF 130'-0"MAIN LEVEL 100'-0"SECOND LEVEL 110'-0"THIRD LEVEL 120'-0"ROOF 130'-0"CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS C610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557www.cunniffe.com SHEET NO.DRAWING:JOB NO. 4 / 8 / 2 0 1 6 9 : 1 6 : 0 1 A M A3.11506EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS540 HOUSING 540 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO ISSUE: D A T E : ISSUE X X / X X / X X HPC/PLANNING 1 5 / 1 2 / 1 6 ISSUE X X / X X / X X ISSUE X X / X X / X X 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 4 NO R T H E L E V A T I O N 3/16" = 1'-0"2 WEST ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"1 EAST ELEVATON 3/16" = 1'-0"3 SOUTH ELEVATION 01 4 1 6 P236 IV.A. FLOOR AREA GARAGE AREA FA R T A B U L A T I O N _ _ _ _ ________________________________ __OVERHANGS OVER 8'-0"DECKS ABOVE 30" 86 S F DE C K 86 S F DE C K 75 S F EL E V A T O R 22 6 1 S F FI R S T L E V E L HO U S I N G 11 9 6 S F FI R S T L E V E L HO U S I N G 69 S F DE C K 69 S F DE C K 45 S F ST A I R 1 51 S F ST A I R 2 86 S F BA L C O N Y 86 S F BA L C O N Y 75 S F EL E V A T O R 65 8 S F SE C O N D L E V E L HO U S I N G 22 6 1 S F SE C O N D L E V E L HO U S I N G 63 6 S F SE C O N D L E V E L WA L K W A Y 50 S F ST A I R 1 69 S F BA L C O N Y 86 S F BA L C O N Y 99 9 S F TH I R D L E V E L HO U S I N G 23 1 S F TH I R D L E V E L WA L K W A Y EX T E R I O R F L O O R A R E A C A L C U L A T I O N S FL O O R A R E A R A T I O C A L C U L A T I O N S TO T A L E X T E R I O R F L O O R A R E A TO T A L B U I L D I N G F L O O R A R E A EX T E R I O R A R E A A L L O W E D 15 % X 7 5 2 5 S F EX T E R I O R A R E A A P P L O E D T O F . A . R . 16 4 9 S F - 1 1 2 9 S F 1649 SF 7525 SF 1129 SF 520 SF BU I L D I N G F L O O R A R E A EX T E R I O R A R E A A P P L I E D T O F . A . R . TO T A L F . A . R . 7525 SF 520 SF 8045 SFCHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS C610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557www.cunniffe.com SHEET NO.DRAWING:JOB NO. 4 / 8 / 2 0 1 6 1 1 : 2 1 : 0 0 A M A0.21506FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS540 HOUSING 540 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO ISSUE: D A T E : ISSUE X X / X X / X X HPC/PLANNING 1 5 / 1 2 / 1 6 ISSUE X X / X X / X X ISSUE X X / X X / X X 1 MA I N L E V E L 2 SE C O N D L E V E L 3 TH I R D L E V E L GROSS FLOOR AREA SCHEDULE Name A r e a C o m m e n t s EL E V A T O R 7 5 S F FI R S T L E V E L H O U S I N G 3 4 5 7 S F EL E V A T O R 7 5 S F SE C O N D L E V E L H O U S I N G 2 9 1 9 S F TH I R D L E V E L H O U S I N G 9 9 9 S F 7525 SF GROSS EXTERIOR FL OOR AREA SCHEDULE Name A r e a C o m m e n t s DE C K 8 6 S F DE C K 8 6 S F DE C K 6 9 S F DE C K 6 9 S F ST A I R 1 4 5 S F ST A I R 2 5 1 S F BA L C O N Y 8 6 S F BA L C O N Y 8 6 S F BA L C O N Y 6 9 S F SE C O N D L E V E L W A L K W A Y 6 3 6 S F ST A I R 1 5 0 S F BA L C O N Y 8 6 S F TH I R D L E V E L W A L K W A Y 2 3 1 S F 1649 SF *C A L C U L A T I O N S A R E ESTIMATED BASED ON CURRENT DESIGN AS S U M P T I O N S A N D S U B J E C T T O C H A N G E P E N D I N G F I N A L G R A D E AN D L A Y O U T D I R E C T I O N . P237 IV.A. UP A3.1 4 A3 . 1 A3 . 1 A3 . 1 2 3 1 A3 . 2 2 A3 . 2 1 CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS C610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557www.cunniffe.com SHEET NO.DRAWING:JOB NO. 4 / 8 / 2 0 1 6 1 1 : 2 1 : 0 0 A M A2.11506MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN540 HOUSING 540 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO ISSUE: D A T E : ISSUE X X / X X / X X HPC/PLANNING 1 5 / 1 2 / 1 6 ISSUE X X / X X / X X ISSUE X X / X X / X X 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 MAIN LEVEL P238 IV.A. UP A3.1 4 A3 . 1 A3 . 1 A3 . 1 2 3 1 A3 . 2 2 A3 . 2 1 CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS C610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557www.cunniffe.com SHEET NO.DRAWING:JOB NO. 4 / 8 / 2 0 1 6 1 1 : 2 1 : 0 1 A M A2.21506SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN540 HOUSING 540 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO ISSUE: D A T E : ISSUE X X / X X / X X HPC/PLANNING 1 5 / 1 2 / 1 6 ISSUE X X / X X / X X ISSUE X X / X X / X X 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 SE C O N D L E V E L P239 IV.A. A3.1 4 A3 . 1 A3 . 1 2 3 A3 . 2 2 A3 . 2 1 CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS C610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557www.cunniffe.com SHEET NO.DRAWING:JOB NO. 4 / 8 / 2 0 1 6 1 1 : 2 1 : 0 1 A M A2.31506THIRD LEVEL FLOOR PLAN540 HOUSING 540 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO ISSUE: D A T E : HPC/PLANNING 1 5 / 1 2 / 1 6 ISSUE X X / X X / X X ISSUE X X / X X / X X 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 THIRD LEVEL P240 IV.A. MA I N L E V E L 10 0 ' - 0 " SE C O N D L E V E L 11 0 ' - 0 " TH I R D L E V E L 12 0 ' - 0 " RO O F 13 0 ' - 0 " MAIN LEVEL 100'-0"SECOND LEVEL 110'-0"THIRD LEVEL 120'-0"ROOF 130'-0"MAIN LEVEL 100'-0"SECOND LEVEL 110'-0"THIRD LEVEL 120'-0"ROOF 130'-0"MAIN LEVEL 100'-0"SECOND LEVEL 110'-0"THIRD LEVEL 120'-0"ROOF 130'-0"CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS C610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557www.cunniffe.com SHEET NO.DRAWING:JOB NO. 4 / 8 / 2 0 1 6 1 1 : 2 1 : 0 3 A M A3.11506EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS540 HOUSING 540 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO ISSUE: D A T E : ISSUE X X / X X / X X HPC/PLANNING 1 5 / 1 2 / 1 6 ISSUE X X / X X / X X ISSUE X X / X X / X X 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 4 NO R T H E L E V A T I O N 3/16" = 1'-0"2 WEST ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"1 EAST ELEVATON 3/16" = 1'-0"3 SOUTH ELEVATION 01 4 1 6 P241 IV.A. MAIN LEVEL 100'-0"SECOND LEVEL 110'-0"THIRD LEVEL 120'-0"ROOF 130'-0"MAIN LEVEL 100'-0"SECOND LEVEL 110'-0"THIRD LEVEL 120'-0"ROOF 130'-0"CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS C610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557www.cunniffe.com SHEET NO.DRAWING:JOB NO. 4 / 8 / 2 0 1 6 1 1 : 2 1 : 0 4 A M A3.21506EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS540 HOUSING 540 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO ISSUE: D A T E : ISSUE X X / X X / X X HPC/PLANNING 1 5 / 1 2 / 1 6 ISSUE X X / X X / X X ISSUE X X / X X / X X 1 EAST ELEVATON_12WEST ELEVATION_1 01 4 1 6 P242 IV.A. NE W C O R R . M T L . R O O F NE W F I R E R E T A R D E N T WD . S H I N G L E S NON-HISTORIC ADDITION TO BE REMOVED 5 6 3 2 H2 . 1 5 H2.1 6 H2 . 1 2 H2 . 1 3 15'-2"8'-6"7'-6" 19 ' - 6 " 15 ' - 8 " 8'- 4 " 9 " 1 3 ' - 1 0 " 1 2 ' - 1 0 " 3 ' - 9 " 4'-3" 5'- 5 " 10 ' - 1 0 " 23 ' - 8 " NON-HISTORIC ADDITION TO BE REMOVED CO R R . M T L . R O O F WD . W I N D O W A N D T R I M TO M A T C H E X I S T I N G VE R I F Y O R I G I N A L W D . S I D I N G (V E R T I C A L O R H O R I Z . ) A N D RE P L A C E T O M A T C H VE R I F Y O R I G I N A L W D . S I D I N G (V E R T I C A L O R H O R I Z . ) A N D RE P L A C E T O M A T C H FA S C I A T R I M T O MA T C H E X I S T I N G NE W C O N C . S L A B 1A NO N - H I S T O R I C AD D I T I O N T O BE R E M O V E D NE W W D . F I R E R E T A R D E N T S H I N G L E S VE R I F Y O R I G I N A L W D . S I D I N G ( V E R T I C A L OR H O R I Z . ) A N D R E P L A C E T O M A T C H WD . W I N D O W A N D T R I M TO M A T C H E X I S T I N G FA S C I A T R I M T O M A T C H E X I S T I N G FA S C I A T R I M T O MA T C H E X I S T I N G 1A WD . D O O R A N D H A R D W A R E T O MA T C H E X I S T I N G NE W C O N C . S L A B NO N - H I S T O R I C AD D I T I O N T O BE R E M O V E D WD . F I R E R E T A R D E N T SH I N G L E S WD . P O R C H A N D T R I M TO M A T C H E X I S T I N G VE R I F Y O R I G I N A L W D . S I D I N G ( V E R T I C A L OR H O R I Z . ) A N D R E P L A C E T O M A T C H VE R I F Y O R I G I N A L W D . S I D I N G (V E R T I C A L O R H O R I Z . ) A N D RE P L A C E T O M A T C H FA S C I A T R I M T O M A T C H E X I S T I N G WD . W I N D O W A N D T R I M TO M A T C H E X I S T I N G RE N O V A T E / R E P A I R E X I S T . L O G WA L L A N D C H I N K NE W C O N C . S L A B 1A VE R I F Y O R I G I N A L W D . S I D I N G ( V E R T I C A L O R HO R I Z . ) A N D R E P L A C E T O M A T C H FA S C I A T R I M T O M A T C H E X I S T I N G WD . W I N D O W A N D T R I M T O MA T C H E X I S T I N G RE N O V A T E / R E P A I R E X I S T . LO G W A L L A N D C H I N K WD . D O O R A N D H A R D W A R E T O MA T C H E X I S T I N G WD . F I R E R E T A R D E N T SH I N G L E S NE W C O N C . S L A B 1A CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS C610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557www.cunniffe.com SHEET NO.DRAWING:JOB NO. 3 / 9 / 2 0 1 6 9 : 2 9 : 3 3 A M H2.11506ZUPANCIS PLAN/ELEVATIONS540 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 4 ZU P A N C I S - T . O . R O O F 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 ZU P A N C I S F L O O R P L A N 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 6 ZU P A N C I S - N O R T H E L E V A T I O N 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 5 ZU P A N C I S - E A S T E L E V A T I O N 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 3 ZU P A N C I S - W E S T E L E V A T I O N 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 ZU P A N C I S - S O U T H E L E V A T I O N 0 14 8 KEYNOTE LEGEND Key Value K e y n o t e T e x t 1A R E S T O R E A N D R E P A I R T O MATCH EXISTING MATERIALS -REVIEW W/ HPC PRIOR TO WORK 2A R E L O C A T E S T R U C T U R E - LOCATION TBD ISSUE: D A T E : HISTORIC ZUPANCIS STRUCTURES 540 RESTORATIONCATION P243 IV.A. 8'-10"12'-0"H2.2 5 H2.24H2.2 2 NEW CONC. SLAB NE W W D . F I R E R E T A R D E N T SH I N G L E S VE R T I C A L W D . S I D I N G T O MA T C H E X I S I T N G 2 P A N E L W D . D O O R FA S C I A T R I M T O M A T C H EX I S T I N G 1A VE R T I C A L W D . SI D I N G T O M A T C H EX I S I T N G FA S C I A T R I M T O MA T C H E X I S T I N G 1A VE R T I C A L W D . S I D I N G TO M A T C H E X I S I T N G FA S C I A T R I M T O MA T C H E X I S T I N G NE W W D . F I R E RE T A R D E N T S H I N G L E S 1A VE R T I C A L W D . S I D I N G T O MA T C H E X I S I T N G FA S C I A T R I M T O MA T C H E X I S T I N G WD . W I N D O W A N D T R I M TO M A T C H E X I S T I N G 1A 20'-1" 24 ' - 5 " H2 . 2 10 H2.2 9 H2 . 2 8 H2 . 2 7 2A 2A 2A 2A NE W F I R E R E T A R D E N T WD . S H I N G L E S CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS C610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557www.cunniffe.com SHEET NO.DRAWING:JOB NO. 3 / 9 / 2 0 1 6 9 : 2 9 : 3 4 A M H2.21506BARN & SHED PLAN/ELEVATIONS540 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 1/4" = 1'-0"1 SHED FLOOR PLAN 0 14 8 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 SH E D - S O U T H E L E V A T I O N 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 3 SH E D - E A S T E L E V A T I O N 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 4 SH E D - N O R T H E L E V A T I O N 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 5 SH E D - W E S T E L E V A T I O N 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 6 BA R N F L O O R P L A N 7 BA R N - S O U T H E L E V A T I O N 8 BA R N - E A S T E L E V A T I O N 9 BA R N - N O R T H E L E V A T I O N 10 BA R N - W E S T E L E V A T I O N 11 SH E D - T . O . R O O F 12 BA R N - T . O . R O O F KEYNOTE LEGEND Key Value K e y n o t e T e x t 1A R E S T O R E A N D R E P A I R T O MATCH EXISTING MATERIALS -REVIEW W/ HPC PRIOR TO WORK 2A R E L O C A T E S T R U C T U R E - LOCATION TBD ISSUE: D A T E : HPC/PLANNING 1 5 / 1 2 / 1 6 HISTORIC ZUPANCIS STRUCTURES 540 RESTORATIONCATION P244 IV.A. HI S T O R I C H O U S E HI S T O R I C S H E D HI S T O R I C B A R N ON E X I S T I N G FO U N D A T I O N EX I S T I N G B A R N MA R O L T T R A I L CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS C610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557www.cunniffe.com SHEET NO.DRAWING:JOB NO. 2 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 6 2 : 3 0 : 5 2 P M A11.71506MAROLT SITE PLAN540 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 1 " = 3 0 ' - 0 " 1 MA R O L T S I T E P L A N NO R T H ISSUE: D A T E : HISTORIC ZUPANCIS STRUCTURES MAROLT RELOCATION P245 IV.A. ASPEN POLICE STATION HPC APRIL 2016 0 4 8 16 ELEVATION RAMP GUARDRAIL ALONG SIDEWALK HANDRAIL ALONG RAMP RAMP SIDEWALK CONCEPT 600 RAMP RAMP RAMP RAMP LANDING LANDING LANDING LANDING LAND-ING LAND-ING GARAGE DOOR LANDING LANDING PLAN A A A1 A1 P 2 4 6 I V . A . ASPEN POLICE STATION HPC APRIL 2016 0 4 8 16 GUARDRAIL ALONG RAMP GUARDRAIL ALONG SIDEWALK 5’ RADIUS 4 1/3’ RADIUS SIDEWALK SIDEWALK RAMP RAMP STAIRSLANDING LANDING LANDING LANDINGB B B1 B1 ELEVATION PLAN P 2 4 7 I V . A . ASPEN POLICE STATION HPC APRIL 2016 0 4 8 16 ELEVATION GUARDRAIL ALONG RAMP GUARDRAIL ALONG SIDEWALK SIDEWALK SIDEWALK RAMP RAMP STAIRSLANDING LANDING LANDING LANDING PLAN C C C1 C1 P 2 4 8 I V . A . 1 RESTORATION/REHABILITATION Eligible Projects: 120 Red Mountain Road 206 Lake Avenue 233 W. Hallam 514 E. Hyman 521 E. Hyman MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 2015 Awards Selection DATE: April 27, 2016 SUMMARY: Since 1990, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission has celebrated local historic preservation successes by presenting awards to individuals, companies, and projects demonstrating excellence in preservation. This year’s awards are to be held on May 23rd during a City Council meeting. Descriptions of the categories are below, along with a list of eligible projects. HPC is invited to a group site visit on the day of the meeting and staff will provide photos of the eligible projects at the HPC meeting. Eligible projects received Final Inspection or Certificate of Occupancy between April 2015 and March 2016. Only projects that were relatively significant in scope or effort are being presented for HPC consideration. There is no limit on the number of awards that may be presented. Within the last few years, HPC identified a point system that could be used for reference in determining which projects to recognize. Staff is not providing any scoring. The award selections are left to the board. Maximum of 40 points: o The quality and compatibility of design (including landscape) and workmanship with the historic resource (0-5 points) o The quality of new materials and restoration of historic material in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (0-5 points) o Sensitivity to the building’s historic and architectural character (0-5 points) o The impact of the project on the surrounding neighborhood/community (0-5 points) o An outstanding example of creative work within the HPC design guidelines (0-5 points) P249 IV.B. 2 THE “EXTRA EFFORT” AWARD This award is for an individual or group that has taken extra steps to preserve a historic resource. Potential Recipient: Bill Bailey, longtime house mover in Aspen o An outstanding investment of time and money in restoring a building and landscape to it’s historic appearance (0-5 points) o Adaptive use of a historic building that enhances the interpretation of the historic resource (0-5 points) o Contribution or enhancement to the interpretation of the historic resource or Aspen history (0-5 points) Maximum of 25 points: o The quality and compatibility of design (including landscape), workmanship, and materials within the historic district (0-5 points) o Sensitivity to the adjacent buildings’ historic and architectural character (0-5 points) o The impact of the project on the surrounding neighborhood/community (0-5 points) o An outstanding example of creative work within the HPC DesignGuidelines (0-5 points) o Contribution or enhancement to the interpretation of the historic resource or Aspen history (0-5 points) MAXIMUM OF 25 POINTS: o The participants’ dedication to look at creative options in an effort to find the best solution for the project (0-5 points) o The participants’ willingness to volunteer designation of a property or to sacrifice some aspect of a property’s development rights (0-5 points) o The quality of design (including landscape), workmanship, and materials (0-5 points) o Sensitivity to the district’s or building’s historic and architectural character (0-5 points) o The impact of the project on the surrounding neighborhood/community (0-5 points) NEW CONSTRUCTION ON A LANDMARK PROPERTY Eligible Project: None NEW CONSTRUCTION WITHIN A HISTORIC DISTRICT Eligible Project: 204 S. Galena P250 IV.B. 3 THE ELIZABETH PAEPCKE AWARD This award is for an individual or group that has been a long-time preservation leader, demonstrating commitment to historic preservation or for an individual or group who has lead an outstanding one-time preservation effort that has had a clear impact on Aspen. Potential Recipient: ? Maximum of 20 points: o The overall quality (craftsmanship, design, landscape, programming) of their work (0-5 points) o The innovative interpretation and enhancement of Aspen’s heritage through their work (0-5 points) o Their dedication to preserving Aspen’s heritage (0-5 points) o Contribution of their work to the Aspen community (0-5 points) Maximum of 20 points: o The overall quality (craftsmanship, design, landscape) of their work (0-5 points) o Sensitivity to context (0-5 points) o The innovative interpretation and enhancement of Aspen’s heritage through their work (0-5 points) o Contribution of their work to the Aspen community (0-5 points) Attachment: Previous award winners THE WELTON ANDERSON AWARD This award is for an individual or firm that has contributed to Aspen’s built environment through outstanding new design over a sustained period of time, or through one particularly important project. Potential Recipient: ? P251 IV.B. HPC Preservation Honor Awards 1988 131 E. Hallam- renovation 332 W. Main- adaptive use Wheeler-Stallard- museum Aspen Community Church- restoration Wheeler Opera House- service to the arts community Hotel Jerome- renovation Courthouse- renovation 1989 Brand building- restoration 134 W. Hopkins- renovation St. Mary’s- renovation 520 E. Hyman- infill 303 W. Francis- infill 1990 Smith Elisha- renovation, adaptive reuse Sardy House- addition 525 N. 2nd-renovation 222 E. Hallam- infill 201 W. Francis- cottage infill AHS and City of Aspen- Holden Marolt lease 201 E. Main- neighborhood revitalization 432 W. Francis- craftsmanship 1991 1992 Welton Anderson award, posthumously to Welton Anderson Elizabeth Paepke Preservation Pioneer Award- Mona Frost Collins Block- renovation, Wayne Poulson and Rod Dyer, Harley Baldwin 333 W. Bleeker- restoration, Georgeanne Waggaman, Ruth Whyte, BOA, David Barron, Mary Lou Pfeiffer Pitkin Co. Courthouse law library- David Gibson Black Shack Studios and Studio B- cottage infill, Glenn Rappaport and Scott Lindenau/Charles Roberts 100 E. Bleeker- renovation, Ed and Angie Grosse 127 E. Hallam- cottage infill, Bill Poss and Associates 360 Lake- infill, Don Erdman City Hall Centennial Committee 17 Queen Street County: Sharon and Boyd Jeffries for the round barn David and Priscilla Parker for Happy Day Ranch P252 IV.B. 1993 Welton Anderson Award- Fritz Benedict Elizabeth Paepke Award- Les Holst, Aspen Historic Trust for Pioneer Park purchase 1994 Elizabeth Paepke Award- Bill Poss, Larry Frederick 612 W. Main Street- renovation, Rod Dyer, Sandra Arcara, Walters Construction Co. 716 W. Francis- renovation, Charles Cunniffe Architects, Joe and Dee Bellina, Ivan Manich (earlier architect) St. Mary’s- elevator addition, Ted Guy, St. Mary’s Church, Rudd Construction 234 W. Francis- carriage house, Charles Cunniffe Architects, Quentin Vidor, BOA 134 E. Bleeker- renovation, Jake Vickery/Bill Poss, Paul and Susan Penn, Lone Pine Construction 1995 Elizabeth Paepke Award- Smuggler Mining Co. for mine tours Lewis Teague house City Shop Pedestrian Malls- Robin Molny Red Brick 1996 Elizabeth Paepke Award- Francis Whitaker 409 E. Hopkins- infill, Bill Poss and Associates, Dr. and Mrs. Itakura, Harriman City Hall- Raul Gawrys, City of Aspen, Valle del Rio and Craig Ripley 520 Walnut- adaptive use, Gretchen Greenwood and Michael Ortiz, John Olson Benedict Commons- Harry Teague Architects, Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority, Marcall Construction 1997 Welton Anderson Award- Robin Molny 515 Gillespie- restoration, Neil and Pamela Beck 616 W. Main- cottage infill, Jake Vickery, Jeffrey Aaronson, 525 W. Hallam- renovation, Glen Rappaport, Julie Wyckoff ACES- renovation, Ted Guy, ACES 1998 Awards not held 1999 435 W. Main, L’Auberge D’Aspen- L’Auberge D’Aspen/Haisfield Family, Dave Gibson of Gibson and Reno Architects, Brikor Associates P253 IV.B. Farmer’s Market- Planner:Mitch Haas, Farmer’s Representative: Jack D’Orio 123 W. Francis-Jake Vickery Architects and Donnelley Erdman, Lone Pine Construction 117 Neale Street Historic Cabin- Jeffery Shoaf, Bruce Poland and Mark Hesselschwerdt 202 & 208 E. Main Street-Claudette and Richard Carter, Joe Burke 2000 117 N. Sixth Street- Lynnie Coulter, owner, Studio B Architects, Brikor, contractors, Scott Jordan Design, Interior 121 N. Fifth Street- Ernie Fyrwald, owner, Mary A. Avjian Architects, Matt Flink Construction Isis Theater- Isis LLC, owners, Charles Cunniffe Architects, Shaw Construction 2001 Paragon 7th and Main Pace Charlie Paterson Ellie Brickham 2002 200 E. Bleeker 330 Lake Avenue 610 W. Smuggler 312 S. Galena Aspen City Council (for adopting the new historic preservation ordinance) Janet Urquhart (for excellent news coverage of hp issues) 2003 323 W. Hallam (Rispoli/DiIanni Family) 428 E. Hyman (Loma Alta Corporation, Michael Fuller Architects, L&M Properties, Jack Wilkie Builders) 515 Gillespie (Randall and Allison Bone, Consortium Architects, Mineo and Associates) 118 E. Cooper (Western Peaks LLC, David Fiore and Mike LeTourneau, Gibson Darr Architects, Marjon Enterprises-Mark Anglin) 328 Park Avenue (Paul and Cristina Nicoletti, Studio B, J.D. Black) Ute Cemetery (Council, Aspen Parks Department, Elks Lodge, Tatanka Historical Associates, BHA Design, Norman’s Memorials, volunteers) 2004 Not held January 2006 135 E. Cooper Avenue (Rehabilitation of a Victorian home) P254 IV.B. 232 W. Main Street, Annabelle Inn (Infill in the Main Street Historic District) 304 W. Hallam Street (Rehabilitation of a Pan Abode residence) 513/523 W. Smuggler Street (Rehabilitation of a Victorian home and construction of a new home on a landmarked property) 535 E. Cooper Avenue (Rehabilitation of a Victorian commercial building) 939 E. Cooper Avenue, Unit B (Construction of a new home on a landmarked property) Tony and Kathy Welgos (Citizen participation in improvements to the Historic Preservation Program and Leadership in voluntarily designating their Chalet style home a historic landmark.) 2007 Awards not held January 2008 631 W. Bleeker Lipkin Warner Design Partnership Kevin Patrick Rasmussen Construction Company, LLC Greg Mozian 635 W. Bleeker Rally Dupps Nancy Spears Rienks Custom Homes 701 W. Main Street Marshall and Susan Olsen Dirk Danker Pat Hunter 530/532/534 E. Hopkins Avenue Greg Hills OZ Architecture Haas Land Use Planning John Olsen Builders Anna. Binbilla Design 629 W. Smuggler One Friday Design Collaborative Robert and India Wardrop John Black Construction Monique Spears P255 IV.B. Pioneer Park Maggie DeWolf Aspen Parks Department Mt. Daly Hicks Scott and Reenie Hicks Doug Rager Dough Throm Frost House Restoration David Belford, owner May 2010 707 N. Third Carol Craig Jennifer Craig Al Beyer Doug Throm Greg and Jane Hills- Extra Effort Award Bill Stirling- Elizabeth Paepcke Award May 2011 1291 Riverside Scott and Alex Kendrick KORU, Ltd. Studio B Architects Bluegreen Cortina Lodge Poss Architecture and Planning Jerome Property LLC Structural Associates, Inc. Paepcke Auditorium Aspen Institute Shaw Construction FMG Jim Curtis Resource Engineering Group Triangle Park City of Aspen Parks Department Melissa Sphatt/All Around Recreation P256 IV.B. Red Onion Red Onion, LLC Poss Architecture and Planning Hansen Construction Jim Markalunas May 2012 202 N. Monarch Stage Fine Homes Scott Smith Architects JD Black Construction Shannon Murphy Landscape Architects Lacroux Streeb Lynni Hutton Inc. KL&A Structural Engineers. 630 E. Hyman Austin Lawrence Partners Rowland + Broughton Architecture and Urban Design John Olson Builder Binbilla Landscaping Haas Land Planning Alpine Bank 216 E. Hyman Ann Mullins 1 Friday Design Lone Pine Construction Elizabeth Paepcke Award Gaard Moses June 2013 612 W. Main Neil Karbank, owner Stryker Brown Architects Jerome Hatem, contractor Hotel Jerome Jerome Properties, LLC: developer Auberge Resorts: operator Rowland + Broughton: architect of record TAL Studio: interior designer RGE Group, LLC: project management Persona Hotels: project management Haselden Construction: general contractor P257 IV.B. KL&A: structural engineer Beaudin Ganze Consulting Engineers MEP Engineering May 2014 302 E. Hopkins, White House Restaurant Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc Rowland+Broughton John Olson Builders Albright and Associates Vann Associates, LLC 200 E. Bleeker, Aspen Community Church Aspen Community United Methodist Church Fonda Paterson, Board of Trustees Representative David Ellis, Board of Trustees Representative Mary K. Oxley Foundation William H. Baker Construction, Inc. Jim Curtis, Owner's Representative Mills + Schnoering Architects, LLC Pattillo Associates Engineers, Inc. The Gallegos Corporation Liz Means Consulting May 2015 Elks Lodge, Dome restoration The Benevolent Protective Order of the Elks, Lodge #224 Graeme Means Architect William H. Baker Construction, Inc. Aspen Insulation/ColWest Roofing Adirondack Flagpoles P258 IV.B.