The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.20160608 AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING June 08, 2016 4:30 PM City Council Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISITS A. None II. 4:30 INTRODUCTION (15 MIN.) A. Roll call B. Approval of minutes May 11, 2016 minutes C. Public Comments D. Commissioner member comments E. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) F. Project Monitoring G. Staff comments H. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued I. Submit public notice for agenda items J. Call-up reports K. HPC typical proceedings III. 4:45 NEW BUSINESS A. 124 W. Hallam- Final Major Development, PUBLIC HEARING IV. 5:30 OLD BUSINESS A. 533 E. Main- Remand of HPC approval granting Conceptual Major Development, Growth Management, Special Review and Viewplane Review, PUBLIC HEARING V. 7:30 ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: Resolution #18, 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 MAY 11, 2016 1 Chair-person, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Nora Berko, Patrick Sagal, John Whipple and Bob Blaich. Absent were Michael Brown, Jim DeFrancia and Gretchen Greenwood. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Reilly Thimons, Planner Tech Amy introduced Reilly Thimons our new Planner Tech for the City of Aspen. MOTION: Bob moved to approve the minutes of April 27, 2016, second by John. All in favor, motion carried 5-0. Disclosure: Nora will recuse herself on 209 E. Bleeker Project monitoring 110 E. Bleeker Amy said HPC granted approval of the project in July 2015. It is a Victorian house that has been altered over the years. It is a brickhouse and painted and the front porch is enclosed. HPC granted approval to demolish non-historic construction on the site and replace it with a new addition. In the discussion we all missed something. At the permit process it was revealed that there is an original window on the rear facing gable end of the house, a double hung window that was to be replaced with a modern sliding door. After Willis and I looked at it we decided HPC needed to give input. One option would be to remove the double hung window and install the larger sliding door. The second option staff could support is to keep the historic window in place and add a new door next to it. The third option would be to replace the existing double hung straight under the gable end with one door. The applicant was hoping to access a deck that HPC approved from the Victorian house. The design guidelines require historic windows to be preserved. They do not say a lot about adding new openings. As long as the original opening is preserved it is OK to add a modest size door next to it. We are requesting guidance from the HPC. P1 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 11, 2016 2 Kim did a power point on the design and walking down the alley. We are doing a major restoration to the three sides of the building and we would like a little more access to the deck that was approved. The existing historic window would not provide proper egress because the sill would be too far above the floor. You will not be able to see the window. Amy pointed out that a bonus was granted and if the window is preserved it needs to be preserved as is and stay where it is and then add a new door next to it. HPC members discussed the drawings, deck issues and determined that the historic window stay and the door can be beside it, revised option #2. Nora and Patrick agreed that the historic window should stay. Willis agreed with staff’s recommendation. The window is a two over two window. Patrick agreed with option #2 or leave the window as is. John and Bob said they are inclined to agree with staff’s recommendation. MOTION: Willis moved to approve option #2 revised with the door beside the original window, second by Bob. All in favor, motion carried. Exhibit I. Motion carried 5-0. 845 Meadows Road, Aspen Meadows Reception Center – Conceptual Major Development, Growth Management, Planned Development, Public Hearing Debbie said the affidavits are in order. The applicant had to re-notice because it is a planned development. Exhibit I Amy said this is the second hearing on the project and staff has suggested that the pedestrian bridge that is being proposed to the deck be relocated because it is attaching to an historic structure. Jim Curtis and Nick Keptura presented for the Aspen Institute. P2 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 11, 2016 3 Jim said over the last 3 weeks Amy and I have spent time going over the FAR numbers for the Aspen Meadows since 1993. We both agree on 781 square feet above the original approval which is about 0.9% less than 1% above the original approval of 83,000 square feet. Of the 781 square feet half of that is made up of a 1993 insubstantial approval that took place on the health club and the tennis facility that were overlooked. That would be a close out of the 1991 SPA plan. At the March 23rd meeting HPC suggested we relocate the north addition off the original building. We have done that and that 379 square feet is behind the existing blue mechanical screen. You don’t see it from any place. To facilitate we are proposing a full basement. We are connecting the two subgrade basements and making a full basement for additional storage space. We are also adding an internal freight elevator inside at the back of the building. Digging that out will be expensive and if we can’t afford it we will just live with the north addition. Nick said we are proposing a two-step solution from the old terrace to the new terrace. Jim said the second item HPC wanted us to look at is the connection of the new pavilion to the existing building. The existing concrete T’s on the old building are very important and we want to keep those exposed. We can put a thin beam in under the existing concrete T’s that would allow the T’s to be exposed. Nick presented a sectional study. There will also be an expansion joint incorporated. Jim said the next item is the proposed entry bridge. We would prefer option A that connects to the historic building. Option B does not connect to the existing building and C doesn’t connect to the existing building. The benefit of all three options would allow the landing and the exterior stairs that were done in 2005 to go away. The visual of the south elevation of the building gets cleaned up and you have a visual horizontal line of the building. We like option A because as you enter the entry bridge from the sculpture you get a direct on view of the existing building and there is a natural landscape break that focuses your eye to the building. From a functional point of view you go along the cat walk and go to the Plato terrace and then the new terrace. It separates the foot traffic into logical sequences where you would P3 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 11, 2016 4 like to go. There is an existing cat walk on the building and the width is 3’3”. The Building Dept. suggested that it be expanded to 6’3” and extend out to cover the existing door. The landing and stairs would go away and the cat walk expanded. Option B has a kink in the pedestrian bridge that seems contrived to us. Option B doesn’t work for the institute because if there is a gathering on the new terrace you are intermixing traffic and they might have to go through a social event. Option C is not attractive and would require that two nice spruce trees be removed from the hillside. You also have the same problem of intermixing foot traffic. With Option A the existing exterior stair goes away. When you walk on the pedestrian bridge you focus on the new building and it integrates the sculpture experience. We understand it has an impact on the existing building. It is visually a good way to create a second exit which is required by the Building code and to eliminate the exterior stair which creates a lot of clutter on the south elevation. Jim said in the resolution we are proposing a change to Section #4 about decks. Decks have never been considered in any of the SPA improvements since 1991. We do not want to do anything regarding decks, terrace and patios that would potentially discourage the Meadows from doing anything in the future. In the code in, decks, terrace and patios in the lodge, commercial, and mixed use zoning are exempt. They usually show up in the residential zoning. The configuration of the Meadows is more of the downtown situation where you want to create outside spaces and social interaction. Jim said in Section #7 we are dealing with 781 square feet above and beyond the 1991 SPA. I view this project as closing out the 1991 SPA Plan. We request that the 781 square feet be treated the same way as the 1991 plan which was that all of the square footage be treated as an essential public facility and exempt from the Growth Management and exempt from employee mitigation. Jim said in Section #10 regarding overflow parking for large events we request the last sentence be deleted which is future parking shall be parallel P4 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 11, 2016 5 only. The city may want to add signs in the area stating parallel parking only. On April 26th we met with the Parking Department, Parks, Transportation and did a site visit and agreed on a management plan for Meadows Rd. The major of the parking on Meadows Rd. would be parallel only but there were two spaces where we could do angled parking. The overriding concern were people pulling face in and getting too close to the cottonwood trees which negatively impacts the roots. We will be limited 15 feet back from the road and five feet from the cottonwoods and we would put up some kind of blockage or do a split rail fence. Amy summarized the proposed resolution. You are doing a conceptual level review and making a recommendation to City Council and then it will come back to HPC for final review. This proposal takes the property over by 781 square feet from what was approved in 1991. We have never counted the decks until this date. Some of the buildings have substantial decks which were allowed. Over the years our code has changed and decks can cause more bulk on a building. Decks can count in floor area in our existing code but not for every project and not in every location. We can strike the sentence as suggested. On the parking we are just memorializing the calculations. On growth management we are only dealing with the 781 square feet. The 83,000 square feet that was approved previously was exempt from affordable housing. It was done in the name of making the Meadows successful. Our question is what about the 781 square feet. Maybe we can pin point if any new employees are hired and because of the 781 there ought to be some audit of it. Council will look at your recommendation. In Section #8 we need to state which of the Urban Runoff Management plan applies to this project. The TIA is a work in progress and there is discussion about making improvements to the trail. Section #9 is standards regarding tree protection. Section #10 is about parking control and protecting the trees. Amy addressed the pedestrian bridge. Our understanding was that the staircase would be removed and in its place would be the bridge, with basically no change. There is now an additional alternation to the building. The rooftop was never occupied originally and at some point the railing was added. The small skinny piece wasn’t meant to be walked on. It was a roof overhang protecting the area on the ground floor. We have a substantial concern with adding this alteration and covering more of the exposed T’s and adding a deck area. We didn’t understand all this was happening. We would like to see some other possibilities. Jim didn’t go into that. Right P5 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 11, 2016 6 now egress is at the front door or down the staircase. With the new deck we still need two forms of egress. The applicant either has to hang on to the staircase they have now or create a new way to get off the roof. This is a Herbert Bayer and Fritz Benedict design and we don’t support something that extends the deck out. The trees in question are not noteworthy trees and possibly there could be a study to go directly straight across. What we have heard if you are not ready to support this proposal they would prefer a continuation. Jim said we are just trying to make a fun attractive entry into the building. The bridge is attractive rather than the exterior stairway. Nick said if we keep the stairs as designed there will be a lot of congestion that we will have to look at and consider. Nora said the problem is that the existing walkway isn’t big enough or wide enough. Jim said the stairs and landing were put in in 2005 as part of the Harry Teague addition to comply with building code exit requirements. The cat walk is 3’3” and the Bldg. Dept. requested we increase that to make it more ADA friendly. If it stayed the existing width they would prefer that the windows get changed out to tempered windows which is a safety concern. 3’3” would comply but it makes sense to make that wider to accommodate two or three people at a time. At that point it interferes with the covered area. Jim said another functional reason for the bridge access is when large groups check into the Meadows that check in area can be congested. They could bypass that area and come in through the bar or Platos or go downstairs. Patrick pointed out that everyone checks in at the front desk. Patrick said in the summer people go by the herb garden and come out the south end and go down the bike path or up to the art area to get to the parking lot. On the new terrace they either go down the stairs or all the way through again. Nick said there are two exits from the new terrace. The ramp to the bridge or come down and hit the stairs and out to the exterior of the building. P6 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 11, 2016 7 John asked if they discussed materiality of the bridge. If we saw the materiality we could see how it interacts with the building. Nick said they will discuss that for final but in general it will be transparent with a mesh pattern that will match the existing railing. Willis said the 3’3” is simply a shading device on the historic fabric of the Bayer building. Amy said it is a roof overhang. Debbie said it was the change in the date that required a new notice. This application is the same as the one before. The difference is that they have all agreed that there is an increase in square footage. Amy said at the last meeting the board seemed generally supportive of the project. This bridge information is new. It was continued due to the numbers, square footage. Nothing was approved at the last meeting. Willis pointed out that we have members here that were not at the previous meeting. Nick went through the graphics of the project giving an overview of the building for the HPC members. The reason why the angled bridge is proposed because we are trying to propose a new outdoor pre-function space and an arrival court that can be pleasant for people to come during the summers and come through and celebrate at the old addition. Patrick said the bridge is where it is so that trees won’t be removed. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Willis identified the issues: Planned Development Project Review Dimensional Requirements, the deck language should probably not remain. Architectural design/bridge Mass and scale P7 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 11, 2016 8 Willis said it is important to look at the perspectives in the packet and the views of the bridge. We need to look at the overall concept of adding onto an historic structure that has already been added onto once. Parking Growth management – how to mitigate for 781 square feet when the previous 83,000 square feet has not been mitigated for and considered an essential public facility. Engineering Dept. conditions Parks Dept. A lot of the issues have been approved by the department Over flow parking - Some changes were requested regarding the parallel parking. Environmental Health Water Department Outdoor lighting Building Department Patrick said trees are equally important as a building. The group gathering spot is clear. Possibly move the north end of the bridge 15 feet to the west so that it comes in where the new building and old building connect, the knuckle. Willis said there are a lot of possibility having the bridge connect to the new construction vs the old. The 3’3” should just turn into a shading device as it historically has always been. Remove the Harry Teague stair and do some good restoration work. They could also trim up the trees so that it is more visible to the public. Protecting trees is not as important as protecting the landmark. Patrick asked if the blue canvas could be replaced. Willis said the use of fabric is a modern material from that era and is consistent with the Institute. The blue canvas was up in the 2005 addition. John said he is Ok with the 781 calculation. He also said he could accept the parallel parking amendment. Regarding the bridge the approach of not cutting down the trees and just approaching the new building is preferred. With careful design something could be figured out to pay homage to the current building. It needs to be a product of its own time and not part of the Herbert Bayer building. P8 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 11, 2016 9 Willis said he is also fine with the changes in Section #4,7,10. It is not appropriate to re-create historic fabric and create this impression of faux- history. Willis said the development of outdoor space is about three months or less. From the old photographs you would walk up to the windows and look down into the gorge and when you put a deck in front of that you lose that experience. The deck in front of the historic fabric is troubling and counter to the intent of the original design. Bob said at the last meeting he was positive about the project and the only wrinkle now is the bridge connection. Possibly pivoting the bridge and bringing it into the building at a different point. You would still have a direct line into the building but you wouldn’t have the problem of having to extend the connector at the building. Jim Curtis said people like the natural break in the landscaping and view of the building. There may be variations on how we start at one point and where we end up. We would be happy to come back and look at transparency and how we fit it into the space. Willis said the 3’3” strip should be dropped as a circulation zone. This is high quality grade architectural lineage here and it is one of two spots in the country that host Bauhaus architecture. John said utilizing the unused space by the sculpture will present a cool pathway to appreciate the building visually. Nora commented that she doesn’t want any more of the historic fabric to go away. They figured it out on the north and can figure it out on the south. I like the idea of the bridge not touching the old building and coming into the new building. Amy went over the amendments to the resolution. Section #4 delete the sentence that talks about the decks. Section #7 strike the recommendation of an audit and the project would be exempt from growth management. Section #8 detention is required for all new or altered impervious area. URMP revised 2014 standards. Section #10 delete the last two sentences. Debbie said there needs to be an approved plan set. Amy said there is no square footage left. P9 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 11, 2016 10 Jim Curtis said it is not a prohibition. You might see something in the future. John said the FTE’s should be dealt with by council. I trust the applicant that full time employees won’t change. Patrick said the audit should be left in as it doesn’t hurt anything. Willis agreed. John said he is fine leaving the audit in but it isn’t an effective tool. Bob asked what the employee impact would be. Amy said it would probably be 1 person. Nora said she is also fine leaving the audit in because it is not onerous. Amy said Section #5 not to re-create historic fabric. Do not extend the 3’3” sunshade as circulation space. Eliminate the Harry Teague stair. Look at other entry points that minimize if at all any contact with the historic fabric. Take more liberties with the landscape. Willis pointed out that there are ways to connect without touching the historic fabric. Nick clarified that when the stair goes away the landing goes away also. MOTION: Willis made the motion to approve resolution #14 with the additions to #4,5,7,8,10. Motion second by Nora. Roll call vote: Patrick, yes; Willis, yes; Bob, yes; Nora, yes; John, yes. Motion carried 5-0. 209 E. Bleeker – Final Major Development – Public Hearing Nora recused herself Debbie said she reviewed the public notice and it has been appropriately provided. Exhibit I P10 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 11, 2016 11 Amy said HPC granted conceptual in November for a renovation and expansion of the house. It took two hearings to grant conceptual. The original front porch is there but it is enclosed. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. There are setback variances granted for the sides and in the rear. There are several new conditions regarding the historic house. The railing on the front porch should be deleted. We need more information about what the foundation would look like and possibly metal flashing should be incorporated. We would like to inspect the house once the interior finishes are removed so we can make sure all the windows are going in the right position. This house like most miners cottages has two front doors. One was for company and the family used the other door. The two front doors will be put back where they originally were. One is fixed in place but we are asking that it be operable. We would also like the light fixture proposed to be a little more simpler. Staff asked for a restudy of the windows in the addition to be more vertical and that has been accomplished. We have also asked for drawings of the fence proposed along the alley. Additional drawings – Exhibit II. Amy pointed out that there is a break in the ridge line. Kim Raymond, architect presented Kim said they will restore the cabin and they took the rail off. The cabin is right on the property line and the concrete wall was built. We would like to take down the concrete block wall which is not historic. It is partially on their property and partially on the neighboring property. There is a window in the building which might be historic. When we get into the interior we will be able to tell if the window was there originally. In 1956 a door was not there. The front porch will be reconstructed. Some members preferred to see the ridge line broken so we made a notch to add light. There was a back door found in the basement that will be reused. There is a shed roof on the back of the cabin that will attach to a flat roof link and then the new building that is added on. On the north elevation of the addition we narrowed the windows up by 1 ½ feet to make them taller and narrower in appearance. We are trying to make it visually like two little cabins one taller than the other. At the last meeting Amy asked if we would restudy the link and put it under the shed roof. We did look at that but the shed roof comes down to 7’4” and if we put the new linking roof under that element then we are at 6’4”. We are putting it just right over it and keeping it narrower so that it isn’t noticeable. This gives us the ability to keep the connection well behind the cabin. P11 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 11, 2016 12 Kim went over the conditions in the resolution. The setbacks have not changed but we changed the drawings to comply with the building code. The front porch will be reconstructed and we will use the photographs as a guide. The building was picked up when they put the basement in from its original location. We will do flashing that will cover the concrete block. The front door can be operable. The lighting fixture is very simple and one will go at the front door and two on the addition by the door and garage which are needed by code. There is a fence along the alley that will be a steel fence built on top of the existing concrete. It will have two by four steel posts. It provides privacy but also allows light to come through. We have done what staff has asked us and are very excited about the project. The BBQ on the original plan has been taken out of the setback. The landscaping will be very simple. Willis asked about the materiality of the new construction. Kim said it will be butt joint siding on the new building and on the old building we will restore what we can. Above and between the windows we will have plate steel that will match the window. John asked about the roofing material on the addition. Kim said it will be a standing seem metal black or charcoal grey. The color is very simple white and dark grey. Amy said there is a three foot band that should be solid rather than window which needs a variance from the RDS’s. Willis asked about the concrete wall on the west. Kim said when you are in the building you can’t see out over it. It is about 8 feet tall and we would like to see it come down. We were going to approach the neighbor and go through legal steps to take it down. It would also give the cabin more breathing room if it was gone. In front of the new building we were just going to do some tall grasses. There are two large pine trees that are staying and an aspen tree. John asked if there are comparison elevations on the roof of before and now. Kim said the only thing that changed is the notch. P12 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 11, 2016 13 Chairperson Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Willis identified the issues: Landscape plan Lighting fixture Conditions of approval in the resolution Concrete wall RDS variance on the front façade Willis said the setbacks were approved at conceptual. Willis said he agrees with the recommendations from staff. Patrick said he finds the shed roof to the flat roof on the addition problematic. The roof break is desirable. Kim said she understands Patrick’s comment but then you have a butterfly effect. We will use heat tape and drainage. We could do a cricket also. Matching the line is not honoring the historic cabin. We want this building to be a product of our time and different from the cabin. Bob said the split in the roof improves the entire building. Willis said on the east view the color and materiality of the window openings is to exaggerate the scale and make it bigger than it really is. Is that an appropriate application to a mass that already was felt too big to begin with. It looks a little bit like a church. Patrick said he is bothered by the reading of the scale on the front. Willis said the spandrel is the space between the windows and maybe that becomes the siding instead of exaggerating the verticality. John said the long window makes the addition feel bigger. If you change it or narrower it down it would look squatty. Patrick suggested putting the white board between the windows so that it looks narrower. John pointed out that the window is inset six inches also. P13 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 11, 2016 14 Bob said the applicant has listened to all our recommendations and the proposal is appropriate as is. Bob also said he likes the notch as it breaks up the roof. John agreed with Bob. Kim said the intent is to make the building look different. Willis said every attempt has been made to make it look larger. Patrick said we are approving material and fenestration. The lighting is fine. Kim said the addition could be made a different soft gray to bring down the size of it. Willis said the resource would be white and the new construction would be the darker tones. Willis also said the 9/12 rule should be enforced. We should impose the variation in the motion. Kim said the only detail she wants to keep is the tall window and not the 9/12 requirement. Maybe there is a way to detail it. All the other windows go floor to ceiling which is an integral part of the design. If you make it two feet tall so that the ceil on the bathroom upstairs goes up two feet that window in order to make it tall and skinny will need to come in three feet which will not look right. Willis said if you are comfortable with boards coming across the spandrel instead of the metal treatment that would address the reading of the two separate floors. Kim said she could agree with the boards coming across the spandrel. We could also extend the floor out so that the windows above and below would match. MOTION: Willis moved to approve resolution #15 as written by staff with the addition of a variation request 9/12. Addition #12 that the front façade spandrel panel be changed and modified to create a coplanar connection in the wood material. Delete conditions 8 and 9. Motion second by Bob. Roll call vote: John, Bob, Willis, Patrick. Motion carried. 4-0. P14 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 11, 2016 15 Bob is the monitor. MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn; second by John. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk P15 II.B. C:\Program Files (x86)\Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\9169.doc 6/2/2016 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 209 E. Bleeker ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Jim DeFrancia 435 W. Main, AJCC 420 E. Cooper 420 E. Hyman 407 E. Hyman ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Gretchen Greenwood 28 Smuggler Grove 135 E. Cooper 1280 Ute 211 E. Hallam ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Willis Pember Aspen Core 101 E. Hallam 229 W. Smuggler 407 E. Hyman Patrick Sagal 701 N. Third 612 W. Main 212 Lake Holden Marolt derrick 333 W. Bleeker 980 Gibson John Whipple Aspen Core 201 E. Hyman 549 Race 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 P16 II.F. 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. P17 II.K. HPC Review 6.8.2016 124 W. Hallam Page 1 of 15 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 124 W. Hallam Street, Final Major Development, PUBLIC HEARING DATE: January 8, 2016 ________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: 124 W. Hallam is a Victorian era home, built in approximately 1887. The house has been significantly remodeled over the years, with alterations to historic features, and additions on all sides, including one which spans towards the west, where another Victorian once stood. In 1999, the former property owner applied for Subdivision review to split the then 12,000 square foot lot into two 6,000 parcels. This was approved but triggered a debate about whether the property should have landmark status or not. The owner was opposed, but Council approved designation of the east lot only. The east lot is the subject of the HPC hearing. The west (corner lot) is also proposed for redevelopment by this applicant, but there will be no HPC review. The Commission is asked to consider a proposal to return the house at 124 W. Hallam to its original form and construct a new basement and addition. Conceptual approval was granted on February 10th. The review took two hearings so that HPC could fully evaluate the compatibility of the proposed flat roofed addition. The applicant provided excellent renderings and context analysis that led the commission to support the project by a 6 to 1 vote. HPC awarded one setback variance, allowing the basement to be 5’ closer to the rear property line than typically allowed, and HPC awarded a 500 square foot floor area bonus in recognition of the extent of work needed to rescue this historic house from destructive alterations made many years ago. The applicant requests HPC grant Final design approval. Staff recommends approval with conditions. APPLICANT: 308 Aspen E, LLC, represented by Ro | Rockett Design. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-21-011. ADDRESS: 124 W. Hallam Street, Lot 2, Nolan Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6. P18 III.A. HPC Review 6.8.2016 124 W. Hallam Page 2 of 15 FINAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT 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: Final review focuses on landscape plan, lighting, fenestration, and selection of new materials. A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as “Exhibit A.” Currently, it is difficult to distinguish the original Victorian house amidst the numerous additions and faux Victorian features that have been added, including a tall hexagonal turret on the front façade. In preparation for this hearing, staff has searched all available resources for information about the original building. There are no photos specifically of this house at the Aspen Historical Society. The building can be seen in some 19th century panoramic pictures of the West End. In addition the 1893 Bird’s Eye View of Aspen and the 1904 Sanborn maps depict the home. The project architects have studied the building carefully, including accessing the crawlspace beneath the house to locate the historic foundation that defines the perimeter. Sheets Z-002 through -004 identify the historic fabric that will be preserved or restored. The interior of the house is reasonably intact and several features, including the original front door and an adjacent window remain in place. Historic siding can be viewed from some areas of the interior. There are several original windows and numerous areas of original trim that still exist. Below are the images that have been referenced for this project. P19 III.A. HPC Review 6.8.2016 124 W. Hallam Page 3 of 15 HPC evaluated the areas for demolition during the Conceptual review process and accepted the proposal. HPC also approved the resource being lifted for a new basement and repositioned approximately 2’ to the east of the current location and 6’4” forward, to the minimum front yard setback line. As part of a building permit review, the applicant will be required to submit the standard assurances that relocation will proceed with care, including a $30,000 deposit with the City during the construction process. For Final review, HPC needs to carefully consider the treatment of the materials and features on the historic structure. Staff has some concerns that can be addressed as conditions of approval. There are approximately a dozen historic windows remaining on the east, west and south sides of the building. Several of those windows appear to be the same size, particularly the original window at the front porch and the windows on the west facing bay. Where new windows are to be installed, the applicant must approximate their placement and size based on the historic references that are available. Staff is concerned with the proposed windows on the south facing gable end. The small window high in the gable end is found on some larger houses in town, but is not typical and cannot be seen in any of the historic images available for 124 W. Hallam. The double hung windows on the second floor appear to be too wide and short, not matching the size of the known historic windows on the building. The bay window on the ground floor is proposed to be a square bay, detailed in a contemporary manner, not supported by brackets or other common details. It is not clear from the Sanborn map that the ground floor window was a projecting bay at all. Some of the historic images look like a pair of windows rather than one large window. This area needs restudy. Below are examples of other Aspen Victorians that could be helpful as a reference for window design. Any physical evidence of window framing exposed during the construction process should be evaluated and incorporated into the project if possible. The same study of physical evidence is needed to determine if the house originally had a second front door on the porch, facing east. P20 III.A. HPC Review 6.8.2016 124 W. Hallam Page 4 of 15 The applicant proposes some large openings on the rear of the Victorian, adjacent to a raised deck. These walls appear to have been demolished during previous remodels, so no historic fabric will be removed. The windows are not visible from the street and their large size may therefore be acceptable. Staff recommends that the large window in the north facing gable end be restudied to be a more typical Victorian double hung. This gable end will be visible at least from the alley. There are other small details for the Victorian that need to be addressed more specifically for building permit. For instance, this photo appears to show the original street facing dormer, before it was demolished. The decorative trim at the eave should be replicated, but is not shown on the drawings. (Please note that the railing in the foreground of the dormer was not historic.) The porch posts, railings, and any brackets should be simplified versions of original elements found on other large Victorians in Aspen and need some restudy in this regard. All remaining historic materials must be preserved and must be labeled this way on the building permit. The interior floor plans show fireplaces to be installed at the front of the house, but no venting is shown on the roof plan. HPC does not allow direct vents on Victorian structures. Any rooftop vents would need to be placed in a traditional manner, generally close to a ridgeline. As clarification, the stone to be used on the new foundation should be the existing historic stone, salvaged and installed as a veneer. While the new elevation of the first floor above grade does appear to be consistent with the historic condition, there are four risers proposed to lead to the front porch, which has the potential to require a handrail. This rail is not shown on the drawings. With the historic resource restored to its original form and placed on a new foundation, an addition is proposed on the rear half of the property. The addition includes a connector that meets HPC’s policies of being 10’ long and one story tall. A green roof, rather than a deck is on top of the connector. The proposed addition meets setback requirements, except below grade. The basement of the addition is required to be 10’ from the rear property line, but is 5’ away. HPC granted a variance for this condition. P21 III.A. HPC Review 6.8.2016 124 W. Hallam Page 5 of 15 The footprint of the addition is approximately the same size as that of the Victorian, though it is wider than the resource. The addition is lower than the ridge of the historic building by virtue of having a flat roof. During the Conceptual review process, the applicant worked with the board to lower the overall height of the addition, diminish the visibility of a rooftop deck, and carefully proportion the fenestration on the addition to be related to the historic structure. While the proposal does contrast with the historic resource in terms of roof form, other elements, including fenestration and materials, are related. The addition has a smaller footprint than the historic structure, includes less total square footage, and is lower in height. This is a sympathetic relationship that is often difficult to achieve on historic preservation projects in Aspen. The proposed materials for the new construction were described to HPC in some detail at Conceptual review and have not been changed. Staff finds that the design guidelines are met. Regarding the landscape plan, there is conflicting information about the proposed fencing of the property. The applicant proposes a privacy fence, as shown on the renderings. The privacy fence stops at the front façade of the house and there will be no fencing in the front yard. An elevation drawing of the privacy fence must be provided for review by staff and monitor. The applicant has worked with the Parks Department to develop a plan for the removal of non-historic street trees in front of this property. A previous owner planted a number of pine and other trees that have created a barrier in front of the building. Parks will allow most of these to be removed, but is requiring a multi-stem aspen to be preserved. Its location requires the applicant to route the front walkway around it. The walkway is proposed to be large stone pavers. The stone must be specified, particularly the stone steps leading to the front porch. The pavers appear to be slightly overscaled and should be restudied. The application also indicates that lights would be installed in the pavers to provide illumination. HPC typically does not support landscape lighting in the foreground of a Victorian, finding it to create an incompatible appearance. There are two front porch lights to illuminate the area. The landscape plan is of concern to HPC, particularly immediately surrounding the Victorian. Beyond that point flexibility is allowed. Staff recommends that there be more sod meeting the base of the historic resource. The planting beds, particularly at the southeast corner of the house, are oversized. The water features at the base of the Victorian on the east and west should be relocated to the less sensitive area at the rear of the site. Finally, the project appears to be over the allowance for outdoor decks. This was flagged as a potential issue at Conceptual review. The applicant will need to work closely with Zoning on calculations. There will need to be a height difference between the occupied deck surface on the new addition and the adjacent green roof surface, to ensure that the occupied deck is not expanded without approvals at a later time. Similarly, the green roof on the connecting link cannot be designed to allow use. It appears that the architects did not adequately count the street facing decks on the rear addition. Some reduction is likely to be needed in order to remain within floor area limits. P22 III.A. HPC Review 6.8.2016 124 W. Hallam Page 6 of 15 ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC approve the application with the following conditions: 1. Per HPC Resolution #6, Series of 2016, HPC granted this project a 500 square foot floor area bonus. 2. Per HPC Resolution #6, Series of 2016, HPC granted this project a variation to allow the basement to be 5’ from the rear lot line. 3. Per HPC Resolution #6, Series of 2016, on site relocation has been approved. As part of building permit review, the applicant will be required to submit a report from a licensed engineer, architect or housemover demonstrating that the structure can be moved. The method for moving and protecting the structure 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 to be held by the City during the duration of the relocation process. 4. Restudy the proportion and location of new windows on the Victorian, south and west facades. Any physical evidence of window framing exposed during the construction process should be evaluated and incorporated into the project if possible. Staff and monitor approval is required. 5. Study any physical evidence that the house had a second front door on the porch, facing east. If framing is found, install this door to match the historic door that remains in place facing south, with review and approval by staff and monitor. 6. Restudy the large window in the north facing gable end to be a more typical Victorian double hung, with review and approval by staff and monitor. 7. Include the historic trim along the eave of the street facing dormer in the proposal, with review and approval by staff and monitor. 8. The porch posts, railings, and any brackets should be simplified versions of original elements found on other large Victorians in Aspen. Staff and monitor approval is required. 9. All existing historic materials must be preserved and labeled as such on the building permit. 10. Any rooftop vents need to be indicated on a roof plan, sized and placed in a traditional manner, generally close to a ridgeline. Staff and monitor approval is required. 11. The stone to be used on the new foundation should be the existing historic stone, salvaged and installed as a veneer. Clarify whether a handrail is required at the front steps. Staff and monitor approval is required. 12. An elevation drawing of the privacy fence must be provided for review by staff and monitor. P23 III.A. HPC Review 6.8.2016 124 W. Hallam Page 7 of 15 13. The material for the stone walkway and steps leading to the front porch must be identified. Concrete or a native stone are preferred. Staff and monitor approval is required. 14. The front walkway pavers appear to be slightly overscaled and should be restudied, with review and approval by staff and monitor. 15. Eliminate the lights in the front walkway. 16. Restudy the landscape plan immediately surrounding the historic resource. Reduce the size of the planting beds and increase the degree that sod meets the base of the house. Relocate the water features towards the rear of the site, behind the Victorian. 17. Review the proposed outdoor deck calculations and, to the extent that the proposal exceeds the maximum allowance, reduce deck size for review and approval by staff and monitor. 18. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of February 10, 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. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, P24 III.A. HPC Review 6.8.2016 124 W. Hallam Page 8 of 15 Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 124 W. Hallam Street. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. EXHIBITS: Resolution #__, Series of 2016 Exhibit A: Design Guidelines Exhibit B: Application text and drawings Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Design Guidelines for 124 W. Hallam, Final review 1.2 A new replacement fence should use materials that appear similar to that of the original. Any fence which is visible from a public right-of-way must be built of wood or wrought iron. Wire fences also may be considered. A wood picket fence is an appropriate replacement in most locations. A simple wire or metal fence, similar to traditional "wrought iron," also may be considered. Chain link is prohibited and solid "stockade" fences are only allowed in side and rear yards. 1.3 A new replacement fence should have a “transparent” quality allowing views into the yard from the street. A fence that defines a front yard is usually low to the ground and "transparent" in nature. On residential properties, a fence which is located forward of the front building facade may not be taller than 42" from natural grade. (For additional information, see the City of Aspen's "Residential Design Standards".) A privacy fence may be used in back yards and along alleys, but not forward of the front facade of a building. Note that using no fencing at all is often the best approach. Contemporary interpretations of traditional fences should be compatible with the historic context. 1.4 New fence components should be similar in scale with those seen traditionally. P25 III.A. HPC Review 6.8.2016 124 W. Hallam Page 9 of 15 Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment. 1.6 Replacement or new fencing between side yards and along the alley should be compatible with the historic context. A side yard fence is usually taller than its front yard counterpart. It also is less transparent. A side yard fence may reach heights taller than front yard fences (up to six feet), but should incorporate transparent elements to minimize the possible visual impacts. Consider staggering the fence boards on either side of the fence rail. This will give the appearance of a solid plank fence when seen head on. Also consider using lattice, or other transparent detailing, on the upper portions of the fence. 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. 1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replacement of damaged, aged or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department. If a tree must be removed as part of the addition or alteration, replace it with species of a large enough scale to have a visual impact in the early years of the project. 1.12 Preserve and maintain historically significant planting designs. Retaining historic planting beds, landscape features and walkways is encouraged. 1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context of the site. Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term impact of mature growth. P26 III.A. HPC Review 6.8.2016 124 W. Hallam Page 10 of 15 Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent. Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials. 1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures are inappropriate. Do not plant climbing ivy or trees too close to a building. New trees should be no closer than the mature canopy size. Do not locate plants or trees in locations that will obscure significant architectural features or block views to the building. It is not appropriate to plant a hedge row that will block views into the yard. 1.15 Minimize the visual impacts of site lighting. Site lighting should be shielded to avoid glare onto adjacent properties. Focus lighting on walks and entries, rather than up into trees and onto facade planes. 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. 2.1 Preserve original building materials. Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place. Only remove siding which is deteriorated and must be replaced. Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices, pediments, steps and foundations, should be preserved. Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired. Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity. 3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntins/mullions, sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operation and groupings of windows. Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them, whenever conditions permit. Preserve the original glass, when feasible. 3.2 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. Enclosing a historic window opening in a key character-defining facade is inappropriate, as is adding a new window opening. This is especially important on primary facades where the historic ratio of solid-to-void is a character-defining feature. Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear walls. Do not reduce an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or door or increase it to receive a larger window on primary facades. 3.3 Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a facade. Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character-defining facade will negatively affect the integrity of a structure. P27 III.A. HPC Review 6.8.2016 124 W. Hallam Page 11 of 15 3.4 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window should also be double- hung, or at a minimum, appear to be so. Match the replacement also in the number and position of glass panes. Matching the original design is particularly important on key character-defining facades. 3.5 In a replacement window, use materials that appear similar to the original. Using the same material as the original is preferred, especially on character- defining facades. However, a substitute material may be considered if the appearance of the window components will match those of the original in dimension, profile and finish. 3.6 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. Reducing an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or increasing it to receive a larger window is inappropriate. Consider reopening and restoring an original window opening where altered. 3.7 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the original window. A historic window often has a complex profile. Within the window's casing, the sash steps back to the plane of the glazing (glass) in several increments. These increments, which individually only measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are important details. They distinguish the actual window from the surrounding plane of the wall. 4.1 Preserve historically significant doors. Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These may include the door, door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware, detailing, transoms and flanking sidelights. Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances. If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be reversible so that the door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place, in its historic position. If the secondary entrance is sealed shut, the original entrance on the primary facade must remain operable. 4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening. Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height. 4.5 When replacing a door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original door or a door associated with the style of the house. A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement. P28 III.A. HPC Review 6.8.2016 124 W. Hallam Page 12 of 15 A historic door from a similar building also may be considered. Simple paneled doors were typical. Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic evidence can support their use. 5.5 If porch replacement is necessary, reconstruct it to match the original in form and detail. Use materials that appear similar to the original. While matching original materials is preferred, when detailed correctly and painted appropriately, alternative materials may be considered. Where no evidence of the appearance of the historic porch exists, a new porch may be considered that is similar in character to those found on comparable buildings. Keep the style and form simple. Also, avoid applying decorative elements that are not known to have been used on the house or others like it. When constructing a new porch, its depth should be in scale with the building. The scale of porch columns also should be similar to that of the trimwork. The height of the railing and the spacing of balusters should appear similar to those used historically as well. 6.1 Preserve significant architectural features. Repair only those features that are deteriorated. Patch, piece-in, splice, consolidate or otherwise upgrade the existing material, using recognized preservation methods whenever possible. Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using consolidants. Epoxies and resins may be considered for wood repair and special masonry repair components also may be used. Removing a damaged feature when it can be repaired is inappropriate. 6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features should be based on original designs. The design should be substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a misrepresentation of the building’s heritage. When reconstruction of an element is impossible because there is no historical evidence, develop a compatible new design that is a simplified interpretation of the original, and maintains similar scale, proportion and material. 6.5 Do not guess at "historic" designs for replacement parts. Where "scars" on the exterior suggest that architectural features existed, but there is no other physical or photographic evidence, then new features may be designed that are similar in character to related buildings. Using overly ornate materials on a building for which there is no documentation is inappropriate. It is acceptable to use salvaged materials from other buildings only if they are similar in style and detailing to other features on the building where they are to be installed. P29 III.A. HPC Review 6.8.2016 124 W. Hallam Page 13 of 15 7.4 A new chimney should be the same scale as those used historically. A new chimney should reflect the width and height of those used historically. 7.9 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to those used traditionally. Replacement materials should be similar to those used historically on comparably styled buildings. If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish. Flashing should be in scale with the roof material. If copper flashing is to be used, it should be treated to establish a matte, non- reflective finish. 9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character. Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. 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. P30 III.A. HPC Review 6.8.2016 124 W. Hallam Page 14 of 15 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials. 14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that used traditionally. The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be approved by the HPC. All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence. 14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting. Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upward will not be permitted. Shield lighting associated with service areas, parking lots and parking structures. Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by controlling the length of time that exterior lights are in use late at night. Do not wash an entire building facade in light. Avoid placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper walls of buildings. Avoid duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that light the same area. 14.8 Minimize the visual impact of light spill from a building. Prevent glare onto adjacent properties by using shielded and focused light sources that direct light onto the ground. The use of downlights, with the bulb fully enclosed within the shade, or step lights which direct light only on to walkways, is strongly encouraged. Lighting shall be carefully located so as not to shine into residential living space, on or off the property or into public rights-of-way. 14.15 Minimize the visual impacts of mechanical equipment as seen from the public way. Mechanical equipment may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does not create a negative visual impact. Mechanical equipment or vents on a roof must be grouped together to minimize their visual impact. Where rooftop units are visible, provide screening with materials that are compatible with those of the building itself. Screen ground-mounted units with fences, stone walls or hedges. A window air conditioning unit may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does not create a negative visual impact. Use low-profile mechanical units on rooftops so they will not be visible from the street or alley. Also minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Use smaller satellite dishes and mount them low to the ground and away from front yards, significant building facades or highly visible roof planes. P31 III.A. HPC Review 6.8.2016 124 W. Hallam Page 15 of 15 Paint telecommunications and mechanical equipment in muted colors that will minimize their appearance by blending with their backgrounds. 14.16 Locate standpipes, meters and other service equipment such that they will not damage historic facade materials. Cutting channels into historic facade materials damages the historic building fabric and is inappropriate. Do not locate equipment on the front facade. If a channel must be cut, either locate it on a secondary facade, or place it low on the wall. P32 III.A. HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2016 Page 1 of 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING FINAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 124 W. HALLAM STREET, LOT 2, NOLAN LOT SPLIT, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2016 PARCEL ID: 2735-124-21-011 WHEREAS, the applicant, 308 Aspen E, LLC, represented by Ro | Rockett Design has requested Final Major Development approval for the property located at 124 W. Hallam Street, Lot 2, Nolan Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that “no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;” and WHEREAS, for Final 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.4.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, Amy Simon, in her staff report to HPC, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at a public hearing on June 8, 2016, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and approved the project with conditions by a vote of __ to __. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants Final Major Development with the following conditions: 1. Per HPC Resolution #6, Series of 2016, HPC granted this project a 500 square foot floor area bonus. 2. Per HPC Resolution #6, Series of 2016, HPC granted this project a variation to allow the basement to be 5’ from the rear lot line. 3. Per HPC Resolution #6, Series of 2016, on site relocation has been approved. As part of building permit review, the applicant will be required to submit a report from a licensed engineer, architect or housemover demonstrating that the structure can be moved. The method for moving and protecting the structure must be submitted with the building permit P33 III.A. HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2016 Page 2 of 3 application. In addition the applicant must provide a bond, letter of credit or cashier’s check in the amount of $30,000 to be held by the City during the duration of the relocation process. 4. Restudy the proportion and location of new windows on the Victorian, south and west facades. Any physical evidence of window framing exposed during the construction process should be evaluated and incorporated into the project if possible. Staff and monitor approval is required. 5. Study any physical evidence that the house had a second front door on the porch, facing east. If framing is found, install this door to match the historic door that remains in place facing south, with review and approval by staff and monitor. 6. Restudy the large window in the north facing gable end to be a more typical Victorian double hung, with review and approval by staff and monitor. 7. Include the historic trim along the eave of the street facing dormer in the proposal, with review and approval by staff and monitor. 8. The porch posts, railings, and any brackets should be simplified versions of original elements found on other large Victorians in Aspen. Staff and monitor approval is required. 9. All existing historic materials must be preserved and labeled as such on the building permit. 10. Any rooftop vents need to be indicated on a roof plan, sized and placed in a traditional manner, generally close to a ridgeline. Staff and monitor approval is required. 11. The stone to be used on the new foundation should be the existing historic stone, salvaged and installed as a veneer. Clarify whether a handrail is required at the front steps. Staff and monitor approval is required. 12. An elevation drawing of the privacy fence must be provided for review by staff and monitor. 13. The material for the stone walkway and steps leading to the front porch must be identified. Concrete or a native stone are preferred. Staff and monitor approval is required. 14. The front walkway pavers appear to be slightly overscaled and should be restudied, with review and approval by staff and monitor. 15. Eliminate the lights in the front walkway. 16. Restudy the landscape plan immediately surrounding the historic resource. Reduce the size of the planting beds and increase the degree that sod meets the base of the house. Relocate the water features towards the rear of the site, behind the Victorian. 17. Review the proposed outdoor deck calculations and, to the extent that the proposal exceeds the maximum allowance, reduce deck size for review and approval by staff and monitor. 18. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of February 10, 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. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval P34 III.A. HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2016 Page 3 of 3 shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 124 W. Hallam Street. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 10th day of February, 2016. Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: ___________________________________ _____________________________ Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Willis Pember, Chair ATTEST: ___________________________ Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk P35 III.A. Overview Our proposal is to restore the existing Victorian house at 124 W. Hallam St. to its historic condition. In so doing, we propose to remove multiple, non-historic additions and structures and to include a new, subordinate addition at the rear of the property. The house as currently positioned will be relocated to place it into compliance with established property setbacks and to assist in continuing the traditional relationship of house to street. Notably, the front door of the house will be restored to its historic orientation on Hallam Street. Historic Preservation Guidelines • Chapters 1 – 9, where applicable: o Based on historic photographs, maps, documented foundation and framing evidence and assisted with input from members of the Aspen Historic Preservation Department, a clear direction has been established for the Victorian that preserves original materials and elements. The house restoration works to restore and incorporate relevant historic architectural principals such as proportion, depth, and form whenever possible. o As noted, the front of the house will be restored to its historic orientation on Hallam Street and is situated to continue the traditional rhythm of the neighborhood and street – restoring the established progression of public to private spaces. A linear path of stone pavers will connect the street to the front porch and on to the front door. The porch itself will be restored to its original size and proportion and will be constructed in a manner that incorporates appropriate railing, post, and eave elements. A salon door off the porch will be restored as an auxiliary point of entry typical of the period. An historic, double hung window adjacent the front door will be uncovered and restored. A new, wooden front yard fence utilizing transparency, proportion and materiality compatible with the historic context and adjacent properties will be added along the front property line. o Around the house, and particularly at visible facades, doors, windows and dormers will be restored to original locations as noted in available historic evidence. These will be scaled and detailed according to fenestration strategies of the period and per the historic evidence on hand. o The roof will be repaired or replaced where needed utilizing replacement materials similar to those used traditionally. The original character and form of eave lines and projecting dormers will be preserved and recreated, where appropriate. o Original materials will be retained where possible and replaced where necessary with materials compatible to the period. As the building is being relocated to conform to the site setbacks, the original floor heights will be preserved. The existing stone foundation will be preserved and utilized as a finish over the new foundation, where possible. • Chapter 10 – addition (12/09/2015): o The new addition, located at the rear of the setback, differentiates itself from the Victorian while maintaining compatibility in terms of materials, scale, and height. Clad in vertical wood siding scaled to that of the existing house, the ground level of the proposed addition is visually compatible yet clearly a product of its own time. Above the wood siding at the Ground Level of the addition, a glass facade of varying transparencies relates to soft tonal aspects of winter in Aspen. The glass, framed in wood, reinforces the surrounding vibrant colors of neighboring trees, mountains and skies, becoming part of its natural surroundings in muted reflections. The addition incorporates a flat roof, staying within the height setback, and allowing the original P36 III.A. proportions and character of the Victorian to remain prominent, as well as visually minimizing the house from Hallam Street as well as the neighbors sharing the adjacent alley. The new addition connects to the historic Victorian delicately visually and physically via a linking element. At the connection, vertical wood siding transitions to a vertical band of glass, highlighting the Victorian’s original wood siding as it runs into the interior volume, distinguishing itself as new and unique, while simultaneously acknowledging its historic counterpart. • Chapter 10 – Addition Revisions from HPC Meeting (01/28/2016): o The new addition, located at the rear of the setback, differentiates itself from the Victorian while maintaining compatibility in terms of materials, scale, and height. Clad in vertical wood slats scaled to that of the existing house, the ground level of the proposed addition is visually compatible yet clearly a product of its own time. Above the wood siding at the Ground Level of the addition, a glass facade of varying transparencies relates to soft tonal aspects of winter in Aspen. The glass, framed in wood continuing upwards from the wood slat façade below, reinforces the surrounding vibrant colors of neighboring trees, mountains and skies, becoming part of its natural surroundings in muted reflections. Within the soft opaque glass cladding of the upper level façade, there are transparent windows of 2:1 historic proportion found on the adjacent Victorian house. The addition incorporates a flat roof, staying under the height setback, and allowing the original proportions and character of the Victorian to remain prominent, and visually minimizing the house from Hallam Street as well as the neighbors sharing the adjacent alley. The roof deck guardrails are set back from the primary plane of the building façade, which is lowered 1’-6” below the height setback, to reduce building mass significantly. The new addition connects to the historic Victorian delicately visually and physically via a linking element. At the connection, vertical wood slats transition to a vertical band of glass, highlighting the Victorian’s original wood siding as it runs into the interior volume, distinguishing itself as new and unique, while simultaneously acknowledging its historic counterpart. *SEE ALSO SHEET Z-102.0 – HPC GUIDELINES FOR DETAILED RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC HPC CHAPTERS P37 III.A. P38 III.A. P39 III.A. P40 III.A. P41 III.A. P42 III.A. P43 III.A. P44 III.A. P45 III.A. P46 III.A. P47 III.A. P48 III.A. P49 III.A. P50 III.A. P51 III.A. P52 III.A. P53 III.A. P54 III.A. P55 III.A. P56 III.A. P57 III.A. P58 III.A. P 5 9 I I I . A . P60 III.A. P61 III.A. P62 III.A. P63 III.A. P64 III.A. P65 III.A. P66 III.A. P67 III.A. P68 III.A. P69 III.A. P70 III.A. P71 III.A. P 7 2 I I I . A . P 7 3 I I I . A . P 7 4 I I I . A . P 7 5 I I I . A . P 7 6 I I I . A . P 7 7 I I I . A . P 7 8 I I I . A . MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Council Remand of HPC’s approval of Conceptual Major Development, Special Review, Growth Management and Viewplane Review for 533 E. Main Street, St. Mary’s Church, HPC Resolution #8, Series of 2016 MEETING DATE: June 8, 2016 SUMMARY: On April 25th City Council conducted a Call-up review of HPC’s March 9th decision to grant Conceptual approval for an expansion of St. Mary’s Church. Council reviewed the meeting records and voted, 3 to 1, to direct HPC to reconsider the placement of the above grade addition so that it is along the alley (Option A) rather than along Main Street (Option B.) Council also directed HPC to consider the elimination of a connector/enclosed hallway between the addition and the church. The HPC Conceptual approval was granted by a vote of 4-3. Staff recommended approval of Option B, and that was the design supported by the majority of HPC. The board reviewed several proposals during the course of three lengthy hearings. The proposal which received approval was the applicant’s preferred design and reportedly the concept supported by the majority of the congregation as part of internal polling efforts. Minutes from the Council discussion are attached, along with the documents reviewed by HPC on March 9th, and the minutes of all three HPC hearings. For this meeting, the applicant has prepared a brief cover memo and some additional illustrations of the project. No changes to the project are shown in the illustrations, other than some explorations of external material selections, which would be reviewed at Final. HPC is to consider Council’s input and decide whether to uphold their previous decision, make a new decision, or continue the hearing for more information. The rehearing and reconsideration of the application by HPC is final and concludes the Call-up review. If, during the course of the Remand hearing, HPC or the applicant make any substantial changes to the application outside of the specific topics identified by Council, a new call-up notice would be required. However the topic of that Call-up would be limited to the changes and not the proposal as a whole. Following the conclusion of this process, the applicant will proceed to City Council for Growth Management/Essential Public Facilities determination, which will be followed by HPC Final design review, including materials, fenestration, landscape and lighting. BACKGROUND: On March 9, 2016, the Historic Preservation Commission approved Conceptual Major Development, Special Review, Growth Management and Viewplane Review for St. Mary’s Church expansion by a 4-3 vote. St. Mary’s wishes to construct a social hall addition to better accommodate events, programming and other church needs. The proposal is to create about 7,000 square feet of new space entirely below grade, with only 1,300 square feet above grade. The total development of the property would amount to approximately 19,000 square feet of floor area, where 74,000 square feet is allowed. HPC discussed this project at P79 IV.A. three hearings occurring on August 26, 2015, January 27, 2016 and March 9, 2016, before making a decision. DISCUSSION: Page three of this memo depicts the progression of the project through the HPC review meetings. In August 2015, HPC members expressed concerns with the size and location of the proposed above grade addition. Height was an issue because the St. Mary’s property sits in two viewplanes originating from the courthouse and Veteran’s Park. The viewplanes are fairly limiting as they enter the northern edge of the site at a height of approximately 10’. The board also debated a new egress stair to be added on the west side of the historic building. This concern continued to be a major topic through all three hearings. The applicant has tabled this element of the proposal for now and may continue to explore other options for new or improved exiting conditions at a later date. At the January meeting, the applicant revised the project so that the above grade square footage of the addition was cut in half, and the height was reduced about 7’. The proposal also included creating a raised lawn, so that the basement had a pitched green roof with clerestory windows exposed up to 3’6” above ground along Main Street. Staff and some members of the board found this to be incompatible with the historic resource. The project was continued a second time. In March, HPC was presented with two options for the social hall. The first option, Option A, was similar to the original proposal, but smaller in footprint and in height. In this option, the addition was proposed to be placed along the alley, completely filling in the existing gap between the church and the carriage house. This option links to the historic church by removing an original ground floor window. It stretches 70’ along the alley and comes within 5’ of the east side of the existing carriage house. In staff’s opinion, the perceived advantages of placing this addition in a subservient location along the alley are outweighed by the destruction of historic fabric, the awkward proximity to the employee housing structure, and the departure from the historic pattern of public spaces at St. Mary’s being placed along the street frontages. The second option, Option B, moved the social hall up to Main Street. Throughout the review there were discussions about the fact that St. Mary’s was preceded by a small chapel building that was in the middle of the site facing Main, seen in the center of the photo at the right. It was demolished in the 1940s. Option B reflects that tradition of the church facilities addressing the street, though it is not a replica of the historic condition. The applicant preferred Option B, as did staff because it engages with pedestrians and creates vitality. This proposal attaches to St. Mary’s by linking to the non-historic elevator tower, rather than interfering with intact historic walls further back on the west façade of the building. The materials and detailing of the addition are not approved until Final design review. Council recommended that this project be revised to eliminate a connecting link between the addition and the historic church. This would have preservation benefits and was discussed by HPC. The applicant is dissatisfied with the impacts on functionality of their space and the March 9th approval accepted that point of view. P80 IV.A. APPROVED P81 IV.A. Option B Roof Plan Approved. Option A Roof Plan Not approved. P82 IV.A. The March 9th Option A proposal had no viewplane implications since the viewplane height limit rises as it moves from the Main Street property line to the alley property line. A portion of the roof in March 9th Option B does project up to 2’ into the viewplanes. The arrow below points to the section of roof that sits above the viewplane line. HPC inspected story poles prior to making a finding of minimal impact. The new addition is below the parapet height of several buildings located behind it and the open space provided by Conner Park ensures a view towards Aspen Mountain. RECOMMENDATION: As noted earlier, the HPC vote on this application was (4-3). Staff recommends HPC uphold their March 9th decision. RECOMMENDED MOTION: “I move to uphold HPC Resolution #8, Series of 2016.” ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Memo from applicant, addressing remand Exhibit B: Drawings from applicant, addressing remand Exhibit C: City Council Call-up minutes, April 25, 2016 Exhibit D: Memo, drawings and minutes from March 9, 2016 HPC approval Exhibit E: Public comment, addressing remand P83 IV.A. P84 IV.A. P85 IV.A. ST. MARY CATHOLIC CHURCH 26 MAY 2016 CONCEPTUAL HPC APPROVAL RE-SUBMISSION P 8 6 I V . A . ST. MARY CATHOLIC CHURCH 26 MAY 20162 FLUID CIRCULATION TO SOCIAL HALL OPT. B P 8 7 I V . A . EXISTING EMPLOYEE HOUSING EXISTING RECTORY LAWN EXISTING DRIVEWAY SOCIAL HALL ENTRANCE TRASHENCLOSURE XFMR EXISTING CHURCH EXISTING TRANSFORMER CHARLES CUNNIFFEARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 5/ 2 5 / 2 0 1 6 6 : 4 8 : 4 6 P M x0.7 1511 SUN STUDIES S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O ISSUE: DATE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 SUMMER SOLSTICE PLAN ST. MARY CATHOLIC CHURCH 26 MAY 20163 SUMMER SOLSTICE OPT. B P 8 8 I V . A . EXISTING EMPLOYEE HOUSING EXISTING RECTORY LAWN EXISTING DRIVEWAY SOCIAL HALL ENTRANCE TRASH ENCLOSURE XFMR EXISTING CHURCH EXISTING TRANSFORMER CHARLESCUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 5/ 2 5 / 2 0 1 6 6 : 4 8 : 5 0 P M x0.8 1511 SUN STUDIES S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O ISSUE: DATE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 WINTER SOLSTICE PLAN ST. MARY CATHOLIC CHURCH 26 MAY 20164 WINTER SOLSTICE OPT. B P 8 9 I V . A . CONSTRUCTION CONNECTS TO NON-HISTORIC PORTION OF WESTERN FACADE CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 5/ 2 6 / 2 0 1 6 1 2 : 4 7 : 3 9 P M A3.8 1511 HISTORIC FACADE AFFECTED S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 5 3 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O ISSUE: DATE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 OPT. B NON-HISTORIC FACADE AFFECTED ST. MARY CATHOLIC CHURCH 26 MAY 20165 NON-HISTORIC FACADE TOUCHED BY OPT. B P 9 0 I V . A . CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 5/ 2 6 / 2 0 1 6 1 2 : 4 7 : 4 2 P M A3.10 1511 FACADE BLOCKED S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 5 3 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O ISSUE: DATE: 1 Opt. B facade blocked NO ADDITIONAL HISTORIC FACADE WILL BE HIDDEN BY OPT. B AS IT IS ATTACHING TO A PREVIOUSLY ALTERED LOCATION ON THE CHURCH (ELEVATOR TOWER AND COVERING OVER ADA ENTRANCE). PEDESTRIANS WILL STILL BE ABLE TO SEE THE FACADE ADJACENT TO MAIN STREET. FROM THE VIEW IN THE LAWN LOOKING AT MAIN STREET, NONE OF THE HISTORIC FACADE IS OBSCURED, WHEREAS OPT A OBSCURES AND ALTERS THE HISTORIC WESTERN FACADE BY 3 WINDOW BAYS. (REFERENCE FOLLOWING PAGES) ST. MARY CATHOLIC CHURCH 26 MAY 20166 NON-HISTORIC FACADE COVERED BY OPT. B NO HISTORIC WEST FACADE HIDDEN P 9 1 I V . A . ST. MARY CATHOLIC CHURCH 26 MAY 20167 CIRCUITOUS CIRCULATION TO SOCIAL HALL OPT. A P 9 2 I V . A . a a b b a a b b a a b b EXISTING LILACS ALREADY OBSCURE THE WEST FACADE OF THE CHURCH TO PASSERSBY. OPT. A FURTHER BLOCKS OFF THIS VIEW CORRIDOR. THE EXISTING KITCHEN DOOR AND A FIRST FLOOR WINDOW WILL SWITCH LOCATIONS WITH OPT. A, FURTHER IMPACTING THE HISTORIC WESTERN FACADE. ST. MARY CATHOLIC CHURCH 26 MAY 20168 NEGATIVE IMPACTS OPT. A P 9 3 I V . A . 1995 ELEVATOR TOWER ADDITION HISTORIC WESTERN FACADE ALTERED BY OPT. A CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 5/ 2 6 / 2 0 1 6 1 2 : 4 7 : 4 1 P M A3.9 1511 HISTORIC FACADE AFFECTED S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 5 3 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O ISSUE: DATE: 1 OPT. A HISTORIC FACADE AFFECTED ST. MARY CATHOLIC CHURCH 26 MAY 20169 HISTORIC FACADE TOUCHED BY OPT. A P 9 4 I V . A . ST. MARY CATHOLIC CHURCH 26 MAY 201610 HISTORIC FACADE COVERED BY OPT. A AMOUNT OF HISTORIC WEST FACADE HIDDEN P 9 5 I V . A . EXISTING CHURCH BUILDING PROPOSED SOCIAL HALL EXISTING EMPLOYEE HOUSING EXISTING RECTORY VIEWPLANE #2 FALLS BEHIND THE CHURCH ADDITION PORTION OF SOCIAL HALL ROOF IN VIEW PLANE CHARLES CUNNIFFEARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 5/ 2 6 / 2 0 1 6 1 2 : 4 7 : 4 7 P M A3.11 1511 PROPOSED SITE ELEVATION S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 5 3 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O ISSUE: DATE: 1 SITE ELEVATION- MAIN STREET PROPOSED Copy 1 ST. MARY CATHOLIC CHURCH 26 MAY 201611 MAIN ST. ELEVATION ROOF LINE IN VIEW PLANE P 9 6 I V . A . ST. MARY CATHOLIC CHURCH 26 MAY 201612 LAWN VIEW TO MAIN STREET OPT. B P 9 7 I V . A . BLACKENED STEEL + GLASS OPEN + LIGHT SPACE TEXTURE REFERENCE HISTORIC STONE BRICK SCREEN ST. MARY CATHOLIC CHURCH 26 MAY 201613 MATERIAL STUDIES P 9 8 I V . A . ST. MARY CATHOLIC CHURCH 26 MAY 201614 MATERIAL STUDY RENDER- SAME MASSING AS 03/09 HPC HEARING P 9 9 I V . A . ST. MARY CATHOLIC CHURCH 26 MAY 201615 MATERIAL STUDY RENDER- SAME MASSING AS 03/09 HPC HEARING P 1 0 0 I V . A . ST. MARY CATHOLIC CHURCH 26 MAY 201616 MATERIAL STUDY RENDER- SAME MASSING AS 03/09 HPC HEARING P 1 0 1 I V . A . ST. MARY CATHOLIC CHURCH 26 MAY 201617 MATERIAL STUDY RENDER- SAME MASSING AS 03/09 HPC HEARING P 1 0 2 I V . A . ST. MARY CATHOLIC CHURCH 26 MAY 201618 MATERIAL STUDY RENDER- SAME MASSING AS 03/09 HPC HEARING P 1 0 3 I V . A . ST. MARY CATHOLIC CHURCH 26 MAY 201619 MATERIAL STUDY RENDER- SAME MASSING AS 03/09 HPC HEARING P 1 0 4 I V . A . Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 25, 2016 6 CALL UP – HPCs approval of Conceptual Major Development, Special Review, Growth Management and Viewplane Review for 533 E. Main Street, St. Mary’s Church, HPC Resolution #8, Series of 2016 Amy Simon, community development, told the Council on March 9th HPC granted conceptual design approval, growth management and viewplane review. The application is to create a social hall that will be approximately 7,000 square feet and below grade. HPC held three meetings to discuss the project. They had a number of concerns about the height and scale and asked for restudy at the first meeting. At the second meeting they also asked for restudy. The third proposal presented two options. There is an above grade entry either on the alley or along Main Street. The concern with the alley was the addition would attach to the existing church and removing an existing door. It stretches about 70 feet from the church towards the employee housing building leaving a five foot gap. Several board members were concerned with the limited space left around the proposed addition. There was more discussion about moving the addition forward. The proposal that was approved had three entries, one to the rectory, one to the new social hall and one to the historic church. The new addition would attach to non-historic construction of the existing elevator. This appealed to a number of HPC members and was approved 4 to 3 and we understood was the applicant’s preference. Council made a site visit today at noon. The applicant indicated the front corners of the proposed additions are affected by two viewplanes originating from the steps of the court house and veterans park. It is a difficult site to build on. The total development proposed for the property is about 19,000 square feet of floor area. The allowable for the site is 74,000. It is a modest project that has generated a lot of discussion. One of the things that has taken up a lot of time at HPC that is not on the table right now was the proposal to add a second form of egress out of church. An exterior staircase in various forms was discussed for the west side of the building and a struggle for HPC. It was not approved but may be in the future. HPC looked at the viewplane and did allow for the front edge of the site. They looked at parking and it was determined there is no new need for onsite parking. They have to respond to transportation impact requirements and there are a number of things they plan to do. Improvements around the perimeter of the site for the public including rebuilding sidewalks and replanting trees. The last issue addressed was growth management. The applicant represented they currently have three and a half employees that are full time. Most of which live on the site. Many of the events are staffed by volunteers and they do not need to hire new employees for the additional space. The housing authority agreed with that and recommended an audit in the future. This will come to Council after the HPC review is concluded. Father John Hilton said it is beautiful facility but is not adequate for what we do now. We work with less square feet than what we have had in our history. Patrick Rawley, representing the applicant along with Marina Skiles and Colleen Loughlin stated the church held a survey in February and 148 votes were taken at the three masses. There was an 87 percent approval of some type of parish hall expansion. There was 66 percent that said put the social hall off of Main. The church was built in 1892. The parish has three full time employees, all housed on site. There are 300 families and masses are held seven days a week. Religious education classes are once a week. There are other community groups that use the church as well. There were in depth meetings at HPC. We received a 4 to 3 approval at the second meeting but it was a confused approval so we asked them to reconsider it and came back for the final approval. Option B was Staff supported and utilized where St. Stephens was located and brings vitality to the street. The location requires minimal contact or intrusion to the historic resource. The connector will be largely hidden by the elevator. Most of the development will be subgrade. Option B works functionally. He showed an image of the viewplane with the two foot P105 IV.A. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 25, 2016 7 incursion at the boundary. He showed an image of the main street façade. He showed an image with the materiality of brick and glass with the sandstone base and transparent connector. Councilwoman Mullins congratulates them on a growing and active congregation. She thanked them for the proposal where the impact is lessened by putting much of it underground. Councilman Daily said the site visit was helpful. He came away with more information and has a better understanding of what the choices are. Councilman Frisch said he appreciates we have a true public building that is important to everyone regardless of faith. He asked about the slide on the discussion at the church level of where to put the extra feet. Mr. Rawley said 87 percent agreed we need more space. There has been healthy debate and we were ok with both options. B has functional benefits to us. Councilman Frisch asked if B came about because of staff and HPC direction. Mr. Rawley said staff was helpful in that regard and in that there should be two options. When we went towards B and Main Street we fell in love with it. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. 1. Marcia Goshorn said she likes the idea of the glass building. St Mary’s has always been the first to step up when there has been an issue. She appreciates the majority is under ground and is not as impactful. She was wondering about the lilac bushes on Main Street. She does want to see this built. 2. John Kelleher said he is in and out of the church on a daily basis. The need is real. It is important for the location for the physical connection. The building committee has met for the last two years. This is the best solution. It would be a terrible mistake to put it on the alley. He is a strong supporter of option B. 3. Junee Kirk said the 4 to 3 HPC vote was not a mandate. Putting it on Main Street is a weak excuse architecturally. Option A is better and would keep the open space which is historic. It is modern glassy architecture that doesn’t use historic materials. There was a third option C that was never considered where everything is put underground with a glass top. It would be an intriguing option and the space could be as large as they want. This is one of the last historic areas on Main Street. Changing windows and doors is a minor problem. It should be pushed to the back and option A should be considered. 4. Lisa Markalunas passed out a letter and petition. She is opposed to option B. It will block substantially the west façade where most parishioners interact with the entrance. The question is how transparent it will become. Either A or B can be disconnected from the church. Four members were supportive of option A on March 9. She submitted a petition for support of option A. There was no full survey of the entire parish. It is a mistake to allow option B to take away from what we have known for over 100 years of the parish lawn. It will be incompatible and block the structure. 5. Marilyn Carol said she appreciates all the hard work that has gone in to this. She is in favor of option A. The design of the building is beautiful but not entirely appropriate for the church. Placed in the rear it will have less impact. 6. Julie Markalunas Hall said Aspen is richer for St. Mary’s. We engage more from the west side than the east side. While option B is near the front it will engage the parish with the hall it will block the west façade and courtyard. The community as a whole will be blocked from the lawn. She would like to preserve the building for the community as much as possible. She would advocate for Option A without a connector. 7. Judy Dunn stated where we started with and what we wanted to do is much different than where we are today. We do need to have a connector. If it is in the back of the building there will need to be another connection. Putting the pavilion in the front eliminates another structure. 8. Ann O’Brien said Charles and his team have gone to the mat to accommodate parishioner’s feedback. She likes that option B is connected to the front. The flow of people makes sense. She is on the finance council for the church. Every time we go back it increases the financial burden of the church. P106 IV.A. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 25, 2016 8 9. Georgeann Waggaman stated this has been difficult for the parish. There is a long ways to go. She thanked the city and HPC and the architects. She feels pretty good about this now. 10. Sean Kehoe said he started working here in 2000. He is here because of the parish. It is not defined because of the building but the people in it. The expansion is defined by the growth that happened in the church. It invites people in. The connection is valid and part of the building. Facades change, buildings change with the people. B is a valid approach. 11. Ivan Assar stated he was one of the people collecting signatures for option A. When you would be driving towards the church there is a brick wall that is in your face. For Option B he asked if there is a possibility for removing the brick wall and replacing it with glass. He felt like people were equally divided with A, B and having nothing at all. People are sick to their heart with change at all. 12. Mary Wolf said she is the parish business manager. Option B provides for handicap access that is much smoother. It provides for a multi-use of the building. It is not just a space issue but how the space is used and where. It is more than a reception area. 13. Toni Kronberg said change is never easy. She supports the expansion. The connector is needed. The building on Main Street is preserving the historic property. 14. Paul Noto said people get married and are buried and have life experience here. They voted 88 percent to add to the church because there is a need. Change is difficult but this isn’t change this is improving and responding to a need. 15. Susan Doddington said she was on HPC for six years in the 90’s and they always stressed additions are to the back of the lot. This is ruining the historic lot. It is ruining the last spot in Aspen. She doesn’t like all these modern things coming in. You can’t see anything past it. She is for option A. 16. Julie Becker said she is the parish part time secretary and a parent of five kids. She asked council to consider the expertise that has gone in to this. It is necessary. The hall will be used on a weekly basis and will be used. The above grade part is necessary so she can see the kids on the lawn while in there. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilwoman Mullins said trying to preserve the historic fabric of town is very subjective. Many different things have changed and there are many different layers and one approach can be supported with this information and another approach with another group of information. It becomes more and more difficult. The biggest question here is the decision to actually do an addition and add to the church. What you have come back with takes care of the needs of the church and is much less impactful than what I originally saw. I would support option A. I was looking to the public comment and the congregation came out pretty even. It is important for the congregation to support what is going on. Council’s role is to take a few steps back. In the long term what is the best thing to happen on Main Street, not in this particular site but how does this enhance the entire Main Street. I would support option A and I would support this going back to HPC and reconsidering their decision. The original parish was built in 1882 and disappeared in 1940. The current residents of Aspen are use to that open space next to the church and that is a historic reference. It creates a setting for the church. The guidelines support the new building to be more modern so it contrasts from the older buildings. In this case it appears to be quite harsh next to the church. A reason to support option A is it would be further back on the site and less impactful to the street and buffered and screened by the lilacs. She agrees with the Markalunas’ about the view from the west side that it is prominent and an important view. If the new structure is put on Main you lose that view of the church. It would be nice if it did not have to be connected. The negative impact is much greater by having the structure along Main Street. There is more vitality by having people on the lawn then looking inside a glass box. She would support it going back to HPC and considering option A as the preferred option. Councilman Frisch stated he is at option two with it getting remanded back with Council comments. There are pros and cons about trying to empower P&Z and HPC. It is a beloved building in town that everyone P107 IV.A. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 25, 2016 9 believes they have a stake in but it is part of what makes the community great. Either option will do the parishioners proud. He understands why some of the majority supports B. He thinks it works better for the church but in some ways it is worse off for the community. The open space is really important and he appreciates there was a building there some time ago. The grass is important and the breathing space. Blocking the west façade is a mistake. For the connection, he appreciates it may be better off for the daily users of the building. He is vastly against seeing the connector at the airport. It is really important for people to walk out. He understands it is worse for those with accessibility issues but it is better for the community. Lisa talked about the privatization of the yard. Going back to the design element I think there will be more freedom if it is tucked away in the back a little more. He suggests this goes back to HPC. Speaking to the glassization of Aspen. He firmly supports the differentiation of old from new there are too many buildings going overboard. The increasing technology in glass is partially responsibility. The Cooper Street building is one of the prettier buildings built in the last generation. You see it is not historic in nature but honors it. It would be better if the design could be flushed out sooner. With the importance of the building, the longevity of the building and the close vote it does everybody a disservice if we wouldn’t send this back to make sure we are really, really sure we know what we are doing and have as few regrets as possible. He appreciates we are trying to balance out community values. Yes the parishioners are important but so are community values. Councilman Daily said he very much likes the overall concept. Placing most of the addition below grade is community sensitive. The pavilion itself, in terms of above grade is a modest proposal. We looked at the story poles today and his initial reaction was this is going to block a lot of thing and we need to understand how it will work. He said he came away with a sense of surprise. He said he is not a modernist in terms of architectural preference. This is open and he loves the see through element. He said he did not want to get drawn to the design but this fits in this context and it enhances the sunlight as it hits the center of the lawn area. It better preserves the open space quality of the site. Both options are workable and would be enjoyable for the parishioners. He came away and continues to favor option B. Esthetically and functionally it is the preferred option for him. It is a good change. Overall he comes down on the side of option B. Mayor Skadron said there are lots of good things about this project functionally and design wise. Amy used the phrase least damaging to the historical resource. He said when he thinks about historic preservation he thinks about the connection to our heritage. He thinks about historic preservation that allows us to learn from the context of our past. The way we preserve our historic resources in this community differentiates us as a community. In this case I think the green space helps inform this historic experience. Preservation should speak to not just what is built but the environment around what is built. Generally he tends towards development that honors the history and culture of Aspen and in this case that is best satisfied by option A. He will concur with Councilmembers Frisch and Mullins and suggest that this be remanded back to HPC for more consideration of option A. Councilman Frisch asked if this stops Council from interacting publically and privately and it just goes back to HPC. Mr. True replied correct, it goes back to HPC for rehearing and reconsideration with Council comments. They make a final determination that is not subject to a secondary callup. That decision is final. It is just a reconsideration on their part. Councilman Frisch said they can watch the tape from the Council meeting and read the minutes to make the decision. Mr. True said you can say whatever you feel is appropriate in your motion for them to consider as part of their reconsideration but it is just a reconsideration on their part. There is no specific direction you can require them to take. P108 IV.A. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 25, 2016 10 Councilman Frisch moved to remand back to HPC for rehearing and reconsider of option A and restudy a non-connector option; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor except Councilman Daily. Motion carried. CALL UP – HPCs Approval of Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review and Demolition for 300-312 E. Hyman Avenue, Crystal Palace, HPC Resolution #9, Series of 2016 Ms. Simon, told the Council, on March 9th HPC granted conceptual design approval, conceptual commercial design review and demolition approval for a project located on the property we know as the Crystal Palace. This includes the dinner theater building and the one story structure to the east. At the call up notice we talked about how the building has changed over the years. On the corner of the site there is a Victorian era structure that has been heavily remodeled when Mead Metcalf created the Crystal Palace. He reconstructed the upper floor of the historic building and added on to it in a Victorian style. In terms of 19th century construction really it is just the ground floors facing Monarch and Hyman. HPC talked about what should we preserve and landed on the middle ground. There is a certain respect for this building. The applicant is removing enough of the existing redevelopment to go back to the footprint of the Victorian but keeping everything about the corner structure. They are making an addition to convert the property to a lodge. Because it is a 100 percent lodge on the north side of the street it is permitted to be three stories tall. The ground floor has a restaurant and common space. The second floor has 14 lodge rooms and the upper floor has two lodge rooms and an outdoor bar and pool. The applicant described how they would address other code requirements including trash, public amenity, utility and parking. The property right now has no onsite public amenity or open space. The applicant is required to meet the minimum of 10 percent or 900 square feet of amenity space. HPC talked about options of providing some amount on site and agreed with the applicant that the best thing to do would be street scape improvements. This will be provided by upgraded sidewalks particularly on the Monarch side. They are also upgrading the trash and public amenity in a way supported by environmental health. They are providing an onside transformer. There will be no parking on site. Currently there are four onsite spaces that they can pay cash in lieu to remove. The existing Crystal Palace is under parked for what is required today. The new project will not make that any worse. The project reduces the net leasable on the site so the applicant does not owe any more parking. Other things that came up during the notice were the transition between the more historic and the new construction. The brick façade bleeds over to the metal façade. HPC talked about a more distinct vertical separation. Council asked about what can go on the roof deck in terms of structure. HPC will look at that at final and can control the placement of built in planters and features. The HPC vote was unanimous 4 to 0. One member had a conflict and two members were ill and had to leave the meeting. They were all very supportive of the project with the one condition. Mitch Haas, representing the applicant, gave a history of the building. It has been changed many times over the years. He showed images of the original building. The roof collapse in the 1950’s and it had a barn door in the front. The barn door was changed to a store front window between 1950 and 1957. In 1962 there were more openings on the second floor and the mural is still there. In 1966 there were two store front windows and regular spacing of windows on the second floor. In 1980 the Mead Metcalf remodel with five punched openings on the second floor. Another remodel in 1991. While maybe today it is not historic, people relate the second floor to the Crystal Palace with a 60 foot brick bay. He showed images of the proposed design. P109 IV.A. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Nadolny, Planner Technician RE: 533 E. Main– Conceptual Major Development, Special Review, Growth Management, and Viewplane Review, PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 27, 2016 DATE: March 9, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: St. Mary’s requests approval for an addition to accommodate events and other church needs, a remodel of their front entry, a new egress stair, and an update to trash and utility areas. St. Mary’s is a designated landmark and is located in the Commercial Core Historic District. Required review topics include architectural design, utility/delivery/trash, transportation impact, parking, growth management, and view plane. HPC reviewed this project on August 26th and January 27th and continued the hearing each time for restudy. Draft minutes of the January 27th meeting are attached. On January 27th, staff recommended the project be restudied to address the following concerns:  Restudy the height and form of the Social Hall. Consider moving this structure to the north of the carriage house.  Eliminate the day-lighted basement concept.  Eliminate the proposals to enclose or partially enclose the egress stair. Provide more detail regarding impacts to the historic structure and study more traditional building materials.  Re-study the front entry into the church and restore the original condition or minimize impacts of any roof canopy and railings.  Confirm the Transportation Department’s assessment of the parking study and need for any mitigation.  Provide an analysis of the number of employees that would be mitigated through a mandatory occupancy deed restriction of the existing ADU. P110 IV.A. 2 HPC members shared some of those priorities, but the board was split, particularly on the concept of the day-lighted basement, and the new exterior egress stair. The applicant has responded with new plans that eliminate the raised basement and provide two options for the location of the above grade addition; either along the alley or along Main Street. The size of the addition has been reduced, however it is physically attached to the historic building, which was not the case in the January 27th plan. The applicant has studied the exterior egress stair again, so that the run is directed away from the historic structure, instead of lying against it. Staff finds that the project has moved towards compliance with the historic preservation design guidelines, particularly in the case of Option B which allows the new Social Hall to engage with the street, rather than create a wall of structures along the alley. Approval is recommended, with conditions. APPLICANT: The Archdiocese of Denver/St. Mary’s Church, represented by Charles Cunniffe Architects. ADDRESS: 533 E. Main Street, Lots A-I, Block 93, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado . PARCEL ID: 2737-073-31-801 ZONING: CC, Commercial Core. CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW The property is zoned Commercial Core. St. Mary’s is a civic use and is therefore theoretically permitted development of up to 2.75 x the lot size, or up to 74,250 square feet of floor area. The existing floor area is approximately 16,300 square feet and the proposed new floor area is approximately 2,600 square feet, making the total development well below the maximum possible. There are no setback requirements applicable to this property and no minimum public amenity or open space required. The design guidelines for conceptual review (height, scale, massing and proportions) are attached to this memo. In addition to the HPC design review process, there are several other Municipal Code regulations that will affect the proposal. For HPC’s reference, the project has progressed as follows: P111 IV.A. 3 March 9th, Option B August 26th January 27th March 9th, Option A P112 IV.A. 4 In all of the proposals that have been presented to HPC, the majority of the proposed new space is located below grade. This greatly reduces the visual impacts of the project and is an important concession by the applicant. The first proposed design for this project struggled in part because of the scale of the above grade space, which reached a height of 25’. The second proposal addressed that concern with a 7’ height reduction but introduced a new issue with the raised lawn. The two proposals before HPC for this March 9th meeting both provide a reasonably sized above grade expansion in terms of footprint and height. They are very similar in form, but Option A offers open space towards the street and Option B engages passersby in the activity inside the building. Option B is the applicant’s preference and appears to be supported by the majority of congregants, at least according to recent polling undertaken at the church. Staff supports Option B as being the most compliant with the HPC guidelines, particularly in terms of site planning. Since the first meeting, the board has discussed the possibility of locating the addition so that it reflects the position and character of the original building on the site, St. Stephen’s chapel, a small detached building in the center of the site, close to Main Street. P113 IV.A. 5 Option B is of course not a replication of that earlier structure, but it reflects the idea that church functions have historically been directly accessed from Main Street. The distance between the west side of St. Mary’s and the new Social Hall appears to be within 5’ of what existed with St. Stephen’s, though the Social Hall will appear closer because of the elevator addition constructed in the 1990s. The roof form for the Social Hall is flat. This helps to reduce its bulk and is particularly necessary in Option B, which does intrude slightly into the viewplane (to be addressed later in the memo.) The applicant’s initial concepts for materials and fenestration on the pavilion, at least as seen in Option B, create a stronger architectural relationship to the church than some of the previous concepts and help to achieve the difficult balance of compatibility without copying the historic structure. St. Mary’s is very opaque as seen from the street since many windows are stained glass or otherwise obscured. The Social Hall as it appears in Option B offers a glimpse of the community activities that will occur inside, without going overboard with glazing. Staff finds that this guideline is met: With regard to both Options A and B, HPC should evaluate the fact that the addition is physically linked to the west side of St. Mary’s. The new and old spaces are proposed to be connected inside at the basement level. The applicant wishes to have this same condition above grade. HPC could determine that the connector is not appropriate because it will impact the historic building by enveloping a section of wall and window into the new space. Staff is inclined to recommend that the Social Hall be completely detached for a few reasons. First, in Option A, the connector between the church and hall is 36’ long, doubling the street- facing façade of the addition. In Option A, 2/3rds of the connector is hidden behind the elevator addition. On the one hand, staff finds that the connector is therefore very minimal in impact. On the other hand, the design guidelines support a detached structure aligned with the front of the church more so than they support a connected addition at the front of the site. It would seem that the distance that one would travel outside between St. Mary’s and the Social Hall could be as little as 10,’ depending on how it is designed. 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. P114 IV.A. 6 Egress stair The applicant plans an interior remodel of the first and second floors of the church. On the first floor this entails reconfiguring office and meeting space and providing new bathrooms. In the sanctuary, the work involves some cosmetic updates and the addition of a choir loft. As HPC will recall from the previous site visit and discussions, there are currently two exists from the second floor. Stairs and an elevator serve the northern end of the building. A staircase which is more utilitarian in nature, currently used as preparation for services and not offered to the public, is located at the southeast corner of the structure. The Chief Building Official has stated that his current understanding of the scope of interior work does not trigger a requirement to provide a code compliant second means of egress at this time. He does however prefer any upgrades to the exiting conditions. The applicant is committed to creating another exit from the sanctuary and is adamantly opposed to attempting to upgrade the historic stair behind the altar for use as egress. The packet includes three versions of an unenclosed stair exiting from the west side of the church. Because the stair is proposed to proceed away from the building, rather than lay against the west wall, there will no longer be a need to fireproof the adjacent windows, which is an improvement. At the last meeting, some HPC members asked whether there is any possibility of moving the existing elevator towards the alley and combining it with a new enclosed stair. The applicant is unwilling to move the elevator for several reasons, and given some of the functional needs of the elevator it is unlikely to be able to be reduced in size if that was one of the board’s goals. Staff asked the applicant to study the possibility of screening the new stair by placing it against the south side of the elevator. A study of this idea is represented as Option C on sheet A2.7c of the packet. The applicant drew Option C with the stair exiting the church two windows south of the elevator. After reviewing the plans with the Chief Building Official, it has been confirmed that a code compliant stair could exit from the window immediately behind the elevator. The applicant does not prefer either Option C or “Option D,” (closer to the elevator) because they would necessitate removing 2-3 adjacent pews. Staff recommends HPC look at this issue carefully and consider whether grouping the elevator and stair together at the front is the best preservation option in terms of limiting the locations where new construction contacts the historic building. Studies of Option D are attached to the memo. They do not necessarily reflect the only options for how the stair run could be configured and they do not depict the Social Hall placement as part of the equation. HPC resolution of this issue is needed. Front Entry As discussed at the previous meeting, the church originally had no protected entry. The existing porch is the third or fourth version of a sheltered entry that has existed on the building. The applicant proposes to remove the existing construction because they find it to be bulky, and because it obstructs visibility of the transom window above the door. P115 IV.A. 7 Staff’s preference, from the perspective of historical accuracy, is no cover at the front doors. The Chief Building Official has indicated that snow stops or other protection could be discussed, however he strongly prefers an entry canopy in some form. Staff finds the glass roof that is included in the proposal is not clearly explained at this point and appears to be out of character with the historic structure. This is an instance where a very subtle distinction between new and old work is particularly important. More traditional materials should be considered. The architect’s intention to make the entry element a light and “delicate” element is appropriate. We recommend this item be addressed at Final review. Trash storage Environmental Health has reviewed the adjustments that have been made to the trash enclosure and is in support of the proposal. Staff recommends that the 11’ height of the enclosure be reduced if possible, while still accommodating a 9’ tall roll up door, preferred by Environmental Health. PARKING There is no standard parking requirement for civic uses; parking related to new or expanded net leasable area is subject to Special Review to determine an appropriate site specific solution. The site currently has three garage parking spaces that are reserved for church staff and residents of the site. The applicant has proposes no additional on-site spaces. The applicant commissioned a formal parking study with Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig (Exhibit IV). In determining whether any on-site parking is required HPC must consider the proposed uses for the parcel and projected traffic generation (TIA summary to follow), expected schedule of parking demands, impact on the neighborhood’s on-street parking, and proximity to mass transit. The project is located in the Commercial Core which has limited on-street parking opportunities. 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. P116 IV.A. 8 The church is one block from the Rio Grande parking garage and on the RFTA bus line which may help to off-set some of the parking concerns. The parking study indicates that the number of special event attendees would be lower than the regularly scheduled events already taking place, and therefore the on-street parking supply will continue to be adequate to serve the church’s parking needs. Engineering and the Transportation Department have reviewed the parking study and concluded the existing spaces on-street parking is adequate for the development proposed for this site. The applicant has received support from the Engineering Department for their Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA, Exhibit III). This is considered a minor project that will generate 14.85 new trips to and from the site per day. The applicant has proposed to mitigate for these additional trips by the creation of a new detached sidewalk with buffer, enhancement of pedestrian/bicycle conflict with vehicles at driveway areas, and new on-site bicycle parking facilities. Special review standards in relation to the parking issue are as follows: 26.515.040. Special review standards Whenever the off-street parking requirements of a proposed development are subject to special review, an application shall be processed as a special review in accordance with the common development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304 and be evaluated according to the following standards. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the project requires review by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Community Development Director has authorized consolidation pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.B, the Historic Preservation Commission shall approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the special review application. A. A special review for establishing, varying or waiving off-street parking requirements may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts on the on-street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. 2. An on-site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. 3. Existing or planned on-site or off-site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking. Staff recommends HPC accept the proposal for no new parking on the site, and accept the Engineering Department’s recommendation that the Transportation Impact mitigation is adequate at this level of design. Most of the mitigation will actually occur outside the property boundaries and will be further refined during the permit process. GROWTH MANAGEMENT P117 IV.A. 9 Civic uses such as a church are generally considered to be Essential Public Facilities and therefore are provided the opportunity for City Council to “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 employee generation rates may be used as a guideline, but each operation shall be analyzed for its unique employee needs, pursuant to Section 26.470.100, Calculations.” HPC is tasked with making a recommendation to City Council, which is the final decision-making body on mitigation requirements. Previously staff concluded the mitigation rate for the new development would theoretically be 10.27 FTE’s (full time employees), which takes advantage of the reduction provided by Section 26.470.070 of the code that applies to historic landmarked properties. The applicant continues to propose no affordable housing mitigation for the project. The Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) has determined that the current staffing of St. Mary’s (three full-time and two part-time employees) is equivalent to 3.575 FTE’s. APCHA supports some mitigation for the proposed project; however the Housing Board has recommended no mitigation requirement based on the applicant’s claim that no additional employees will be required. The Housing Board did suggest an employee audit be conducted two years after receiving certificate of occupancy, and if additional employees have been generated, the applicant would need to provide additional on-site employee housing or mitigation through the purchase of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit. Given the increased development on the site as well as the planned expansion of uses, Planning staff continues to recommend some mitigation be required for the proposed project. This is consistent with other recent essential public facility reviews. Staff is assembling a summary of those related approvals and will update HPC at the meeting. A reduced rate of mitigation may be considered by HPC, as the 10.27 FTE’s mentioned above is what would be required of commercial spaces with the Commercial Core zone district, and may be considered high for this use. Staff previously proposed that the existing on-site free market unit above the rectory garage be converted to a mandatory occupancy deed restricted unit as a way of providing mitigation for the project. HPC could choose to recommend a future audit of church employees as a compromise on this issue given the church’s confidence that current employees are adequate to staff the new space. HPC is required to make a recommendation to Council on this topic. The criteria are as follows: Sec. 26.470.090.4. Essential public facilities. The development of an essential public facility, upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the City Council based on the following criteria: a. The Community Development Director has determined the primary use and/or structure to be an essential public facility (see definition). Accessory uses may also be part of an essential public facility project. P118 IV.A. 10 b. Upon a recommendation from the Community Development Director, the 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 employee generation rates may be used as a guideline, but each operation shall be analyzed for its unique employee needs, pursuant to Section 26.470.100, Calculations. Staff recommends HPC offer two options to Council; deed restricting the existing apartment or allowing a later audit. MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE This property is encumbered by two courthouse view planes that pass through the site. The newly proposed development has been reviewed for compliance with the view plane restrictions. In previous plans, the height of the pavilion structure was 21’ – 25’ and encroached into the view plane. Responding to HPC’s concern the applicant has since reduced the pavilion’s height to 13.’ In both options presented to HPC for this meeting, the trash enclosure and stair are entirely under the viewplane. In Option A, the Social Hall is also fully compliant. In Option B, a portion of the roof pierces the viewplane by up to 2’. The applicant could continue to refine the height of this space to reduce or eliminate the impact. However the height of the Social Hall relates to the floor to ceiling height of St. Mary’s and also meets design guidelines that calls for new space to be in proportion with the tall first floor spaces traditionally found in the Victorian era buildings downtown. No mountain view plane may be infringed upon, except as provided below. When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable building height otherwise provided for in this Title, development shall proceed according to the provisions of Chapter 26.445 as a Planned Development so as to provide for maximum flexibility in building design with special consideration to bulk and height, open space and pedestrian space and similarly to permit variations in lot area, lot width, yard and building height requirements and view plane height limitations. HPC, after considering a recommendation from the Community Development Department, may exempt a development from being processed as a Planned Development when the board determines that the proposed development has a minimal effect on the view plane. When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located in front of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will further infringe upon the view plane and the likelihood that redevelopment of the adjacent structure will occur to re-open the view plane. In the event the proposed development does not further infringe upon the view plane and redevelopment to reopen the view plane cannot be anticipated, HPC shall exempt the development from the requirements of this Section. P119 IV.A. 11 The applicant is installing story poles for site inspection by HPC before the meeting. Staff would like to inspect the poles before making a final recommendation to HPC. ______________________________________________________________________________ The HPC may:  approve the application,  approve the application with conditions,  disapprove the application, or  continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. ______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC approve the application, as represented by Option B, with the following conditions: 1. The Social Hall is to be fully detached above grade. 2. A location for the exterior exit stair must be finalized. 3. Continue to work on the design of the entry canopy for Final review. 4. Reduce the height of the trash enclosure, if possible. 5. HPC recommends Council require affordable housing mitigation to be addressed either by deed restricting the existing free market apartment over the garage in the Rectory, or by requiring that two years after Certificate of Occupancy of the project, an employee audit shall be conducted by the applicant. At such time, if any additional employees have been generated, the Church will mitigate by providing additional on-site housing or by the purchase of the Affordable Housing Credit Certificates. 6. The applicant shall incorporate the TIA improvements endorsed by Engineering into the Final design for the project. 7. The applicant shall incorporate the Parks’ Departments comments on sidewalk design and tree protection into the Final design for the project. 8. HPC finds that no new on-site parking is required for this project. 9. HPC will inspect story poles to determine whether Option B has a minimal impact of the viewplane or requires any reduction in height. EXHIBITS: HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2016 I. Draft minutes from January 27, 2016 II. Remaining referral comments requiring HPC consideration III. Updated Transportation Impact Analysis IV. Parking Study V. Public Comment VI. Application VII. Relevant Design Guideline Exhibit VII, Relevant Design Guidelines 2.1 Preserve original building materials. P120 IV.A. 12  Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place.  Only remove siding which is deteriorated and must be replaced.  Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices, pediments, steps and foundations, should be preserved.  Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired. Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity. 5.5 If porch replacement is necessary, reconstruct it to match the original in form and detail.  Use materials that appear similar to the original.  While matching original materials is preferred, when detailed correctly and painted appropriately, alternative materials may be considered.  Where no evidence of the appearance of the historic porch exists, a new porch may be considered that is similar in character to those found on comparable buildings. Keep the style and form simple. Also, avoid applying decorative elements that are not known to have been used on the house or others like it.  When constructing a new porch, its depth should be in scale with the building.  The scale of porch columns also should be similar to that of the trimwork.  The height of the railing and the spacing of balusters should appear similar to those used historically as well. 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. 10.5 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic alignments that may exist on the street.  Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings in the area may align at approximately the same height. An addition should not be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured. 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. P121 IV.A. 13 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. 14.1 These standards should not prevent or inhibit compliance with accessibility laws.  All new construction should comply completely with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Owners of historic properties should comply to the fullest extent possible, while also preserving the integrity of the character-defining features of their buildings. Special provisions for historic buildings exist in the law that allow some alternatives in meeting the ADA standards. 14.2 Generally, a solution that is independent from the historic building and does not alter its historic characteristics is encouraged. 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. 14.15 Minimize the visual impacts of mechanical equipment as seen from the public way.  Mechanical equipment may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does not create a negative visual impact.  Mechanical equipment or vents on a roof must be grouped together to minimize their visual impact. Where rooftop units are visible, provide screening with materials that are compatible with those of the building itself.  Screen ground-mounted units with fences, stone walls or hedges.  A window air conditioning unit may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does not create a negative visual impact.  Use low-profile mechanical units on rooftops so they will not be visible from the street or alley. Also minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Use smaller P122 IV.A. 14 satellite dishes and mount them low to the ground and away from front yards, significant building facades or highly visible roof planes.  Paint telecommunications and mechanical equipment in muted colors that will minimize their appearance by blending with their backgrounds. 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. 14.18 Garages should not dominate the street scene. 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. 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. 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. 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. COMMERCIAL, LODGING AND HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN OBJECTIVES AND GUIDELINES, COMMERCIAL CORE HISTORIC DISTRICT- CONCEPTUAL REVIEW 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. P123 IV.A. 15 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.  See also: Public Amenity Space design guidelines. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.  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. 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. P124 IV.A. 16 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. 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.  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. 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 oofscape form and variation in upper ﬂoor heights  Variation in building façade heights or cornice line 6.34 The setting of iconic historic structures should be preserved and enhanced when feasible.  On sites comprising more than two traditional lot widths, the third ﬂoor of the adjacent lot width should be set back a minimum of 15 ft from the front facade.  Step a building down in height adjacent to an iconic structure.  Locate amenity space adjacent to an iconic structure. P125 IV.A. CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 3 5 : 3 5 A M CVR 1511 COVER S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O A0.1 SITE SURVEY A0.2 FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS A0.3 FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS A0.4a FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS OPT. A A0.4b FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS OPT. B A0.5 PROPOSED BASEMENT LEVEL FACTO FAR/ FACTOR A0.6 FLOOR AREA SUMMARY A1.0E EXISTING SITE PLAN A1.0a PROPOSED SITE PLAN OPT. A A1.0b PROPOSED SITE PLAN OPT. B A2.1E EXISTING LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A2.2E EXISTING MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A2.3E EXISTING SANCTUARY LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A2.4E EXISTING ROOF PLAN A2.3a PROPOSED SANCTUARY LEVEL FLOOR PLAN OPT. A A2.3b PROPOSED SANCTUARY LEVEL FLOOR PLAN OPT. B A2.4a PROPOSED ROOF PLAN OPT. A A2.4b PROPOSED ROOF PLAN OPT. B A2.7a PROPOSED EGRESS PLAN A A2.7b PROPOSED EGRESS PLAN B A2.7c PROPOSED EGRESS PLAN C A3.1E EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3.2E EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3.3E EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3.4E EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3.5E EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3.1 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS A3.2 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS A3.2.1a PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3.2.1b PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3.3a PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3.3b PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3.4a PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS OPT. A A3.4b PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS OPT. B A3.5a PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3.5b PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3.6 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3.7a PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3.7b PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A4.1a PROPOSED BUILDING SECTIONS A4.1b PROPOSED BUILDING SECTIONS A4.2a VIEW PLANES OPT. A A4.2b VIEW PLANES OPT. B A5.1a PROPOSED VIEWPLANE PERSPECTIVES OPT. A A5.1b PROPOSED VIEWPLANE PERSPECTIVES OPT. B A5.2a PROPOSED VIEWPLANE PERSPECTIVES OPT. A A5.2b PROPOSED VIEWPLANE PERSPECTIVES OPT. B ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 P 1 2 6 I V . A . P 1 2 7 I V . A . 5,239.83 SF EXISTING CHURCH - MAIN LEVEL 163.00 SF EXISTING SIDE PORTICO 197.50 SF EXEMPT EXISTING EXTERIOR AREA 155.68 SF EXISTING STAIR 155.68 SF EXISTING STAIR 64.00 SF EXISTING ELEVATOR 39.94 SF EXISTING STAIR 1,640.26 SF EXEMPT EXISTING BASEMENT AREA CRAWL SPACE 88.20 SF EXEMPT EXISTING BASEMENT ELEVATOR CRAWL SPACE FUTURE PLAY CHRUCH, RE: PAVILION PLANS EXISTING BASEMENT WALL, TO BE DEMOLISHED EXISTING CELLAR DOOR STEPS, TO BE DEMOLISHED 5,069.13 SF EXISTING SANCTUARY SPACE 131.14 SF EXEMPT EXISTING STAIR 133.75 SF EXEMPT EXISTING STAIR 64.00 SF EXEMPT EXISTING ELEVATOR 31.20 SF EXEMPT EXISTING STAIR 225.91 SF EXISTING CRY ROOM FLOOR AREA FAR TABULATION____________________________________ __ EXEMPT DECKS ABOVE 30" EXISTING BUILDING FUTURE CONSTRUCTION DESCRIPTION ZONING EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT NET LOT AREA GROSS LOT AREA 2.75:1 ALLOWABLE CIVIC FLOOR AREA ALLOWABLE EXEMPT DECK ZONING SCHEDULE NOTES CC COMMERCIAL CORE CIVIC CIVIC 27,000 SF 27,000 SF 74,250 SF 11,137.5 SF (15% OF 74,250) FAR SUMMARY BASEMENT LEVEL TOTAL BASEMENT LEVEL DEDUCTION FOR SUBGRADE AREA BASEMENT LEVEL AREA TOWARD FAR MAIN LEVEL (LESS DECKS & LOGGIA) TOTAL MAIN LEVEL DEDUCTIONS MAIN LEVEL AREA TOWARD FAR SANCTUARY LEVEL TOTAL SANCTUARY LEVEL DEDUCTIONS SANCTUARY LEVEL AREA TOWARD FAR DECKS AND LOGGIA TOTAL DECKS AND LOGGIA DEDUCTIONS FOR 15% ALLOWABLE AREA DECKS AND LOGGIA AREA TOWARD FAR TOTAL FAR 1,728.46 SF 1,728.46 SF 0 SF 5,852.63 SF 197.50 SF 5655.13 SF 5,655.14 SF 360.10 SF 5,295.04 SF 163.00 SF 163.00 SF 0 SF 10,950.17 SF CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 9 : 2 0 : 5 9 A M A0.2 1511 EXISTING FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS S T . M A R Y ' S C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T . A S P E N , C O 1/8" = 1'-0"2 CHURCH MAIN LEVEL - EXISTING FAR 1/8" = 1'-0"1 CHURCH BASEMENT LEVEL - EXISTING FAR 1/8" = 1'-0" 3 CHURCH SANCTUARY LEVEL - EXISTING FAR CHURCH FAR LEVEL NAME FLOOR AREA Comments MAIN LEVEL EXISTING CHURCH - MAIN LEVEL 5,239.83 SF MAIN LEVEL EXISTING ELEVATOR 64.00 SF CIRCULATION MAIN LEVEL EXISTING STAIR 351.30 SF CIRCULATION SANCTUARY LEVEL EXISTING CRY ROOM 225.91 SF SANCTUARY LEVEL EXISTING SANCTUARY SPACE 5,069.13 SF FAR TOTAL 10,950.17 SF CHURCH FAR DEDUCTIONS LEVEL NAME FLOOR AREA Comments BASEMENT LEVEL EXEMPT EXISTING BASEMENT AREA 1,640.26 SF BELOW GRADE EXEMPTED AREA BASEMENT LEVEL EXEMPT EXISTING BASEMENT ELEVATOR 88.20 SF BELOW GRADE EXEMPTED AREA MAIN LEVEL EXEMPT EXISTING EXTERIOR AREA 197.50 SF STREET-FACING EXTERIOR AREA SANCTUARY LEVEL EXEMPT EXISTING ELEVATOR 64.00 SF EXEMPT CIRCULATION SANCTUARY LEVEL EXEMPT EXISTING STAIR 296.10 SF EXEMPT CIRCULATION FAR DEDUCTIONS TOTAL 2,286.06 SF CHURCH ACTUAL DECKS / LOGGIA LEVEL NAME FLOOR AREA Comments MAIN LEVEL EXISTING SIDE PORTICO 163.00 SF FAR DEDUCTIONS TOTAL 163.00 SF ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 P 1 2 8 I V . A . FUTURE CONSTRUCTION 1,081.65 SF EXEMPT BASEMENT 50.92 SF EXEMPT EXISTING ELEVATOR 64.93 SF EXEMPT EXISTING STAIR ALLEY COURTYARD 1,081.65 SF EXISTING GARAGE SPACE 50.92 SF EXISTING ELEVATOR 64.93 SF EXISTING STAIR FUTURE CONSTRUCTION ALLEY COURTYARD 1,057.20 SF EXISTING EMPLOYEE HOUSING 64.93 SF EXEMPT EXISTING STAIR FUTURE CONSTRUCTION 162.32 SF EXISTING EMPLOYEE HOUSING DECKALLEY COURTYARD 1,677.00 SF EXISTING RECTORY - MAIN FLOOR 113.49 SF EXEMPT EXISTING EXTERIOR AREA 33.75 SF EXISTING STAIR 26.25 SF EXISTING STAIR 216.85 SF EXISTING RECTORY - PORCH S . G A L E N A S T . COURTYARD 1,423.25 SF EXISTING RECTORY - UPPER FLOOR 24.75 SF EXISTING STAIR 31.50 SF EXISTING STAIRS . G A L E N A S T . COURTYARD 559.75 SF EXEMPT EXISTING RECTORY BASEMENT 26.25 SF EXEMPT EXISTING STAIR CRAWL SPACE CRAWL SPACE S. G A L E N A S T . COURTYARD FLOOR AREA FAR TABULATION____________________________________ __ EXEMPT DECKS ABOVE 30" EXISTING BUILDING FUTURE CONSTRUCTION DESCRIPTION ZONING EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT NET LOT AREA GROSS LOT AREA 2.75:1 ALLOWABLE CIVIC FLOOR AREA ALLOWABLE EXEMPT DECK ZONING SCHEDULE NOTES CC COMMERCIAL CORE CIVIC CIVIC 27,000 SF 27,000 SF 74,250 SF 11,137.5 SF (15% OF 74,250) EMPLOYEE HOUSING FAR SUMMARY BASEMENT LEVEL TOTAL BASEMENT LEVEL DEDUCTION FOR SUBGRADE AREA BASEMENT LEVEL AREA TOWARD FAR MAIN LEVEL TOTAL MAIN LEVEL DEDUCTIONS MAIN LEVEL AREA TOWARD FAR UPPER LEVEL (LESS DECKS & LOGGIA) TOTAL UPPER LEVEL DEDUCTIONS UPPER LEVEL AREA TOWARD FAR DECKS AND LOGGIA TOTAL DECKS AND LOGGIA DEDUCTIONS FOR 15% ALLOWABLE AREA DECKS AND LOGGIA TOWARD FAR TOTAL FAR 1,197.5 SF 1,197.5 SF 0 SF 1,197.50 SF 0 SF 1,197.50 SF 1,122.13 SF 64.93 SF 1,057.20 SF 162.32 SF 162.32 SF 0 SF 2,254.70 SF RECTORY FAR SUMMARY BASEMENT LEVEL TOTAL BASEMENT LEVEL DEDUCTION FOR SUBGRADE AREA BASEMENT LEVEL AREA TOWARD FAR MAIN LEVEL (LESS DECKS AND LOGGIA) TOTAL MAIN LEVEL DEDUCTIONS MAIN LEVEL AREA TOWARD FAR UPPER LEVEL TOTAL UPPER LEVEL DEDUCTIONS UPPER LEVEL AREA TOWARD FAR DECKS AND LOGGIA TOTAL DECKS AND LOGGIA DEDUCTIONS FOR 15% ALLOWABLE AREA DECKS AND LOGGIA AREA TOWARD FAR TOTAL FAR 586.00 SF 586.00 SF 0 SF 1,850.49 SF 113.49 SF 1,737.00 SF 1,479.50 SF 56.25 SF 1,423.25 SF 216.85 SF 216.85 SF 0 SF 3,160.25 SF CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 9 : 2 1 : 0 0 A M A0.3 1511 EXISTING FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS S T . M A R Y ' S C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T . A S P E N , C O 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EMPLOYEE HOUSING - BASEMENT LEVEL EXISTING FAR 1/8" = 1'-0"2 EMPLOYEE HOUSING - MAIN LEVEL EXISTING FAR 1/8" = 1'-0"3 EMPLOYEE HOUSING - UPPER LEVEL EXISTING FAR 1/8" = 1'-0"5 RECTORY - MAIN LEVEL EXISTING FAR 1/8" = 1'-0"6 RECTORY - UPPER LEVEL EXISTING FAR 1/8" = 1'-0"4 RECTORY - BASEMENT LEVEL EXISTING FAR EMPLOYEE HOUSING FAR LEVEL NAME FLOOR AREA Comments EMPLOYEE HOUSING - GROUND EXISTING ELEVATOR 50.92 SF CIRCULATION EMPLOYEE HOUSING - GROUND EXISTING GARAGE SPACE 1,081.65 SF EMPLOYEE HOUSING - GROUND EXISTING STAIR 64.93 SF CIRCULATION EMPLOYEE HOUSING - LVL 02 EXISTING EMPLOYEE HOUSING 1,057.20 SF FAR TOTAL 2,254.70 SF EMPLOYEE HOUSING FAR DEDUCTIONS LEVEL NAME FLOOR AREA Comments EMPLOYEE HOUSING - BASEMENT EXEMPT BASEMENT 1,081.65 SF BELOW GRADE EXEMPTED AREA EMPLOYEE HOUSING - BASEMENT EXEMPT EXISTING ELEVATOR 50.92 SF BELOW GRADE EXEMPTED AREA EMPLOYEE HOUSING - BASEMENT EXEMPT EXISTING STAIR 64.93 SF BELOW GRADE EXEMPTED AREA EMPLOYEE HOUSING - LVL 02 EXEMPT EXISTING STAIR 64.93 SF EXEMPT CIRCULATION FAR DEDUCTIONS TOTAL 1,262.43 SF EMPLOYEE HOUSING ACTUAL DECKS / LOGGIA LEVEL NAME FLOOR AREA Comments EMPLOYEE HOUSING - LVL 02 EXISTING EMPLOYEE HOUSING DECK 162.32 SF FAR DEDUCTIONS TOTAL 162.32 SF RECTORY FAR LEVEL NAME FLOOR AREA Comments EMPLOYEE HOUSING - GROUND EXISTING RECTORY - MAIN FLOOR 1,677.00 SF EMPLOYEE HOUSING - GROUND EXISTING STAIR 60.00 SF CIRCULATION EMPLOYEE HOUSING - LVL 02 EXISTING RECTORY - UPPER FLOOR 1,423.25 SF FAR TOTAL 3,160.25 SF RECTORY FAR DEDUCTIONS LEVEL NAME FLOOR AREA Comments EMPLOYEE HOUSING - BASEMENT EXEMPT EXISTING RECTORY BASEMENT 559.75 SF BELOW GRADE EXEMPTED AREA EMPLOYEE HOUSING - BASEMENT EXEMPT EXISTING STAIR 26.25 SF BELOW GRADE EXEMPTED AREA EMPLOYEE HOUSING - GROUND EXEMPT EXISTING EXTERIOR AREA 113.49 SF STREET-FACING EXTERIOR AREA EMPLOYEE HOUSING - LVL 02 EXISTING STAIR 56.25 SF EXEMPT CIRCULATION FAR DEDUCTIONS TOTAL 755.74 SF RECTORY ACTUAL DECKS / LOGGIA LEVEL NAME FLOOR AREA Comments EMPLOYEE HOUSING - GROUND EXISTING RECTORY - PORCH 216.85 SF FAR DEDUCTIONS TOTAL 216.85 SF ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 P 1 2 9 I V . A . UP DN UP 290.03 PROPOSED AREA (TRASH ENCLOSURE/JANITOR'S CLOSET) EXISTING EMPLOYEE HOUSING EXISTING CHURCH 813.44 PROPOSED PAVILION 258.00 PROPOSED AREA (ENCLOSED WALKWAY) 95.82 PROPOSED STAIR 211.14 EXEMPT PROPOSED AREA - PORCH 146.26 EXEMPT AREA STAIR 53.47 EXEMPT PROPOSED STAIR 58.54 EXEMPT PROPOSED STAIR FAR TABULATION____________________________________ __ FLOOR AREA EXEMPT DECKS ABOVE 30" EXISTING BUILDING FUTURE CONSTRUCTION 6978.57 PROPOSED SOCIAL HALL 147.71 EXEMPT PROPOSED STAIR EXISTING EMPLOYEE HOUSING EXISTING CHURCH 855.35 PROPOSED BASEMENT 104.69 EXEMPT PROPOSED STAIR EXISTING CHURCH 36.68 PROPOSED SANCTUARY LEVEL DESCRIPTION ZONING EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT NET LOT AREA GROSS LOT AREA 2.75:1 ALLOWABLE CIVIC FLOOR AREA ALLOWABLE EXEMPT DECK ZONING SCHEDULE NOTES CC COMMERCIAL CORE CIVIC CIVIC 27,000 SF 27,000 SF 74,250 SF 11,137.5 SF (15% OF 74,250) PAVILION FAR SUMMARY BASEMENT LEVEL TOTAL BASEMENT LEVEL DEDUCTION FOR SUBGRADE AREA BASEMENT LEVEL AREA TOWARD FAR MAIN LEVEL TOTAL MAIN LEVEL DEDUCTIONS MAIN LEVEL AREA TOWARD FAR SANCTUARY LEVEL TOTAL UPPER LEVEL DEDUCTIONS SANCTUARY LEVEL AREA TOWARD FAR EXTERIOR SPACE TOTAL DECKS AND LOGGIA DEDUCTIONS EXTERIOR SPACE TOWARD FAR TOTAL FAR 1,066.8 SF 252.4 SF 814.4 SF 1,715.56 SF 112.01 SF 1,603.55 SF 36.68 SF 0.00 SF 36.68 SF 211.14 SF 211.14 SF 0.00 SF 2,454.63 SF CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 3 2 : 4 3 A M A0.4a 1511 FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS OPT. A S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O 1/8" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL FAR OPT A SOCIAL HALL OPTION A - FAR LEVEL NAME FLOOR AREA COMMENTS BASEMENT LEVEL PROPOSED BASEMENT 855.35 SF X 10.4% = 88.6 SF BASEMENT LEVEL PROPOSED SOCIAL HALL 6978.57 SF X 10.4% = 725.8 SF MAIN LEVEL EXEMPT AREA STAIR 146.26 SF MAIN LEVEL PROPOSED AREA (ENCLOSED WALKWAY) 258.00 SF MAIN LEVEL PROPOSED AREA (TRASH ENCLOSURE/JANITOR'S CLOSET) 290.03 SF TRASH ENCLOSURE MAIN LEVEL PROPOSED PAVILION 813.44 SF MAIN LEVEL PROPOSED STAIR 95.82 SF CIRCULATION SANCTUARY LEVEL PROPOSED SANCTUARY LEVEL 36.68 SF Grand total 9474.15 SF SOCIAL HALL OPTION A - FAR DEDUCTIONS LEVEL NAME FLOOR AREA COMMENTS BASEMENT LEVEL EXEMPT PROPOSED STAIR 252.40 SF CIRCULATION MAIN LEVEL EXEMPT PROPOSED AREA - PORCH 211.14 SF EXTERIOR AREA MAIN LEVEL EXEMPT PROPOSED STAIR 112.01 SF CIRCULATION Grand total 575.55 SF NOTE: PROPOSED SOCIAL HALL FLOOR AREA RATIO IS CALCULATED AS A PARTIAL SUBGRADE SPACE MULTIPLIED BY 10.4%. RE; A0.5 FOR THE CALCULATION OF THE EXPOSED WALL AREA 1/8" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED BASEMENT LEVEL FAR OPT A 1/8" = 1'-0"3 PROPOSED SANCTUARY LEVEL FAR OPT A ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 P 1 3 0 I V . A . 235.02 PROPOSED AREA (TRASH ENCLOSURE/JANITOR'S CLOSET) 57.78 EXEMPT PROPOSED STAIR 886.41 PROPOSED PAVILION 166.70 EXEMPT PROPOSED STAIR 269.02 EXEMPT PROPOSED AREA- PORCH 411.29 PROPOSED AREA (ENCLOSED WALKWAY) 90.09 PROPOSED STAIR 30.70 EXEMPT PROPOSED STAIR FAR TABULATION____________________________________ __ FLOOR AREA EXEMPT DECKS ABOVE 30" EXISTING BUILDING FUTURE CONSTRUCTION DESCRIPTION ZONING EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT NET LOT AREA GROSS LOT AREA 2.75:1 ALLOWABLE CIVIC FLOOR AREA ALLOWABLE EXEMPT DECK ZONING SCHEDULE NOTES CC COMMERCIAL CORE CIVIC CIVIC 27,000 SF 27,000 SF 74,250 SF 11,137.5 SF (15% OF 74,250) 6656.83 PROPOSED SOCIAL HALL 147.71 EXEMPT PROPOSED STAIR 117.45 EXEMPT PROPOSED STAIR EXISTING EMPLOYEE HOUSING EXISTING CHURCH 855.35 PROPOSED BASEMENT EXISTING CHURCH 37.74 PROPOSED SANCTUARY LEVEL PAVILION FAR SUMMARY BASEMENT LEVEL TOTAL BASEMENT LEVEL DEDUCTION FOR SUBGRADE AREA BASEMENT LEVEL AREA TOWARD FAR MAIN LEVEL TOTAL MAIN LEVEL DEDUCTIONS MAIN LEVEL AREA TOWARD FAR SANCTUARY LEVEL TOTAL UPPER LEVEL DEDUCTIONS SANCTUARY LEVEL AREA TOWARD FAR EXTERIOR SPACE TOTAL DECKS AND LOGGIA DEDUCTIONS EXTERIOR SPACE TOWARD FAR TOTAL FAR 1,061.46 SF 265.16 SF 796.3 SF 1,877.98 SF 88.48 SF 1,789.5 SF 37.74 SF 0.00 SF 37.74 SF 269.02 SF 269.02 SF 0.00 SF 2,623.54 SF CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 3 2 : 4 7 A M A0.4b 1511 FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS OPT. B S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O NOTE: PROPOSED SOCIAL HALL FLOOR AREA RATIO IS CALCULATED AS A PARTIAL SUBGRADE SPACE MULTIPLIED BY 10.6%. RE; A0.5 FOR THE CALCULATION OF THE EXPOSED WALL AREA 1/8" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL OPT B FAR 1/8" = 1'-0"2 BASEMENT LEVEL OPT B FAR 1/8" = 1'-0" 3 SANCTUARY LEVEL OPT B FAR ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 SOCIAL HALL OPTION B - FAR DL NAME FLOOR AREA COMMENTS BASEMENT LEVEL PROPOSED BASEMENT 855.35 SF X10.6% = 90.7 SF BASEMENT LEVEL PROPOSED SOCIAL HALL 6656.83 SF X10.6% = 705.6 SF MAIN LEVEL PROPOSED AREA (ENCLOSED WALKWAY) 411.29 SF MAIN LEVEL PROPOSED AREA (TRASH ENCLOSURE/JANITOR'S CLOSET) 235.02 SF TRASH ENCLOSURE MAIN LEVEL PROPOSED PAVILION 886.41 SF MAIN LEVEL PROPOSED STAIR 90.09 SF CIRCULATION SANCTUARY LEVEL PROPOSED SANCTUARY LEVEL 37.74 SF Grand total 9172.73 SF SOCIAL HALL OPTION B - FAR DEDUCTIONS LEVEL NAME FLOOR AREA COMMENTS BASEMENT LEVEL EXEMPT PROPOSED STAIR 265.16 SF CIRCULATION MAIN LEVEL EXEMPT PROPOSED AREA- PORCH 269.02 SF EXTERIOR AREA MAIN LEVEL EXEMPT PROPOSED STAIR 255.18 SF Grand total 789.36 SF P 1 3 1 I V . A . EXPOSED/ABOVE GRADE WALL CALCULATION OPTION A PERIMETER OF EXPOSED AREA OF WALLS EXPOSED X HEIGHT OF WALL PERIMETER OF SUBGRADE WALLS X HEIGHT OF WALL BELOW GRADE TOTAL WALL AREA AREA EXPOSED/ABOVE GRADE TOTAL WALL AREA PERCENT OF EXPOSED/ABOVE GRADE WALL AREA 58'-2"x 14' =814-4" SF 503'-7" X 14' = 7,050'-2" SF 7,864'-6" SF 814'-4" SF 7,864'6" SF 10.4% EXISTING EMPLOYEE HOUSING EXISTING CHURCH PERIMETER OF BASEMENT ADDITION = 491' 10" PERIMETER EXPOSED WALL = 24' 4" PERIMETER EXPOSED WALL = 34' EXISTING EMPLOYEE HOUSING EXISTING CHURCH PERMITER OF BASEMENT ADDITION = 503' 7" PERMITER EXPOSED WALL = 24' 4" PERMITER EXPOSED WALL = 34' EXPOSED/ABOVE GRADE WALL CALCULATION OPTION B PERIMETER OF EXPOSED AREA OF WALLS EXPOSED X HEIGHT OF WALL PERIMETER OF SUBGRADE WALLS X HEIGHT OF WALL BELOW GRADE TOTAL WALL AREA AREA EXPOSED/ABOVE GRADE TOTAL WALL AREA PERCENT OF EXPOSED/ABOVE GRADE WALL AREA 49'-10" x 14' =816'-8" SF 491'-10" X 14' = 6,885-8" SF 7,702'-4" SF 816'-8" SF 7,702'-4" SF 10.6% CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 4 0 : 4 3 A M A0.5 1511 PROPOSED BASEMENT LEVEL FACTO FAR/ FACTOR S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 2 OPTION B LOWER LEVEL WALL AREA 1 OPTION A LOWER LEVEL WALL AREA P 1 3 2 I V . A . TO T A L S I T E G S F ( W I T H O U T D E D U C T I O N S ) EX I S T I N G C H U R C H G S F EX I S T I N G R E C T O R Y G S F EX I S T I N G E M P L O Y E E H O U S I N G G S F PR O P O S E D P A V I L I O N G S F TO T A L G S F 13 , 3 9 9 . 2 3 S F 4, 1 3 2 . 8 4 S F 3, 6 6 9 . 4 5 S F 10 , 0 4 9 . 7 0 S F 31 , 2 5 1 . 2 2 S F SI T E F A R S U M M A R Y EX I S T I N G C H U R C H F A R EX I S T I N G R E C T O R Y F A R EX I S T I N G E M P L O Y E E H O U S I N G F A R PR O P O S E D P A V I L I O N F A R TO T A L F A R TO T A L A L L O W A B L E F L O O R A R E A 10 , 9 5 0 . 1 6 S F 3, 1 6 0 . 2 5 S F 2, 2 5 4 . 7 0 S F 2, 4 5 4 . 6 3 S F 18 , 8 1 9 . 7 4 S F 74 , 2 5 0 . 0 0 S F DE S C R I P T I O N ZO N I N G EX I S T I N G D E V E L O P M E N T PR O P O S E D D E V E L O P M E N T NE T L O T A R E A GR O S S L O T A R E A 2. 7 5 : 1 A L L O W A B L E C I V I C F L O O R A R E A AL L O W A B L E E X E M P T D E C K ZO N I N G S C H E D U L E NO T E S CC C O M M E R C I A L C O R E CIV I C CIV I C 27 , 0 0 0 S F 27 , 0 0 0 S F 74 , 2 5 0 S F 11 , 1 3 7 . 5 S F ( 1 5 % O F 7 4 , 2 5 0 ) FA R S U M M A R Y BA S E M E N T L E V E L TO T A L B A S E M E N T L E V E L DE D U C T I O N F O R SU B G R A D E A R E A BA S E M E N T L E V E L A R E A T O W A R D F A R MA I N L E V E L ( L E S S D E C K S & L O G G I A ) TO T A L M A I N L E V E L DE D U C T I O N S MA I N L E V E L A R E A T O W A R D F A R SA N C T U A R Y L E V E L TO T A L S A N C T U A R Y L E V E L DE D U C T I O N S SA N C T U A R Y L E V E L A R E A T O W A R D F A R DE C K S A N D L O G G I A TO T A L D E C K S A N D L O G G I A DE D U C T I O N S F O R 1 5 % A L L O W A B L E A R E A DE C K S A N D L O G G I A A R E A T O W A R D F A R TO T A L F A R 1, 7 2 8 . 4 6 S F 1, 7 2 8 . 4 6 S F 0 S F 5, 8 5 2 . 6 3 S F 19 7 . 5 0 S F 56 5 5 . 1 3 S F 5, 6 5 5 . 1 4 S F 36 0 . 1 0 S F 5, 2 9 5 . 0 4 S F 16 3 . 0 0 S F 16 3 . 0 0 S F 0 S F 10 , 9 5 0 . 1 7 S F EM P L O Y E E H O U S I N G F A R S U M M A R Y BA S E M E N T L E V E L TO T A L B A S E M E N T L E V E L DE D U C T I O N F O R SU B G R A D E A R E A BA S E M E N T L E V E L A R E A T O W A R D F A R MA I N L E V E L TO T A L M A I N L E V E L DE D U C T I O N S MA I N L E V E L A R E A T O W A R D F A R UP P E R L E V E L ( L E S S D E C K S & L O G G I A ) TO T A L U P P E R L E V E L DE D U C T I O N S UP P E R L E V E L A R E A T O W A R D F A R DE C K S A N D L O G G I A TO T A L D E C K S A N D L O G G I A DE D U C T I O N S F O R 1 5 % A L L O W A B L E A R E A DE C K S A N D L O G G I A T O W A R D F A R TO T A L F A R 1, 1 9 7 . 5 S F 1, 1 9 7 . 5 S F 0 S F 1, 1 9 7 . 5 0 S F 0 S F 1, 1 9 7 . 5 0 S F 1, 1 2 2 . 1 3 S F 64 . 9 3 S F 1, 0 5 7 . 2 0 S F 16 2 . 3 2 S F 16 2 . 3 2 S F 0 S F 2, 2 5 4 . 7 0 S F RE C T O R Y F A R S U M M A R Y BA S E M E N T L E V E L TO T A L B A S E M E N T L E V E L DE D U C T I O N F O R SU B G R A D E A R E A BA S E M E N T L E V E L A R E A T O W A R D F A R MA I N L E V E L ( L E S S D E C K S A N D L O G G I A ) TO T A L M A I N L E V E L DE D U C T I O N S MA I N L E V E L A R E A T O W A R D F A R UP P E R L E V E L TO T A L U P P E R L E V E L DE D U C T I O N S UP P E R L E V E L A R E A T O W A R D F A R DE C K S A N D L O G G I A TO T A L D E C K S A N D L O G G I A DE D U C T I O N S F O R 1 5 % A L L O W A B L E A R E A DE C K S A N D L O G G I A A R E A T O W A R D F A R TO T A L F A R 58 6 . 0 0 S F 58 6 . 0 0 S F 0 S F 1, 8 5 0 . 4 9 S F 11 3 . 4 9 S F 1, 7 3 7 . 0 0 S F 1, 4 7 9 . 5 0 S F 56 . 2 5 S F 1, 4 2 3 . 2 5 S F 21 6 . 8 5 S F 21 6 . 8 5 S F 0 S F 3, 1 6 0 . 2 5 S F PA V I L I O N F A R S U M M A R Y BA S E M E N T L E V E L TO T A L B A S E M E N T L E V E L DE D U C T I O N F O R SU B G R A D E A R E A BA S E M E N T L E V E L A R E A T O W A R D F A R MA I N L E V E L TO T A L M A I N L E V E L DE D U C T I O N S MA I N L E V E L A R E A T O W A R D F A R SA N C T U A R Y L E V E L TO T A L U P P E R L E V E L DE D U C T I O N S SA N C T U A R Y L E V E L A R E A T O W A R D F A R EX T E R I O R S P A C E TO T A L D E C K S A N D L O G G I A DE D U C T I O N S EX T E R I O R S P A C E T O W A R D F A R TO T A L F A R 1, 0 6 6 . 8 S F 25 2 . 4 S F 81 4 . 4 S F 1, 7 1 5 . 5 6 S F 11 2 . 0 1 S F 1, 6 0 3 . 5 5 S F 36 . 6 8 S F 0. 0 0 S F 36 . 6 8 S F 21 1 . 1 4 S F 21 1 . 1 4 S F 0. 0 0 S F 2, 4 5 4 . 6 3 S F PA V I L I O N F A R S U M M A R Y BA S E M E N T L E V E L TO T A L B A S E M E N T L E V E L DE D U C T I O N F O R SU B G R A D E A R E A BA S E M E N T L E V E L A R E A T O W A R D F A R MA I N L E V E L TO T A L M A I N L E V E L DE D U C T I O N S MA I N L E V E L A R E A T O W A R D F A R SA N C T U A R Y L E V E L TO T A L U P P E R L E V E L DE D U C T I O N S SA N C T U A R Y L E V E L A R E A T O W A R D F A R EX T E R I O R S P A C E TO T A L D E C K S A N D L O G G I A DE D U C T I O N S EX T E R I O R S P A C E T O W A R D F A R TO T A L F A R 1, 0 6 1 . 4 6 S F 26 5 . 1 6 S F 79 6 . 3 S F 1, 8 7 7 . 9 8 S F 88 . 4 8 S F 1, 7 8 9 . 5 S F 37 . 7 4 S F 0.0 0 S F 37 . 7 4 S F 26 9 . 0 2 S F 26 9 . 0 2 S F 0. 0 0 S F 2, 6 2 3 . 5 4 S F TO T A L S I T E G S F ( W I T H O U T D E D U C T I O N S ) EX I S T I N G C H U R C H G S F EX I S T I N G R E C T O R Y G S F EX I S T I N G E M P L O Y E E H O U S I N G G S F PR O P O S E D P A V I L I O N G S F TO T A L G S F 13 , 3 9 9 . 2 3 S F 4, 1 3 2 . 8 4 S F 3, 6 6 9 . 4 5 S F 9, 9 6 2 . 0 8 S F 31 , 1 6 3 . 6 0 S F SI T E F A R S U M M A R Y EX I S T I N G C H U R C H F A R EX I S T I N G R E C T O R Y F A R EX I S T I N G E M P L O Y E E H O U S I N G F A R PR O P O S E D P A V I L I O N F A R TO T A L F A R TO T A L A L L O W A B L E F L O O R A R E A 10 , 9 5 0 . 1 6 S F 3, 1 6 0 . 2 5 S F 2, 2 5 4 . 7 0 S F 2, 6 2 3 . 5 4 S F 18 , 9 8 8 . 6 5 S F 74 , 2 5 0 . 0 0 S F CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS C610 EAST HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557cunniffe.com SHEET NO.JOB NO. 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 8 : 2 1 : 2 3 A M A0.61511FLOOR AREA SUMMARYST. MARY'S CATHOLIC CHURCH 533 E. MAIN ST. ASPEN, CO CHURCH FAR LE V E L NA M E FLOOR AREA Comments MA I N L E V E L E X I S T I N G C H U R C H - M A I N L E V E L 5 , 2 3 9 . 8 3 S F MA I N L E V E L E X I S T I N G E L E V A T O R 6 4 . 0 0 S F C I R C U L A T I O N MA I N L E V E L E X I S T I N G S T A I R 3 5 1 . 3 0 S F C I R C U L A T I O N SA N C T U A R Y L E V E L E X I S T I N G C R Y R O O M 2 2 5 . 9 1 S F SA N C T U A R Y L E V E L E X I S T I N G S A N C T U A R Y S P A C E 5 , 0 6 9 . 1 3 S F FA R T O T A L 10,950.17 SF CH U R C H F A R D E D U C T I O N S LE V E L NA M E FLOOR AREA Comments BA S E M E N T L E V E L E X E M P T E X I S T I N G B A S E M E N T A R E A 1 , 6 4 0 . 2 6 S F B E L O W G R A D E E X E M P T E D A R E A BA S E M E N T L E V E L E X E M P T E X I S T I N G B A S E M E N T E L E V A T O R 8 8 . 2 0 S F B E L O W G R A D E E X E M P T E D A R E A MA I N L E V E L E X E M P T E X I S T I N G E X T E R I O R A R E A 1 9 7 . 5 0 S F S T R E E T - F A C I N G E X T E R I O R A R E A SA N C T U A R Y L E V E L E X E M P T E X I S T I N G E L E V A T O R 6 4 . 0 0 S F E X E M P T C I R C U L A T I O N SA N C T U A R Y L E V E L E X E M P T E X I S T I N G S T AI R 2 9 6 . 1 0 S F E X E M P T C I R C U L A T I O N FA R D E D U C T I O N S T O T A L 2 , 2 8 6 . 0 6 S F CH U R C H A C T U A L D E C K S / L O G G I A LE V E L NA M E FLOOR AREA Comments MA I N L E V E L E X I S T I N G S I D E P O R T I C O 1 6 3 . 0 0 S F FA R D E D U C T I O N S T O T A L 1 6 3 . 0 0 S F EM P L O Y E E H O U S I N G F A R LE V E L NA M E FLOOR AREA Comments EM P L O Y E E H O U S I N G - G R O U N D E X I S T I N G E L E V A T O R 5 0 . 9 2 S F C I R C U L A T I O N EM P L O Y E E H O U S I N G - G R O U N D E X I S T I N G G A R A G E S P A C E 1 , 0 8 1 . 6 5 S F EM P L O Y E E H O U S I N G - G R O U N D E X I S T I N G S T A I R 6 4 . 9 3 S F C I R C U L A T I O N EM P L O Y E E H O U S I N G - L V L 0 2 E X I S T I N G E M P L O Y E E H O U S I N G 1 , 0 5 7 . 2 0 S F FA R T O T A L 2,254.70 SF EM P L O Y E E H O U S I N G F A R D E D U C T I O N S LE V E L NA M E FLOOR AREA Comments EM P L O Y E E H O U S I N G - B A S E M E N T E X E M P T B A S E M E N T 1 , 0 8 1 . 6 5 S F B E L O W G R A D E E X E M P T E D A R E A EM P L O Y E E H O U S I N G - B A S E M E N T E X E M P T E X I S T I N G E L E V A T O R 5 0 . 9 2 S F B E L O W G R A D E E X E M P T E D A R E A EM P L O Y E E H O U S I N G - B A S E M E N T E X E M P T E X I S T I N G S T A I R 6 4 . 9 3 S F B E L O W G R A D E E X E M P T E D A R E A EM P L O Y E E H O U S I N G - L V L 0 2 E X E M P T E X I S T I N G S T A I R 6 4 . 9 3 S F E X E M P T C I R C U L A T I O N FA R D E D U C T I O N S T O T A L 1 , 2 6 2 . 4 3 S F RE C T O R Y A C T U A L D E C K S / L O G G I A LE V E L NA M E FLOOR AREA Comments EM P L O Y E E H O U S I N G - G R O U N D E X I S T I N G R E C T O R Y - P O R C H 2 1 6 . 8 5 S F FA R D E D U C T I O N S T O T A L 2 1 6 . 8 5 S F EM P L O Y E E H O U S I N G A C T U A L D E C K S / L O G G I A LE V E L NA M E FLOOR AREA Comments EM P L O Y E E H O U S I N G - L V L 0 2 E X I S T I N G E M P L O Y E E H O U S I N G D E C K 1 6 2 . 3 2 S F FA R D E D U C T I O N S T O T A L 1 6 2 . 3 2 S F RE C T O R Y F A R LE V E L NA M E FLOOR AREA Comments EM P L O Y E E H O U S I N G - G R O U N D E X I S T I N G R E C T O R Y - M A I N F L O O R 1 , 6 7 7 . 0 0 S F EM P L O Y E E H O U S I N G - G R O U N D E X I S T I N G S T A I R 6 0 . 0 0 S F C I R C U L A T I O N EM P L O Y E E H O U S I N G - L V L 0 2 E X I S T I N G R E C T O R Y - U P P E R F L O O R 1 , 4 2 3 . 2 5 S F FA R T O T A L 3,160.25 SF RE C T O R Y F A R D E D U C T I O N S LE V E L NA M E FLOOR AREA Comments EM P L O Y E E H O U S I N G - B A S E M E N T E X E M P T E X I S T I N G R E C T O R Y B A S E M E N T 5 5 9 . 7 5 S F B E L O W G R A D E E X E M P T E D A R E A EM P L O Y E E H O U S I N G - B A S E M E N T E X E M P T E X I S T I N G S T A I R 2 6 . 2 5 S F B E L O W G R A D E E X E M P T E D A R E A EM P L O Y E E H O U S I N G - G R O U N D E X E M P T E X I S T I N G E X T E R I O R A R E A 1 1 3 . 4 9 S F S T R E E T - F A C I N G E X T E R I O R A R E A EM P L O Y E E H O U S I N G - L V L 0 2 E X I S T I N G S T A I R 5 6 . 2 5 S F E X E M P T C I R C U L A T I O N FA R D E D U C T I O N S T O T A L 7 5 5 . 7 4 S F 6 OV E R A L L S I T E F A R - O P T I O N A ZO N I N G S C H E U D L E CH U R C H F A R S U M M A R Y ( E X I S T I N G ) EM P L O Y E E H O U S I N G F A R S U M M A R Y ( E X I S T I N G ) RE C T O R Y F A R S U M M A R Y ( E X I S T I N G ) PA V I L I O N F A R S U M M A R Y - O P T I O N A 123 48 PA V I L I O N F A R S U M M A R Y - O P T I O N B 5 7 OV E R A L L S I T E F A R - O P T I O N B ISSUE: D A T E : HPC SUBMISSION 0 2 / 2 2 / 1 6 P133 IV.A. KITCHEN OFFICE OFFICEOFFICE APARTMENT APARTMENT RECEPTION VESTIBULE BATH BATH CLASSROOM CLASSROOM CLASSROOM CLASSROOM CLASSROOM CLASSROOM CLASSROOMELEVATOR EXISTING EMPLOYEE HOUSING EXISTING RECTORY EXISTING DRIVEWAY (GRASS PAVERS) LAWN EXISTING TRANSFORMER CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 3 2 : 4 9 A M A1.0E 1511 EXISTING SITE PLAN S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING SITE PLAN NORTH ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 P 1 3 4 I V . A . UP UP A3.2E 1 A3.1E1 A3.3a 1 A3.4 1 A3.3E 1 A3.5E 1 A3.5a 1 A3.4E 1 A3.11 A3.2 1 A4.2 3 1 A3.2.3 1 A3.2.3 A3.6 2 A3.61 A3.7b 4 A3.4a 1 A3.4b 1 SOCIAL HALL ENTRANCE TRASH ENCLOSURE XFMR EXISTING EMPLOYEE HOUSING EXISTING RECTORY LAWN EXISTING DRIVEWAY (GRASS PAVERS) EXISTING KITCHEN CLASSROOM CLASSROOM CLASSROOM CLASSROOM CLASSROOM OFFICE NEW RECEPTION NEW LOBBY M W OFFICE OFFICE MEETING ROOM 10'-9" 2 0 ' - 9 " 1 A4.2a 1 A4.2a 2 A4.2a 2 A4.2a 1 A4.2b 1 A4.2b 2 A4.2b 2 A4.2b A4.2a 3 A4.2b 3 KITCHEN DOOR RELOCATED HISTORIC WINDOW REPLACED EGRESS STAIRS FROM SOCIAL HALL 7 ' - 3 " 2 7 ' - 7 " 6 ' - 0 " PORCH EXISTING TRANSFORMER A3.3b 1 A3.5b 1 1 A3.2.1b 1 A3.2.1b 36'-4" CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 3 2 : 4 7 A M A1.0a 1511 PROPOSED SITE PLAN OPT. A S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O 1/8" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL OPT A NORTH ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 0 4 8 16 P 1 3 5 I V . A . UP UP UP EXISTING EMPLOYEE HOUSING EXISTING RECTORY TRASH ENCLOSURE SOCIAL HALL ENTRANCE LAWN EXISTING DRIVEWAY (GRASS PAVERS) XFMR EXISTING KITCHEN CLASSROOM CLASSROOM CLASSROOM CLASSROOM OFFICE RECEPTION LOBBY M W OFFICE OFFICE MEETING ROOM 10'-0" 2 0 ' - 0 " 8'-0" FLEX SPACE EXISTING TRANSFORMER LOADING/ADA DROP-OFF RELOCATED LILACS 38'-7"34'-1" CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 3 2 : 4 8 A M A1.0b 1511 PROPOSED SITE PLAN OPT. B S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O 1/8" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL OPT B NORTH ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 P 1 3 6 I V . A . STORAGE CRAWLSPACE CRAWLSPACE LOBBY STORAGE CRAWLSPACE BOILER CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 3 2 : 5 0 A M A2.1E 1511 EXISTING LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR PLAN NORTH ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 P 1 3 7 I V . A . EXISTING EMPLOYEE HOUSING EXISTING RECTORY EXISTING DRIVEWAY (GRASS PAVERS) EXISTING TRANSFORMER LAWN ELEVATOR KITCHEN OFFICE OFFICEOFFICE APARTMENT APARTMENT RECEPTION VESTIBULE BATH BATH CLASSROOM CLASSROOM CLASSROOM CLASSROOM CLASSROOM CLASSROOM CLASSROOM CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 4 5 : 4 6 A M A2.2E 1511 EXISTING MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O NORTH 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING MAIN LEVEL ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 P 1 3 8 I V . A . TRASH ENCLOSURE EXISTING EMPLOYEE HOUSING EXISTING RECTORY LAWNEXISTING DRIVEWAY UPDATED SANCTUARY ELEVATOR CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 4 4 : 2 2 A M A2.3E 1511 EXISTING SANCTUARY LEVEL FLOOR PLAN S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING SANCTUARY LEVEL PLAN NORTH ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 P 1 3 9 I V . A . XF R M TRASH EMPLOYEE HOUSING EXISTING RECTORY CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 4 7 : 2 3 A M A2.4E 1511 EXISTING ROOF PLAN S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING ROOF PLAN NORTH ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 P 1 4 0 I V . A . UP UP UP DN DN SOCIAL HALL ENTRANCE TRASH ENCLOSURE XFMR EXISTING EMPLOYEE HOUSING EXISTING RECTORY LAWNEXISTING DRIVEWAY UPDATED SANCTUARY LOADING/ADA DROP OFF EGRESS STAIRS FROM SOCIAL HALL ELEVATOR NEW EGRESS CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 3 2 : 5 2 A M A2.3a 1511 PROPOSED SANCTUARY LEVEL FLOOR PLAN OPT. A S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O 1/8" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED SANCTUARY LEVEL PLAN OPT A ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 P 1 4 1 I V . A . UP UP UP UP DN DNSOCIAL HALL ENTRANCE TRASH ENCLOSURE XFMR EXISTING EMPLOYEE HOUSING EXISTING RECTORY LAWN EXISTING DRIVEWAY LOADING/ADA DROP OFF UPDATED SANCTUARY ELEVATOR NEW EGRESS CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 3 2 : 5 4 A M A2.3b 1511 PROPOSED SANCTUARY LEVEL FLOOR PLAN OPT. B S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED SANCTUARY LEVEL PLAN OPT B ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 P 1 4 2 I V . A . UP UP UP EXISTING EMPLOYEE HOUSING EXISTING RECTORY LAWNEXISTING DRIVEWAY SOCIAL HALL ENTRANCE TRASH ENCLOSURE XFMR EXISTING CHURCH CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 3 2 : 5 5 A M A2.4a 1511 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN OPT. A S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O 1/8" = 1'-0"1 ROOF PLAN OPT A NORTH ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 P 1 4 3 I V . A . UP UP UP EXISTING EMPLOYEE HOUSING EXISTING RECTORY LAWN EXISTING DRIVEWAY SOCIAL HALL ENTRANCE TRASH ENCLOSURE XFMR EXISTING CHURCH EXISTING TRANSFORMER CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 3 2 : 5 6 A M A2.4b 1511 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN OPT. B S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O 1/8" = 1'-0"1 ROOF PLAN OPT B NORTH ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 P 1 4 4 I V . A . UP UP UP DN DN CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 3 3 : 0 0 A M A2.7a 1511 PROPOSED EGRESS PLAN A S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 1/8" = 1'-0"1 OPTION A EGRESS PLAN P 1 4 5 I V . A . UP UP UP DN DN CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 3 3 : 0 1 A M A2.7b 1511 PROPOSED EGRESS PLAN B S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 OPTION B EGRESS PLAN P 1 4 6 I V . A . UP UP DN DN 1 0 6 ' - 1 0 " 1 / 3 D I S T A N C E 3 5 ' - 6 " MEETS CODE OF 1/3 DISTANCE36'-5" DOES NOT MEET CODE OF 1/3 DISTANCE 27'-8" CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 3 3 : 0 2 A M A2.7c 1511 PROPOSED EGRESS PLAN C S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O 1/8" = 1'-0"1 OPTION C EGRESS PLAN ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 P 1 4 7 I V . A . CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 3 3 : 0 5 A M A3.1E 1511 EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O 3/16" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING EAST ELEVATION ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 P 1 4 8 I V . A . CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 3 3 : 1 1 A M A3.2E 1511 EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O 3/16" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 P 1 4 9 I V . A . COVERED PORCHCOVERED ENTRY ELEVATOR TOWER CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 3 3 : 2 1 A M A3.3E 1511 EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O 3/16" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING WEST ELEVATION ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 P 1 5 0 I V . A . EXISTING CHURCH EMPLOYEE HOUSING RECTORYELEVATOR ADDITION CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 3 3 : 4 3 A M A3.4E 1511 EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING MAIN STREET ELEVATION ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 P 1 5 1 I V . A . EXISTING CHURCHEMPLOYEE HOUSINGRECTORY ELEVATOR TOWER BEYOND CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 3 4 : 0 6 A M A3.5E 1511 EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING ALLEY ELEVATION ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 P 1 5 2 I V . A . CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 3 3 : 0 4 A M A3.1 1511 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O 3/16" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 P 1 5 3 I V . A . CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 3 3 : 0 8 A M A3.2 1511 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O 3/16" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 P 1 5 4 I V . A . TRASH AND TRANSFORMER BEYOND CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 3 3 : 0 9 A M A3.2.1a 1511 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O 3/16" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED EXTERIOR SECT/ELEV. EGRESS STAIR OPT A ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 MINIMAL STEEL AND IRON EGRESS STAIR ENCLOSED GLASS WALKWAY P 1 5 5 I V . A . CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 3 3 : 0 9 A M A3.2.1b 1511 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 3/16" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED EXTERIOR SECT/ELEV. EGRESS STAIR OPT B MINIMAL STEEL AND IRON EGRESS STAIR TRASH AND TRANSFORMER BEYOND P 1 5 6 I V . A . CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 3 3 : 1 5 A M A3.3a 1511 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O 3/16" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED WEST ELEV. OPT A ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 MINIMAL STEEL AND IRON EGRESS STAIR EXISTING TRANSFORMER ENCLOSED GLASS WALKWAY P 1 5 7 I V . A . GUARD RAIL; STEEL HAND RAIL STEEL TREADS, OPEN RISERS NEW COVERED WALKWAY TO EXISTING ELEVATOR CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 3 3 : 2 0 A M A3.3b 1511 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O 3/16" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED WEST ELEV. OPT B ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 P 1 5 8 I V . A . EXISTING CHURCH SOCIAL HALL ENTRY EMPLOYEE HOUSING RECTORYELEVATOR ADDITION CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 3 3 : 2 9 A M A3.4a 1511 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS OPT. A S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O 1/8" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED MAIN STREET ELEVATION- OPT A ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 P 1 5 9 I V . A . EXISTING CHURCH SOCIAL HALL ENTRY EMPLOYEE HOUSING RECTORYELEVATOR ADDITION CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 3 3 : 3 7 A M A3.4b 1511 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS OPT. B S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O 1/8" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED MAIN STREET ELEVATION - OPT. B ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 P 1 6 0 I V . A . EXISTING CHURCHSOCIAL HALL ENTRANCE EMPLOYEE HOUSINGRECTORY TRASH ELEVATOR TOWER BEYOND, EGRESS STAIR AT ALLEY CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 3 3 : 5 0 A M A3.5a 1511 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O 1/8" = 1'-0"1 ALLEY ELEV. OPT A ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 P 1 6 1 I V . A . EXISTING CHURCHSOCIAL HALL ENTRANCE EMPLOYEE HOUSINGRECTORY TRASH ELEVATOR TOWER BEYOND, EGRESS STAIR AT ALLEY CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 3 4 : 0 0 A M A3.5b 1511 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 1/8" = 1'-0"1 ALLEY ELEV. OPT B P 1 6 2 I V . A . HISTORIC CIRCULAR WINDOW HISTORIC STAINED GLASS WINDOW PROPOSED RESTORATION OF CHURCH ENTRY, WROUGHT IRON AND FROSTED GLASS CANOPY CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 3 4 : 0 8 A M A3.6 1511 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O 1/4" = 1'-0"2 ENTRY CANOPY NORTH ELEV 1/4" = 1'-0"1 ENTRY CANOPY EAST ELEVATION ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 P 1 6 3 I V . A . CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 3 4 : 1 0 A M A3.7a 1511 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 ENTRANCE NORTH ELEVATION OPT A 1/4" = 1'-0"2 ENTRANCE EAST ELEVATION OPT A 1/4" = 1'-0"3 ENTRANCE WEST ELEVATION OPT A ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 P 1 6 4 I V . A . CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 3 4 : 1 4 A M A3.7b 1511 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 ENTRANCE EAST ELEVATION OPT B 1/4" = 1'-0"2 ENTRANCE SOUTH ELEVATION OPT B 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 ENTRANCE WEST ELEVATION OPT B 1/4" = 1'-0"4 ENTRANCE NORTH ELEVATION OPT B ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 P 1 6 5 I V . A . MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" SANCTUARY LEVEL 112'-11" BASEMENT LEVEL 87'-7" T.O. ROOF 146'-0" ROOF START 125'-11" T.O. SOCIAL HALL ROOF 115'-0" COURTHOUSE VIEW PLANE #1 COURTHOUSE VIEW PLANE #2 (WHICH IS VETERAN'S PARK) NEW TRASH ENCLOSURE PROPOSED PAVILION WITH BRICK BACK WALL PROPOSED EGRESS STAIR SOCIAL HALL W.C. CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 3 4 : 1 6 A M A4.1a 1511 PROPOSED BUILDING SECTIONS S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 3/16" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED SECTION OPT A P 1 6 6 I V . A . MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" SANCTUARY LEVEL 112'-11" BASEMENT LEVEL 87'-7" T.O. ROOF 146'-0" ROOF START 125'-11" T.O. SOCIAL HALL ROOF 115'-0" COURTHOUSE VIEW PLANE #1 COURTHOUSE VIEW PLANE #2 (WHICH IS VETERAN'S PARK) NEW TRASH ENCLOSURE PROPOSED EGRESS STAIR SOCIAL HALL CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 3 4 : 1 9 A M A4.1b 1511 PROPOSED BUILDING SECTIONS S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 3/16" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED SECTION OPT B P 1 6 7 I V . A . COURTHOUSE VIEWPLANE, REFERENCE PT. #1 ALLEY VIEWPLANE ESTABLISHED BY SITE INTERSECTION WITH CITY HALL MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE CITY HALL (FOR COMPARISON) PR O P E R T Y L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E COURTHOUSE VIEWPLANE, REFERENCE PT. #2 MAIN STREET ALLEY MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE P R O P E R T Y L I N E P R O P E R T Y L I N E CONDO MASSING (CONDOS OCCUR IN VIEWPLANE) VIEWPLANE ESTABLISHED BY INTERSECTION WITH CONDOS EL. = 7752.26 EXISTING CHURCH BUILDING PROPOSED SOCIAL HALL EXISTING EMPLOYEE HOUSING EXISTING RECTORY VIEWPLANE # 1 VIEWPLANE #2 VIEWPLANE #2 FALLS BEHIND THE CHURCH ADDITION OPTION A NOT IN THE VIEW PLANE CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 5 1 : 2 9 A M A4.2a 1511 VIEW PLANES OPT. A S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O 1/16" = 1'-0"1 COURTHOUSE VIEW PLANE #1 OPT A 1/16" = 1'-0"2 COURTHOUSE VIEW PLANE #2 OPT A 1/8" = 1'-0"3 SITE ELEV-MAIN STREET PROPOSED OPT A ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 P 1 6 8 I V . A . COURTHOUSE VIEWPLANE, REFERENCE PT. #1 ALLEY VIEWPLANE ESTABLISHED BY SITE INTERSECTION WITH CITY HALL MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE CITY HALL (FOR COMPARISON) PR O P E R T Y L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E COURTHOUSE VIEWPLANE, REFERENCE PT. #2 MAIN STREET ALLEY MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE P R O P E R T Y L I N E P R O P E R T Y L I N E CONDO MASSING (CONDOS OCCUR IN VIEWPLANE) VIEWPLANE ESTABLISHED BY INTERSECTION WITH CONDOS EL. = 7752.26 EXISTING CHURCH BUILDING PROPOSED SOCIAL HALL EXISTING EMPLOYEE HOUSING EXISTING RECTORY VIEWPLANE # 1 VIEWPLANE #2 VIEWPLANE #2 FALLS BEHIND THE CHURCH ADDITION CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 3 4 : 2 8 A M A4.2b 1511 VIEW PLANES OPT. B S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O 1/16" = 1'-0" 1 COURTHOUSE VIEW PLANE #1 OPT B 1/16" = 1'-0"2 COURTHOUSE VIEW PLANE #2 OPT B 1/8" = 1'-0"3 SITE ELEV-MAIN STREET OPT B ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 P 1 6 9 I V . A . CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 3 4 : 5 0 A M A5.1a 1511 PROPOSED VIEWPLANE PERSPECTIVES OPT. A S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 1 COURTHOUSE VIEW PLANE #1 OPTION A 2 COURTHOUSE VIEW PLANE #1 OPTION A P 1 7 0 I V . A . CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 3 5 : 1 3 A M A5.1b 1511 PROPOSED VIEWPLANE PERSPECTIVES OPT. B S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 1 COURTHOUSE VIEW PLANE #1 OPTION B 2 COURTHOUSE VIEW PLANE #1 OPTION B P 1 7 1 I V . A . CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 3 5 : 2 2 A M A5.2a 1511 PROPOSED VIEWPLANE PERSPECTIVES OPT. A S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 1 COURTHOUSE VIEW PLANE #2 OPTION A 2 COURTHOUSE VIEW PLANE #2 OPTION A P 1 7 2 I V . A . CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO. 2/ 2 2 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 3 5 : 3 3 A M A5.2b 1511 PROPOSED VIEWPLANE PERSPECTIVES OPT. B S T . M A R Y C A T H O L I C C H U R C H 53 3 E . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O ISSUE: DATE: HPC SUBMISSION 01/06/16 HPC SUBMISSION 02/22/16 1 COURTHOUSE VIEW PLANE #2 OPTION B 2 COURTHOUSE VIEW PLANE #2 OPTION B P 1 7 3 I V . A . Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Nora Berko, Bob Blaich, Gretchen Greenwood, Patrick Sagal, Michael Brown, Jim DeFrancis and Sallie Golden. John Whipple was absent. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MOTION: Bob moved to approve the minutes of August 12th as amended by Michael Brown. Michael second the motion. All in favor, motion carried. 533 E. Main Street – Conceptual Major Development, Growth Management, Special Review and Viewplane Review, Public Hearing Debbie reviewed the Public Notice – Exhibit I Amy said the proposal involves an addition to the church and a reconfiguration of the front entry. The property is landmark designated and located in the historic district. Conceptual design: Amy said the applicant proposes a 3,000 square foot addition on the west side of the church plus a 3,700 square foot basement. HPC needs to consider the design guideline and the view planes. As the view plane crosses the property it is only ten feet off the ground at the front lot line along Main St. and only 14 feet high on the alley. That means all new construction should be under that height limit or HPC can allow it if you find that there is no new impact on the view plane. No negative visual impact created by the proposal. The proposed addition is 21 to 25 feet tall and is obviously through that view plane. City hall and the Conner cabins are through the view plane. In the early 1990’s the elevator addition was added and in the mid 1990’s the carriage house/garage employee housing structure was built. The new addition attempts to work around some of those conditions and staff is concerned that there is not an appropriate amount of space available for the pavilion where it is placed between the employee housing and church. There is crowding along the alley and not providing enough breathing room and obstructing some of the views of the side of the historic church. There was a chapel in the middle of the site and we suggested to the applicant that they relook the program and consider the possibilities of a detached structure in front of the employee housing building as a possible way to decrease impacts directly to the church and possibly allow for more flexibility and follow the history how the site has been developed over time and reduce some of the impacts. The review has involved other city departments. The Engineering Dept. has suggested that the curb cut on Main Street cannot continue. As far as we know there has been no permit for the curb cut. It has been there at least from the 60’s. There are also new CDOT regulations regarding access to HWY 82 and the City is considering the relocation of the bus stop that is in front of Locals Corner and moving it east. The applicant has an appeal process that P174 IV.A. they can pursue regarding the curb cut. Staff recommends continuation of the hearing after we discuss other issues tonight. The Building Dept. has been involved and part of the project involves a new staircase on the west side of the church to provide another egress. There is a staircase at the front of the building and an elevator at the front of the building and there is a proposal to add the new staircase on the west. There is a stair case at the alley end of the church and it is undersized and doesn’t meet the code. There is no immediate necessity to resolve this. It is an existing condition that is allowed to continue and the applicant is not required to add this enlarged staircase. There are other options that they can pursue. There is also a request to remodel the front of the church. Historically there was nothing there. In the 1960’s an entry was added and the entry today was from the 1990’s and it is a covering that was never there before. It covers the stained glass over the doors that you can’t see until you are right up to the door. The roof height could be raised so that you can see that part of the façade again. Staff’s preference is no porch roof and be able to see the front façade the way the building was designed originally. If there is a porch it should be minimal and not interfere with the architecture and we would like to see a restudy of the entry. The sidewalk needs improvements and the transformer and the health department has requirements regarding trash and recycling storage. The applicant also needs to address their transportation impacts. With regard to parking the property currently doesn’t have any that is available to the public. This new addition does trigger a new parking requirement. You are able through a special review to determine the number of parking spaces that are justified. Staff is suggesting that the applicant prepare a parking study to have a more factual analysis. There are two other churches that have done expansions and also did parking studies. Growth management: All new development requires some kind of affordable housing mitigation to address the impacts to new employees. Facilities like this can be called essential facilities and can be granted exceptions because there is a civic purpose and this is a community benefit. You would have to house 10.27 employees on the site or buy affordable housing credits to take care of the new impact. We don’t feel that is the number to be mitigated. They have provided employee housing voluntarily already on the site and they have a lot of volunteers etc. The housing authority recommended some level of mitigation and an audit later. The Housing Board recommended no mitigation. Staff feels something is necessary. One possibility would be to have the unit in the rectory have a mandatory occupancy. Mountain viewplane: There are view criteria that needs to be met in order to allow anything to project through the view plane or the applicant needs to honor the view plane. We have suggested that the structure be a detached structure in the middle of the site and that various things be shuffled around in order for you to make a finding. Staff recommends the following. Study accommodating the new construction in a free standing building, approximately straddling Lots D and E. P175 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2015 3 Study alternatives to the stair/elevator addition on the rear corner of the church. Address removal of the Main Street curb cut. Study the front entry into the church and restore the original condition or minimize impacts of any roof canopy and railings. Work with Engineering and Transportation to resolve any deficiencies in the TIA. Complete a formal parking study. Provide an analysis of the number of employees that would be mitigated through a mandatory occupancy deed restriction of the existing ADU. Reduce infringement into the view planes. Amy said on Christ Episcopal Church there was no parking requirement. For Cross Roads Church there was an agreement to use the Forest Service parking lot. The curb cut is coming from the municipal code and Engineering Dept. Curb cuts are not allowed on the state highway. There was a typo in the memo and it should be section 21.16.060, Engineering Standards of the municipal code. The standards are new and there is an expansion on the property proposed. Amy said the unit above the garage is a deed restricted affordable housing unit. Charles Cunniffe & Associates Marina Skyles Charles said we did go to housing and there was no need for us to mitigate housing any further than what we currently have done. St. Mary’s is largely volunteer and parishioners of the catholic faith. St. Mary’s has grown and has a loyal following and is an active parish. Most churches have a social hall associated with it and St. Mary’s does not. The church needs code upgrades and repairs and one is the exit stair which required us to add an exit stair to the building. The other stair serves the service part of the church, P176 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2015 4 priest and altar boys. It is not a public way. We are proposing to maintain the stained glass windows, replace the carpet and pews and there is mechanical and electrical needs that need upgraded. We intend to do a maintenance and beautification project to the church. The classes are overrun and have been held in the hallways. The bathrooms need enlarged in order to meet the code. The old restrooms will be converted to office space. In the front we will enlarge the area so people can be greeted. Digging under the church was a liability and far more expensive to do. The lawn space for the church is very important and is an historical aspect of the property. To fill that with construction we thought was inappropriate. We chose a campus model that is surrounded by a ring of buildings and the buildings are linked together. The lawn faces the court house and provides breathing room. The proposal is to use the underutilized portion of the property which is the alley and upgrade the service requirements and provide an exit stair. The stair enclosure would not intersect the eave of the building and just be a glass enclosure so you read the entire building through the enclosure. We have reduced the height of the addition by four feet. The height is 17 feet. The enclosure is brick on the back and it is more of a tent pavilion and it engages in the lawn and you read through the building to the back wall. It is slightly curved. The church does a lot of public events. The social hall would allow people to stay on the property after a wedding and just go down stairs for the reception. The structure is light and airy. The view plane is currently impacted by the Conner cabin townhomes which is higher than this building is. The apartment addition has a view plan variation that comes across the middle windows of the apartment addition so we are continuing that variation. We are proposing to lighten up the church entry and the current entry blocks the historic window in which we would like to expose. Marina said the original church was St. Stephens in the back and the steps emptied out into Main Street. Our intent is to lighten the structure in the front so that it relates to the pavilion. Charles said the committee said the historic church needs to be dominant. The pavilion is a building of today. The arches of the pavilion pick up the arches of the windows in the church. We lowered the roof to avoid shadows onto the church and we feel the pavilion is a humble structure. The alley has the trash, transformer and a service entrance. Charles presented a video that shows a better visualization of the proposal. (attached to the agenda packet) P177 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2015 5 Willis inquired about the lawn activities. Father John Hilton said the lawn is used every Sunday after the masses for coffee and donuts and the kids play out there and it is also used for picnics. The lawn is also used for parish special events. Gretchen said she is confused about the stair case at the second level which is a significant change to the historic building. Charles said because work is being done to the building the Building Dept. is requiring the exterior stair. Amy said for the next meeting we need in writing what the position of the Building Department is. Amy said she thought the stair was not required. Charles pointed out that there is no additional programming in this proposal that would require more parking. One of our hopes is if there is a wedding they will utilize the pavilion for the reception. There actually should be a reduction in parking. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public comment portion of the agenda item. Ann O’Brien said she is supportive of the facility and the church needs it desperately. The architect and his team went to work and lowered the height and added the brick element on the back wall. Georgeann Waggaman asked the HPC to approve the plan. It is a good solution and it complements the existing buildings without competing with the historic church. It uses modern clean designs and materials to allow the historic structure to be the focal point. The design buffers the green courtyard with the historic lilacs against the street which allows for a zone of tranquility which is what churches are supposed to have. We want to keep the garage access the way it is because it would be ghastly expensive to turn it around. The use of open pavers with the grass growing through is a good design. The bus stop should not be moved in front of the church. Exhibit II Robert Donatelli said this church has done a lot of great things for people and I am proud of Father John and I support the proposals and physical P178 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2015 6 changes to the building and I oppose a bus stop in front of the church. It is important as the population of the church grows to have more square footage and we need the safety of another staircase in case of fire etc. Kim Baillargeon said she is a new member of St. Mary’s and she totally supports the design and the decision to go ahead and build this pavilion. I would like to see this because of my desire to bring in more young people into the church. Young people want things that are updated. You need to not only think of the past history but the future history of the church and congregation. Robyn Joiner said she is a convert and she is raising two children and moved to Aspen partially because of the school district. Being a part of St. Mary’s is very important especially because of the families. My children are out on the lawn playing and being able to have the pavilion on the side and have that area for greeting after mass is exactly what God intended us to be as a community. The children need a place to go after school. John Keleher entered a picture from parishioner Julie Debcker and her children. Exhibit III. Our children are the faces of the future of St. Mary’s. Currently St. Mary’s has several multiuse classrooms. A new social hall would provide a stable learning environment for all the children of the parish. The proposal of the social hall that overlooks the lawn allows fellowship with each other. The heart of our community is gathering people together after masses. John entered his letter into the record Exhibit IV. There are movers and shakers called developers and caretakers who are content to leave things as they are. The history of Aspen has both, Wheeler, Hyman etc. merchants and miners whose names are memorialized in the stained glass windows of our church. In 1892 the church was a small wooden building built in 1882. After World War II developers came again and if they didn’t come none of us would be here today and the valley would still be a ranching farming community and no skiing, music or institute. The growing of the church necessitated the construction of the existing church. In 1987 and over 15 years we completed four major projects. Our facilities have served us for many years; however, times are changing again. It is time to do a new building that would facilitate and further the education of our parishioners and host meetings and conferences. P179 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2015 7 Carl Vill said he serves on the parish council and I have watched this plan develop and it is coming along quite well. The architect has done a good job and I like the campus effect and the placement of the building. When I look at the other places of worship they have all expanded. We have been standing still and we need to carry out our mission here and I support the application. Stowman L Stines II said he fully supports the pavilion building and the new egress that is proposed on the side of the building. We need the egress for emergencies. If there is a problem right now everyone would have to go down two sets of stairs. Paul Mctay said he met his wife at the parish and is very fond of the parish. I am a strong supporter of the project. I want my daughter to grow up in a thriving community and I am involved with the youth group. The pavilion is a building but it is also a spiritual building that touches people ’s hearts as well. Julie & Dick Bulkeley said we live across the street from the church. The parishioners are wonderful people to interact with and I hope HPC approves the project. Andrew Calvetti said he is a part time resident for 15 years and the architect has done a great job on the project. The siting is excellent and I wouldn’t want to see it in the grassy area. Moving the bus stop would negatively affect St Mary’s and you would have to take out the trees. As far as parking goes there is plenty of space to park. Ellen Marshall said she came here in the late 60’s as a nurse and St. Mary’s has always been my church. I am not in favor of the proposed project. It looks like a modern building and there could be a plan B. I thought we were only renovating the church. If you build the pavilion it doesn’t mean people will come. I don’t think a building brings people to a church. People bring people to the church. Because there are weddings at the church it is speculative to assume that the reception would be in the pavilion. Tom Marshall said he has the same feelings as his wife. My concerns are basic. A glass box on this beautiful historic piece of property does not fit in. Regarding the parking as we build more and more downtown and take away P180 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2015 8 open space parking becomes an issue. The cost of this project needs to be flushed out. Lisa Markalunas said she is a four generation Aspen native and born and raised and baptized in St. Mary’s Catholic church. We are here to assess the historic nature of the buildings which are very prominent in this community. The proposed pavilion is contrary to the historic guidelines. Additions should not obstruct architectural details of the historic building. It appears that only two or three of the six second story windows on the west façade would remain visible. The massing of the proposed structure almost reaches to the roof line of the second story of the church. The entire massing of the stair tower and pavilion need to be pulled back from the west façade of the historic church. Downstairs has always been St. Mary’s social hall. The ADA access is through the elevator tower which has been successful. During the week there is quite a bit of space available in the church. The removal of some of the best and historic lilacs in all of Aspen is a concern. The lilacs are an important feature of the grounds and the historic landscape. The detailing of the new entry is inappropriate. The contemporary glass and metal is inappropriate for an historic building. A petition was entered into the record and a letter Exhibit V with signatures from individuals in the church that express their concerns about the impacts on the historic church. Lisa said she would encourage the HPC to work with the applicant to find solutions that don’t harm the historic quality of the church and bodies. The stair tower massing needs to come back off the church and the overall size of the pavilion needs revisited. It is a single story and reads like a two story. Jim Markalunas – letter and photo of lilacs Exhibit VI Jim said he does support restoring the church and doing improvements to comply with fire codes etc. More consideration should be given to the design of the pavilion so that it does not interfere with the historic west facing windows and lower west wall of the church. I would suggest that the pavilion be shifted north and west to avoid potential problems of ice and show. I fully support the exit facility on the south corner. The lilacs along the alley should stay intact and they are the old fashioned lilacs. Everything can be accomplished and the architect just needs to do a few changes. Patrick Rawley commended the architect and his team for the design. The lower height of the building works well and does many things to preserve the feel of the historic church. A tent structure does speak to the church and what we are doing there. The glazing is also nice. The campus feel is very P181 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2015 9 important and offers respite in a rather dense core and it is a very nice adjunct to the Veterans Park across the street. Parking is 100% sufficient as Mass is held on the weekend where parking isn’t at a premium. Affordable housing is not necessary. Most of the events are served by the volunteers. Marle Gardiner said we should have a spectacular tent. Putting the bus stop in front of St. Mary’s is a big liability issue. We need a community center and some place where people can be healed. The lilacs are historic and should be preserved. Amy said an e-mail was sent by Junee Kirk where she objects to the design of the project. Exhibit VII Amy said another letter came from Ann Obrien Exhibit VIII Julie Markalunas said she has two teenage sons that have benefited from all the programming of St. Mary’s. I do have concerns about the west elevation of the church and the impact that the pavilion has. I would rather see expanding the interior stairs and bringing that up to code than compromising the structure on the west. Susan Twig said it seems that people who oppose this don’t have children. We don’t want to stay in the past but go to the future. The social hall is one big room separated by panels in which you can hear each other talk. The architect has done a beautiful job respecting the historic building and I am for the project. Urlinda Morehead said she is a teacher and has taught at St. Mary’s for 25 years. I am so excited about the proposal. There is a safety issue with the kids and this addition is much needed. Charles said we could take some of the lilacs and put them around the garden and in public view. Lilacs are easy to transplant. Chairperson, Willis Pember closed the public comments. Willis said it is quite an honor to hear testimony from parishioners who believe in the institution of the church and its mission and feel that it is a project that is needed and warranted. Willis identified the issues: P182 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2015 10 GMQS Affordable housing Parking – staff has asked the applicant to come up with a parking review of the project Mountain View plane from the steps of the courthouse and well as Veteran’s Park Site planning Curb cut – not in HPC’s purview but the applicant has an appeal process Front entry Jim DeFrancia said he feels there is no need for the requirement of affordable housing. The church has functioned primarily with members of the congregation volunteering their time. With the lowering of the structure 4 feet I am not concerned about the view plane. The applicant should do an appeal on the curb cut. On the front entry it should be re-worked so that you can see the window above it and restore it back to its original character. I am fine with the site plan and keeping the green space is one of the more important features which satisfies the public view and enhances the view across the street to the court house. The structure proposed is significantly different than the historic structure and with some fine tuning it can be mitigated. Bob said this is a very positive project and basically some details can be changed. Bob thanked the people for coming forward. I respect the history that this group has given us. Sallie thanked everyone for coming to the meeting. I am always in favor of expansion of any kind of spiritual experience in our town. I am in agreement with no affordable housing. The parking is not important to me if it gives more space around the historic resource. The historic use of this block is not a campus and the campus feel seems more suburban to me. The arches in the pavilion are “fighting” with the historic arches in the church. The project needs to be more in line with our guidelines. Michael said the presentation was well put together. I am sympathetic to a lower affordable housing number. Regarding the parking the times that you see a lot of use of the facility come at times when there are a lot of free parking spaces. The site plan is crowding out the historical resource and it might be a little too close to the church. I would like to see some alternatives presented. On the front entry I like the idea of going back to the P183 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2015 11 original historic entry to expose the stained glass. On the mountain view plane it says we must find that the effect of the new building is minimal on the view plane. I understand that there is a lot of precedence for people violating the view plane. I don’t see how the view plane is minimal impacts. I would defer to council on the view plane. I see all the merits of the new pavilion. Bob said in a previous project he proposed story poles and we should do that with this project. Michael said the view planes are ten feet on the north side and 14 feet on the southern part of the lot. The proposal is 17 feet in height. Jim DeFrancia pointed out that the building behind it is higher. Michael said the Conner cabins are blocking a portion of the view plane. From the observation #2 point there is absolutely no obstruction. Willis said if the view planes don’t make the situation worse than what already exists then its moot. There should be no affordable housing requirements. As a general thought the church should get as much financial break in terms of the fees that they pay etc. so that they can look more broadly on the site plan. There have been a lot of additions that exist on the church and site. The affordable housing and garage are not historic and why not look at that as part of the composition. You get the crowded feeling because the pavilion is wedged between the historic west elevation and the garage which historically wasn’t there. The front entrance should be taken back to the original as best possible. Maybe something minimal can occur on the front. There also needs to be a parking study. Nora thanked the applicant and public for speaking. The space is needed. Blocking of the west side of the historic fabric is a concern and the elevator is an eye sore. I feel strongly about the view plane and they are there for a reason. We have very few of these sites left. We are getting into view plane increments of creep and that concerns me. The historic fabric of the church has to be protected and maybe the pavilion needs to be smaller. Gretchen said she is happy to see a lot of the public here and it has been interesting. This is a civic building and I would like to see the housing explored as an option because we need housing. I feel there is adequate P184 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2015 12 parking on that side of town. On the site plan there should be no more interruption on the west elevation. This building was never designed to have an addition on it including the elevator addition. I could not support any kind of attachment to the building. Once it is lost it is lost forever. I also like the front lawn. We are an Historic Preservation board and my first goal is to follow the guidelines and to preserve the building. Putting an addition on this building at 17 feet and obstructing 4 windows and two windows at the top does not speak to historic preservation. It would be great if you could look at the existing affordable housing in conjunction with the program. You also have the opportunity to put more space underground. Perhaps the pavilion goes in a north south direction. I feel the view planes could be accomplished and St. Mary’s could be preserved. Every project that we look at has a restoration component and this project has nothing. I would encourage you to go back to the original design of the front façade of the building. With snow melt and snow guards you could make for a safe entry. Patrick said he agrees with staff and all the comments made by the commissioners. I would suggest studying a free standing building. St. Stephens is the historic site plan. The view plane needs to be at 14 feet and it doesn’t need to be a high building. The garage isn’t an historic building and it could be moved over. Possibly when you redo the design look at a pitched roof like the other buildings. If the curb cut is not allowed you won’t be able to bring in the food or bands etc. for special events. Bob said if the garage was taken out and the pavilion moved over that would solve some of the problems that are being voiced. I would urge you to take a look at moving the building over to that side. Jim DeFrancia asked Debbie to what degree are we constrained by the federal laws. Debbie said there is a federal law that might apply at some point. It is the religious land use and institutionalized persons act. It prohibits discrimination against religious uses in some fashion. MOTION: Jim moved to continue the conceptual development and public hearing on 533 E. Main Street to October 28th; second by Patrick. P185 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2015 13 Roll call vote: Michael, yes; Jim, yes; Bob, yes; Nora, yes; Gretchen, yes; Patrick, yes; Willis, yes. Motion carried 7-0. 827 Dean Street – Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, Variations Jim and Sallie left. Debbie reviewed the public notice – Exhibit I Amy said this is a landmark property in the east end of town and it was landmarked voluntarily as a pre-Aspen Modern effort. The owners of the building wanted it protected and they were one of the early creators of TDR’s. The property sold and the new owner would like to do an accessory building on the back of the site. There is an existing building built in the 1980’s and it is to be demolished and replaced. Nothing is proposed to happen on the exterior of the primary chalet at the front of the site. The primary building has been remodeled several times. The applicant is not planning on doing any restoration or removal of any of the changes that have happened. Harry Poshman built the building after WWII. There are two addition on either side of the front and one in the back. The applicant is requesting demolition of the guest building in the back and they are also proposing to do a small pool on the site. Staff is essentially in favor of the project and in favor of the demolition. Variances have been discussed for the guest house on the east side and the rear. The variances are related to light wells. The applicant deleted the light wells on the east side. The variance is for two light wells serving one bedroom and you only have to have one. HPC needs to discuss whether to grant a setback variance to allow more light into the basement or that it isn’t really an historic preservation benefit so maybe you wouldn’t support the variance. The applicant has requested a 70 square foot bonus. Staff feels the bonus should be used as a tool for restoration and there is no restoration proposed here. 70 square feet isn’t a lot but maybe they could do a simple modification to the front of the house or they could reopen a porch enclosure in order to earn the bonus. Michael said staff is recommending that they do some kind of restoration to earn the bonus. P186 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 1 Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Nora Berko, John Whipple, Gretchen Greenwood, Patrick Sagal, Michael Brown, Bob Blaich and Jim DeFrancia. Absent was Sallie Golden. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Justin Barker, Senior Planner Sara Nadolny, Planner Tech Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MOTION: Bob moved to approve the minutes of January 13th second by Gretchen. All in favor, motion carried. 533 E. Main Street – St. Mary’s Church Conceptual Major Development, Growth Management, Special Review and View plane Review, Public Hearing cont’d from Oct 28th Amy relayed that the proposal was continued partially about the discussion of the curb cut that exists along Main Street and whether or not the church could continue to use that or abandon it and relocate all access from the alley. The applicant has had discussions with CDOT and the Engineering Dept. has deferred to CDOT. It isn’t completely resolved and the applicant has gotten positive feedback but at this point we are going forward assuming that it will be resolved and no longer an issue. There were also concerns about the size and location of the expansion. We do recognize that this is a project with community good behind it. Staff does have concerns with the specifics of the proposal. The proposal is to create a new event type space on the site. They are well below the allowed square footage on this property which occupies an entire half city block. Most of the event space is below grade. The applicant has reduced the size of the above grade about half. With the proposed addition there is less of an intrusion into the view plane. Staff feels there needs to be discussion on the site plan. We prefer a site plan that would locate any above grade aspect of the pavilion to the center of the lot in the area where there was previously a chapel. Having buildings front Main Street is in keeping with the 19th Century site planning concepts than occupying the entire alley with facades. We are concerned about the basic location of the new construction. We are also concerned with the P187 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 2 shape of it. It is proposed to be a flat roof structure with glass. We like the idea that the addition is minimized in presence but more compatibility with the shapes and character of the 19th Century development on this site is needed. This might not be the time to make statements with forms and materials in terms of new construction on this site. We would like to see a restudy of the location and shape of the roof over the pavilion element. Most of the meeting space is below grade and day lighted with a roof that pitches with clerestory windows up to 3.6 feet high along the Main Street frontage of the property. This is inconsistent with the character of the property and interferes with the use of the open green yard which a real amenity to the site. There may be a way to create a better courtyard or ground level space that would bring daylight into the basement but we feel this is not the solution. The applicant proposes to redo the egress out of the sanctuary. There is a good exit at the front of the church and at the alley there is a minimal staircase that leads down to the alley that is not offered to the use of the parishioners. The applicant is proposing to add a staircase on the west side of the building. They are offering three options one to completely enclose it, one is just roofed and the third is completely open to the air. If approved staff would recommend the stair open to the air because it has the least impact physically on the building. If it were enclosed you would no longer have review authority over what had become an interior wall of the building so the windows and masonry could be changed without any review and that would be a loss of historic fabric. There would also need to be fire improvements to the doors and windows and could be an alteration that you could be concerned with. Amy said on the front the applicant is proposing something light to open up the existing porch element that is there which is non -historic. The building originally had no covering over the entry. We would like to see a restudy with more traditional materials and closer to the height of the door and not so high up on the wall because the proposal interferes with the expression of the steeple. The trash storage area will be upgraded and the proposal is to have a roof over it and more protected for the needs of the property. Environmental Health requires a roll up door that has at least 9 feet clearance and they proposed building is 11 feet tall. Anything that can be done to reduce the scale would be great because it is right next to the church. Sara Nadolny said there is no standard in the code that relates to parking for civic uses so any requirement for parking on-site is related to net leasable or new net leases on the site. There are three on-site spaces that are garage P188 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 3 spaces. At the last hearing a formal parking study was requested. The parking plan has been reviewed by the Engineering staff. It concluded that no additional parking is needed for the site and street parking is adequate for special events and new expansion. The study has not yet been reviewed by the Transportation Dept. for comments yet. Staff has issues about expanding both uses and structure and whether parking is needed or not. Staff is recommending holding off on the parking decision until Transportation reviews the study. Sara said other departments feel the proposed mitigation methods are acceptable for the project so we are happy with the TIA and that portion is closed. Growth Management – Sara said civic uses are considered essential public facilities and council can access and waive or partially waive affordable housing mitigation requirements. We discussed 10.27 fte’s which is calculated at the commercial rate which might seem high. Staff is requesting some mitigation for the increased floor area. The Housing Authority request some mitigation as well but the Housing Board recommends no mitigation. Staff suggests turning the free market unit that is above the garage into a mandatory occupancy deed restricted unit. The mandatory occupancy could be chosen by the church. We think the unit is around 535 square feet. This equates to around 1.35 fte’s so it does provide some mitigation for the new development. Mountain View planes – Sara said at the last meeting the applicant was directed to reduce the height of the pavilion structure which was at 21 to 25 feet as it was encroaching into the view plane. The applicant has responded and reduced the height to 14 feet which is beneath the view plane. The egress stairway reaches the height of 25 feet which extends into the view plane. If HPC picks an option of either closed or roofed they must find that the additional structure has minimal impact on the view plane. The unenclosed option is more modest in height and we measure it to be around 15 feet and this proposal does not extend into the view plane. Amy said staff is recommending continuation of this hearing to March 9th. Restudy the height and form of the pavilion. Consider moving this structure to the north of the carriage house. P189 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 4 Eliminate the day-lighted basement concept. Eliminate the proposals to enclose or partially enclose the egress stair. Provide more detail regarding impacts to the historic structure and study more traditional building materials. Re-study the front entry into the church and restore the original condition or minimize impacts of any roof canopy and railings. Confirm the Transportation Department’s assessment of the parking study and need for any mitigation. Provide an analysis of the number of employees that would be mitigated through a mandatory occupancy deed restriction of the existing ADU. Michael asked if there is a precedence that we could look regarding other civic buildings. 4.1 fte’s for commercial space seems punitive for a civic use. Amy said there are previous church expansions that have been analyzed and provided some kind of affordable housing mitigation. The applicant feels that their existing employees can cover the new space. Staff feels there is some additional impact. Patrick Rawley, Land planner from Stan Clauson & Associates Marina Skiles, Charles Cunniffe from Charles Cunniffe Architects Patrick R. said St. Mary’s church is a vital part of our community. We are seeking the continuation of our parish. The proposed social hall straddles lots D & E. We have sunken the social hall in the ground which keeps the green space open. CDOT said if you submit something and it meets the standards it can be permitted. That process is about 4 months. We have addressed the front entry, TIA and parking. We have also reduced the height of the pavilion which eliminates the view plane issue. The current church was built in 1892. In that zone district we can go up to almost 75,000 square feet. The existing church has a little over 16,000 of existing square feet divided into the church, rectory and the employee housing over the garage. P190 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 5 We have 3 full time employees living on site. The parish is made up of 300 families. Patrick R. did a power point of the proposal. The existing main floor has classrooms. The elevator tower was built in the 1990’sand thee is the trash area of the alley and a garage and rectory building. We currently do not have enough room for all the classes and the spill out into the hallway. We also have the homeless shelter during the winter months. Patrick R. said we are proposing an interior remodel of the church to bring it back to its historical appearance. We want to improve the efficiency and comfort of the church and safety for the occupants. With the one means of egress it is not adequate to get everyone out in an emergency. We would like to remove the front porch and re-establish the historic appearance. We also need a second means of egress. The subgrade parish social hall has been created to meet the space needs. It would be around 9,000 square feet of new civic cultural space and of that it would be 3,200 square feet of contributing floor area. We are looking at a total of 19,600 square feet when we have the ability to go up to 75,000 square feet. This is our spiritual home and we take that stewardship seriously. Marina said two things are very important to the client, one to keep the lawn maintained. We will maintain access into the existing garage by using grass and lawn pavers. The pavilion is a gathering place for after mass and an area for parents to congregate and watch their children on the lawn. We intend to expand the bathrooms, office space and the reception area and we will refurbish the altar. We will keep the stairs at the front of the church for one egress. The lower level of the church will be kept as is. We did look at excavating underneath it but it was structurally unfeasible and might damage the historic church. We are proposing a subgrade access from the existing main stairs that come down and accesses to the subgrade area. There are a lot of advantages putting the bulk of the property below grade. Patrick R. went over some of the interior renovations. The altars of Mary and Joseph on either side of the sanctuary will be maintained. Regarding the egress stair that goes out of the church, the window in the church will be converted into a door on the west. Marina said the maximum required distance to a means of egress is 75 feet for this occupancy level. We are well over 150 feet. There has been P191 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 6 discussion about the existing stair. The stair is only 30 inches wide. It would be difficult to use as an egress because you would have to come through the sacred altar and come up a couple of steps and into the altar boy sacristy and go down the stairs. We are eliminating that stair to enlarge the bathrooms downstairs. Patrick R. said the most logical place to put the egress stair is on the south west corner. Marina said we have three options for the egress stair; 1, to fully enclose it with a sloping metal roof and all glass walls. #2, partially enclose it with a glass roof and #3 make it look like an old fire escape with very minimal steel stringers. We would prefer option #1which is utilitarian. Patrick R. said the entry has seen various modifications. In the mid 1990’s the current condition was built. It is our intent to uncover the arched stained glass window that was installed in 1982, the centennial of the parish. Patrick R. said the western façade has had changes specifically the elevator tower. With the subgrade social hall you can still read and see the western façade of the historic church. It is also setback from the main front of the church. The lilacs will remain untouched. Charles said there will be a lifted lawn with a railing and glass windows. The social hall is in the St. Stephens footprint. The lilacs and fence become the buffer. The social hall will be accessed from the pavilion above. Patrick R. pointed out that the top of the pavilion is in line with the sanctuary level of the church. Steel and glass allow the transparency. The egress stair is very important for our parishioners. Nora said with 9,000 square feet isn’t there a way to upgrade the egress in the stairs. Stephen Kanipe, Chief Building official Stephen said the elevator allows access to the church for the disabled. There is no defensible argument to not put some provisions for accessibility to the second floor. Chapter 34 of the IBC applies for exiting out of the existing building. We have an existing single exit building. The occupancy load can be 260 to 700 people. It is important to get the people out of the sanctuary P192 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 7 and rescue personnel in. The building has a sprinkler system. In Chapter 34 for the required exit width as a single exit building is allowed to be .2 inches per every occupant. For an occupant load of 300 those existing stairs comply. The pavilion is part of the entire approach to what we would require as exiting out of the sanctuary. The connection of the building to the pavilion would require the second exit as it is considered one building. The people in the pavilion don’t exit out of the sanctuary. If the renovation was the only work contemplated then I would not say yes you have to have the second exit. When we consider the size of the building as a whole and with the pavilion added I think that makes a strong case for requiring the second exit. In the code the entry to a building has to be covered or the area maintain and be free of the accumulation of ice and snow. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. Jim Markalunas said a second means of egress is necessary but I have serious reservations about it being placed on the west side of the church and using an existing window. You will have problems with ice and snow coming from the roof unless you enclose it. The snow weight in 1957 began to push the walls out. Steel rods were put in for stabilization. After that a metal roof was installed. Regarding the egress the best way is to modify the altar boy sanctuary and have it be code compliant. Julie Markalunas Hall – Exhibit I My letter was submitted to not compromise the west side of the church. When you are traveling down Main Street and your view is to the east you will see the west façade of the church. Once that side is compromised in the future it will be easier to request modifications. Julie thanked the architect for moving the pavilion away from the church. Lisa Markalunas said this is a significant historic building in this community and it deserves to have the time and detail analysis of what is best for the historic property. The exterior stairs block the west façade and the materials are inappropriate and they modernize the lawn area. The trash structure is oversized and the exterior egress blocks the kitchen. The interior stair can be modified which can be an expansion of the existing stair in the side room and it doesn’t involve moving the arch over the altar. The normal stair is 48 inches and the one drawn is 46 inches. This would vastly improve the current situation and not add an exterior stair that would be blocked by snow and ice and block the view of the current structure. It is worthy of P193 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 8 consideration to see if the egress stair can be accommodated on the interior of the property. There is no really good handicapped access to the church and there is no place to drop anyone off other than the back door by the alley. At some point we need to address access to the property. Interior stair drawing – Exhibit I John Kelleher said St. Mary’s church has been on this property since 1882. Renovations have occurred over the past 25 years and the time has come to further the religious and educational opportunities for members of our parish and all members of the community. The pavilion will be used for classes and the design is restricted by the court house and Veterans Park and historic aspects of the existing church. We proposed having the building on the alley. Staff recommended placing the buildings along Main Street where the view plane is the lowest. By doing this we could only get a building 8 feet high and thus is the reason for the proposing the building below ground. HPC doesn’t support either of these schemes. The egress options shows a stair at the south west corner of the building that has no connection to the proposed building. All traffic between the church and the pavilion would be in the open subject to inclement weather. That isn’t conducive to wheeling food carts from the kitchen to events. To compromise any reasonable functionality of an expansion of an existing facility which is necessary for the church is under the pretense of preserving the west façade is insane. We are trying to do something for the benefit of the community. Judy Gunn said the beauty of the building is in the inside. The egress situation is not one we like but it is important. Most of the things in the church from 1892 are still there. The renovation will ensure that those things stay in place. We need the additional space for our parish to grown. Stowman L. Stines II – letter – Exhibit II Stowman said he think the project will be a positive influence on the city as a whole and the renovation will modernize the infill structure. Chairperson, Willis Pember closed the public hearing. Charles said the younger families are in support of the application. We have been holding open houses after Saturday and Sunday mass and the attendance has been good. Patrick R. said losing any loss of the liturgical function is unacceptable to us. P194 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 9 Willis said you are talking about 50 square feet. Patrick R. said Mary’s altar is an historic component of the church and to have people passing into the altar area for egress doesn’t work. Mary’s altar is part of our religious practices. That area is also for the preparation of mass. Willis identified the issues: Over all site plan Modifications to the entry on Main Street Egress stair View plane GMQS – 10 to 14 fte’s Mass and scale – Commercial guidelines and Historic Main St. guidelines Willis said this building is part of our community and the need is demonstrated by the various parishioners. Willis thanked everyone for participating. The site plan is hugely improved over the first one that was submitted at the last meeting. The view plane subject has been handled well and all in all it is a modest program. The entire effect is less than anything built on the entire site. The pavilion is smaller than any of the secondary structures that exist. Architecturally it is quite compelling. The only way it would be perfect is if the 1990’s elevator were moved and combined with the egress stair that the applicant needs. If the Markalunas plan could be incorporated it would improve the reading of the West façade and the lawn. Option 1,2,3 on the exterior muddies the water in making something approvable. The site plan and the roof on the lawn is landscape architecture. The driveway turning to grass-crete that grows is going to be a huge asset to the community. Patrick also thanked the design team for going in the right direction. Patrick said he supports staff’s recommendations. Restudy the height of the pavilion. The daylight basement concept should be at ground level and no three foot glass walls to break up the lawn. The inside stairs should be looked at for the second egress. The loss of the bathroom or classroom downstairs to accommodate the egress is not significant when the project is 9,000 square feet. The roof of the trash area should be lowered. P195 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 10 Gretchen said the site plan is an improvement but there are still problems with it. There are a lot of parts and piece on the church and we are adding more. We are adding a pavilion and raised roof with glass. It stems from the fact that they are retaining the driveway of Hwy 82 and its pushing development. The existing carriage house could be accessed off the alley that is required in the residential design standards. Handicapped access should also be addressed. Our historic buildings are slowly being eroded away. The entire site should be looked at with the elimination of the driveway off Hwy 82. There are parts and pieces that do not make up the historic pattern of what should be developed on this property. Perhaps this should be back to having something very simple. The stairs could go on the inside. The pavilion should be accessed on ground level and the classes below. Having most of the building below grade is good. She could not support this project. It is not close for approval. All parking should be accessed off the alley and redo the carriage house and put garage doors on the alley. John said he echoes Willis’s comments and this project has come a long way. It is unfortunate that the functionality has somewhat been lost. The parish is clearly needing space. I was in support of the original plan. One thing that could have been entertained is the existing elevator shaft and there are a myriad of new technology in elevators since this was put in. If we could have put the egress there it would make for a better project. Bob said we are living with certain constraints and one is the view plane. I don’t want us to make another mistake. I was on P&Z when the carriage house was proposed and we approved it and it didn’t meet any of the criteria regarding site lines. Instead of having a modern pavilion take that same kind of architecture and then it would be more complimentary in terms of materials. The original proposal was acceptable. The project needs to be compatible with the existing facilities. The second proposal is an improvement. Possibly restudying the elevator and put the egress adjacent to it. Another alternative is to take the carriage house and extend it. Jim said he also agreed with John and was in favor of the original proposal regarding form follows function. I’m not sure about the raised lawn as it might not create a functional lawn area. A suggestion would be to pull the egress stair next to the elevator wing and redo the elevator wing to get a stair in which would minimize the impact on the entire façade. He agrees with Gretchen that it needs more work before anything can be approved. P196 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 11 Nora thanked the applicant for their presentation and the public comments. Our moral obligation is the historic preservation of this building. Once it’s gone it’s gone. The egress is a concern and if there is a code compliment internally that would be acceptable. Enclosing an outside egress is a concern and losing control of one more historic fabric. I support staff’s recommendation. Seeing lawn is appropriate and possibly change the employee free market unit to an employee unit. I am in support of the pavilion underground without the elevated lawn. Willis pointed out that staff’s recommendation is completely different regarding the site plan. Gretchen stated Staff is supporting an addition on the carriage house or that kind of alignment and would already be in the view plane. Bob said the view plane is already lost. Gretchen said in terms of the elevator, she knows we have to give something up on the west façade. We already gave one thing up in 1992. If the rear of the property had the elevator and the egress stair that would be an excellent solution. It would free up the lawn and give the view of the historic church that defines our building history. Willis agreed stating the elevator should be at the back of the site. Michael said he appreciates the movement from the August meeting to this one; the improved distance between the buildings and fixing the view plane. It would be nice to see the movement of the elevator but that is up to the applicant to restudy it. Regarding the GMQS I would like to see some precedence from staff. We also need more detailing on the entry awning regarding the distance that it come out from the building. The current entry has snow pile up and doesn’t showcase the stained glass. Regarding the stair egress it should be configured internally and explored as to what can be done internally. The daylighting on the raised lawn is not appropriate. Willis said the argument of the stair is based on morality and religious use of the alter. It is only used in an emergency. In an emergency, sacred space becomes emergency space. It is not an everyday stair by any means. Stephen assured us it would not have an exit sign above it. I’m comfortable taking the position of an internal stair. Gretchen stated she is in agreement with him. P197 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 12 MOTION: Willis moved to approve resolution #4, conceptual development with the condition that the elevator be restudied and the egress stair become internal and in so doing make wheelchair access to the church improved . The lawned roof will animate the street and sight lines will go down into the main gathering area. Motion second by Jim. Nora asked if he is suggesting they fix the 1992 problem. Willis replied yes and make the proposed egress stair internal to the church. Patrick said the motion on the table ignores the pavilion is a flat roof and completely glass and is not in front of the carriag e house and would disagree with the motion as it stands. Patrick made a friendly amendment that the sloping roof be at grade and that the pavilion be more in character with the existing buildings regarding mass and scale. Roll call vote on the friendly amendment: Patrick, yes; Gretchen, no; Nora, no, Willis, no; Bob, no; John, no; Jim, no. Motion failed 6-1. Roll call vote on the motion: Nora, no; Jim, yes; Bob, yes; John, yes; Gretchen, no; Patrick, no; Willis, yes. Motion carried 4-3. Amy pointed out that there is no drawing or image of the elevator presented to base the motion on and all this will do is send this to Council who will return this to HPC as a call up at conceptual review and potential referendum 1 issues. Charles said if the elevator is addressed there will still be an object there and that might be in the view plane. Amy said her recommendation is to reconsider the motion and continue this item. Gretchen said the problem is the two additions of the elevator and the stair on the outside is objectionable. Patrick R. said the motion is very confusing and convoluted that we would prefer a continuation to a date certain. P198 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 13 Amy said she understands there is a majority support for the basic concept and you would like to move them along and it is terrific. However, some of the suggestions you have made you don’t have an image of them. They may or may not be feasible. They may or may not be in the view plane and you made no findings of minimal impact and I think you are just setting them up for a problem. I really think you just need to put it on March 9th and let them go back and talk about your comments. MOTION: Jim moved to rescind resolution #4; second by John. Michael said he felt that whole process was completely hap hazard and the project deserved more. Gretchen agreed. She stated the board should have voted to continue. It always turns out better in the long run. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Jim moved to continue 533 E. Main St. to March 9th; second by John. All in favor, motion carried 7-0. 626 W. Francis Street – Historic Designation, AspenModern, Public Hearing Debbie said the public notice has been properly provided – Exhibit I Amy said we welcome another voluntary landmark designation of an Aspen Modern resource. The subject property contains two units. It is a duplex with mirror images of each other. They were built in 1964 and considered modern chalet. Two years ago the owner designated half of the duplex that he owned and that same client has purchased the other half of the duplex and desires to voluntary landmark it. The entire complex will be preserved. The request for incentives is minimal. They are requesting a 500 square foot FAR bonus which will be turned into two TDR’s. The applicant will have a little less than 200 square feet that they could add on someday and that would have HPC’s review. Usually when you have one property that is a landmark there is one 500 square foot floor area bonus. If this scenario is approved of 500 square feet, 322 was granted for the other duplex that was turned into 1 TDR and a 70 foot addition. If you look at it as a whole the bonus for the site would be 822 square feet but there are two voluntary designations. We feel this is a very positive project. It is a 9,000 square foot condo minimized property. There was a 1964 building permit and the P199 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 2 Debbie commented that in the future the City Clerk will be meeting with the HPC to discuss her practices and policy connected with minutes. Willis suggested that the meeting occur before we approve the minutes that were deferred. Debbie said she would try and coordinate the discussion for the next meeting. 533 E. Main St. Conceptual Major Development, Growth Management, Special Review and Viewplane Review, Public hearing cont’d from Jan. 27th Amy commented that the board has seen a few concepts for a social hall and an event space on the property. The social hall will be above grade and then there is event space below grade. There are two options for tonight. One version of the social hall sits on the alley and one moves up to Main Street. Staff supports Option B along Main Street. The foot print is about 800 square feet for the meeting area and linked to the west side of the church. We feel that it does reflect the idea that the church functions have traditionally been located off Main Street and accessed from the sidewalk. The rectory building also has a close tie to the street. We feel the scale of the social hall is appropriate and it will enliven the street and allow some transparency and public activities and participation in the church having windows etc. rather than being pushed back on the site. The social hall will be linked with a one story connector to the church. Much of the hallway is hidden behind the elevator so you only see a short length of it. Amy said in Option A with the social hall on the alley you see a lot more of the connector and it really presents the addition to the church as being about 36 feet in width. That is one of the concern by staff regarding this particular option. Staff supports Option B. HPC should also discuss whether a connector is appropriate at all. It would not be a long distance to travel between the new social hall and the west side of the church. It would be better not connecting directly to the building and affecting windows and doors that are in place now. Amy said the second item is the new exit stair from the sanctuary space. HPC has seen a few variations of exits that come out the second floor on the west side of the church. You have seen an enclosed stairway, stairways in P200 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 3 various positions open to the air and not open to the air. The stair presented tonight is uncovered and runs away from the building rather than aligning up against it which we do feel has some benefit. It doesn’t directly affect the wall and windows and features of the historic building. The Chief Building Official does not believe that another exist is required by code. There have been calculations done and given the occupancy of the space there is a large staircase in front of the sanctuary and that is adequate. HPC needs to consider the possibility that the exit is not necessary. If you find that it is something that should be accomplished we have concerns about the location that is being proposed toward the alley coming out the west side of the building. It does have some visibility. Possibly the staircase could be hidden behind the existing elevator. That is not something the applicant prefers. Amy said the third item is the change to the entry element over the front of the church. This can be moved to final and is a detail that is appropriate for the next level of review. Amy said there are two view planes originating from the Court House and the Veteran’s park next to it that sore toward Aspen Mtn. and set a certain height limit. Option A along the alley completely complies with the view plane. Option B on the street does intrude into the view plane. The height of the addition is 13 feet and the view plane hits that front lot line at 11 feet. The story polls helped to see the line and view plane. Having seen that, staff’s recommendation is that it is appropriate to find minimal impact on the view plane from Option B. You really see that it sits below the parapets of buildings in the background. The view toward Aspen Mountain that is intended to be protected seems unaffected in our opinion. Sara said the applicant is proposing a trash enclosure off the alleyway. It is proposed at 11 feet. Staff would like to see this lowered if possible while keeping within the Environmental Health regulations and keeping the rollup door option. Environmental Health may reduce the height by 1 foot. This change can be reviewed at final. Regarding the affordable housing mitigation HPC needs to make a recommendation to Council on the subject. Staff is recommending that the applicant provide some sort of mitigation and at some rate. The Housing Authority is in agreement while the Housing Board feels no mitigation necessary. At the last hearing examples were requested of essential public facilities in regard to affordable housing mitigation. In 2007 there was a remodel and expansion of the Christ P201 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 4 Episcopal Church which is in the West End and R-6 neighborhood. They were adding about 2000 square feet to the site. P&Z recommended that no additional mitigation was needed for that project. This was based on that the addition was sensitive to the neighborhood and that the renovations brought the building into compliance with the accessibility requirements that were lacking at that time. The second example was the Jewish Community Center that received final approval 2013. This site added 19,656 square feet between two different buildings on the site. The mitigation was determined by P&Z to be at 9.63 FTE’s for the site. Council approved this and allowed the mitigation to be at 44% of the FTE requirement. They had to mitigate for 4.25 employees. These were all accommodated on the site and deed restricted through APCHA. APCHA also required that an audit to be conducted after two years. If employees were found to be added and necessary then the mitigation would be required for the additional employees. HPC needs to make a decision whether mitigation is required for the additional square footage on this site and suggest a rate somewhere between 0-10.27. We would suggest an audit down the road or maybe a mix of the two. Sara addressed the TIA – Transportation Impact Analysis The applicant has submitted the TIA that was reviewed by Engineering and Transportation. Staff would like the improvements incorporated in the final design. Parks has specific comments regarding the location of the sidewalk along Hunter Street as well as the protection of the trees on that side. The applicant presented a formal study that indicated that the on-street parking that is being utilized now is adequate for the new expanded facility. Staff is recommending that HPC accept the proposal of no new on -site parking. Patrick inquired about the exit. Amy said the Chief building official addressed how occupancy is calculated and how exits currently exist in the building and presently there is not an evident need to provide another means of exiting the second floor. Patrick Rawley, Marina Skiles, Charles Cunniffe, Father John Hilton presented Patrick R. said they are pursuing an interior remodel of the church from windows to paint. The covered porch can be addressed at final and what that covering would look like. We are refurbishing the stained glass windows. P202 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 5 We have looked at various options on the secondary egress. We also have the parish subgrade hall and the above grade connection which is important to us. Patrick R. said it was suggested that we restudy the height and form of the social hall and consider moving the structure to the north of the carriage house. We have done that and it is option B which is our preferred option. You asked us to eliminate the daylighting concept of the basement and we have done that and the lawn is flat and functional. You also asked us to restudy the front of the church and restore it to the original condition and that will be addressed at final. We have no problem with the TIA. We will convert one additional space to an ADA immediately at the front of the church. We have provided an analysis of the employees that would be provided. We request that the APCHA board recommendation of an audit in two years be the appropriate path to move forward. We have two units that are on-site that are currently housing employees of the church. With the addition of the parish hall and subgrade space we do not need additional staffing. We have looked at many different options. We have talked about the egress stair and removing the acolyte sacristy is unacceptable. The functionality and sacredness of the church is paramount to us and any modification of the egress stair has to look right and work right with the church. The option of the stair tower next to the elevator that was mentioned by staff we did carefully look at and it would result in another awkward situation with the interior of the church with the removal of three pews and addition of doors which does not work for us. Marina went over the interior renovations of the church with a power point. The interior of the church is the most important part of the function of the project. There is a raised choir loft. There is a sanctuary level with doors that lead to the elevator and there is a new door proposed that leads straight off the building. Marina said the Bldg Dept. has spent a lot of time going through code issues in trying to figure out the best way to make another stair work. Patrick R. said we are putting the connector where something occurred in option B. P203 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 6 Marina said option A has no cleer story raised lawn and the lilacs remain and the elevator addition is not touched. There is a new door and a glass connection. There is also a trash container. The Environmental Health requires a 9 foot roll up door so the trash people can get in easier and then there is the housing which is a foot and a roof structure which brings us to 11 feet tall. Maybe we can reduce the height to an 8 foot door. There is also composting and recycling trash incorporated. Marina said Option A has no view plane infringement whatsoever. The existing driveway will be grass-crete. Marina said Option B has the building near the sidewalk where St. Stephens was. A survey was done and there were 148 votes. 87% of those people who cast their vote were in favor of a social hall. There is a view plane infringement of about two feet. Charles said he doesn’t want the HPC to feel they are mediating between a disagreement among parish members. The client is the parish, Diocese of Denver. Amy said the applicant is restoring the stained glass windows in the church. As a restoration I can work with the applicant. We aren’t showing you the detailing of the restoration taking place. We are trying to figure out if a storm window would be best or integrate a thermal pane in the historic sash. The board was in favor of Amy working with the applicant on the windows. Patrick inquired about the below grade footage. Marina said it is around 8,000 to 8,500 square feet. The pavilion is 700 square feet. John asked about the audit. Patrick R. said they don’t foresee any additional staffing needs with the additional space. It is largely handled by volunteers. Willis asked about the function of the pavilion other than circulation. Charles said it is also a place for people to circulate at the end of mass. It is like a air filled lobby rather than being at the front of the church. A lot of P204 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 7 people don’t stay and socialize because it is too crowded. It can be a place where Father can come out and greet people, a more of a social connection to the community. The doors would open to the lawn. Father John Hilton: Father thanked HPC for working with us these past months. We believe the design proposed is a better one because of the recommendations given to us. The mission and activities of St. Mary’s here in Aspen have expanded greatly in the past years and they must do so if the parish is to flourish in the 21st century and so we look for the future viability of our parish. In order to do this we must have additional space. What we have does not suffice. We welcome the engagement of the Aspen community that the Main Street option B supports. We love the idea of it being on Main Street for the engagement of the community. We know that aspects are important for the community such as night shelter and endless AA meetings that we have, St. Patrick’s Day. These engagements are enhanced by our proposal and we are happy about that. We ask you to consider the corridor either option A or B as an essential element of the proposal. They afford handicapped access on the main level year round and make the buildings far more useful for us. We thank you for your consideration and look forward to your proceeding with this project. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public comment portion of the hearing. Stephen Kanipe, Building Official Stephen said the exiting from the sanctuary stands alone. There are very clear guidelines in the provisions of the code to calculate an occupant load. There are some developments in the sanctuary such as the choir loft that will be added. There are several variables in this. We need to focus on the sanctuary. This is going to be a math problem. When we do determine what the occupant load is of the sanctuary then we do the measurement of the stairs from the sanctuary and the formula was to allow for the .2 inches per occupant of the existing stairs to evaluate the existing building conditions for a compliant exit. When we can add the length of the pews and apply the occupant load and we look at what is going on in the choir loft that will give us a number. We compare what is there and what is proposed. Willis said right now we don’t know if a second means of egress is required or not pending the outcome of the math problem. P205 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 8 Gretchen asked if an exercise was done. Stephen said the front exit stairs is about 60 inches and that will result in an allowed occupancy load of 300. The building is sprinkled. Jim Markalunas said he is a member of St. Mary’s church. I am basing my comments to the fire escape. That is no longer an issue since we have an enclosed structure now. We all want to do the best for St. Mary’s. My comments were in the packet. If the fire escape is enclosed that addresses some of my concerns. There is opposition to the interior egress due to the functions of the church and I disagree about the function. The accolades are young. The interior fire escape can be made code compliant. Roger Marolt said he has been a parishioner for 54 years at St. Mary’s. This is the most important and beautiful building in town to me. I am on the building committee. This needs to be a living, growing lively place for this community. Option B is overwhelming supportive by the community. Peggy Mink said she has been a parishioner for 41 years and she doesn’t mind change. Our parish is 325 families. The parish hall seems to accommodate the St. Patrick’s day dinner which serves 700 people and I question the need for what is being proposed. I’m not against it if they can prove they need it. Jim Pomeroy said he is a second generation parish member. I am an employee of the City of Aspen and I am speaking as a public citizen. I am ambivalent about the placement of the glass box. I am concerned about connecting a glass box to an historic structure and it is inappropriate. There will be adequate access for handicapped. The church should be respected and no new elements should be added to the outside of the building whether it is the staircase or the connector. We don’t know if the stairs are needed. The exiting staircase by the sanctuary gets used constantly. It could be integrated into a new design. If needed. Regarding employee generation the idea of adding 9,000 square feet and not generating any employees is impossible. Too many other projects say they aren’t generating employees and of course they do. Audits and tracking after approvals never work. Sue Twig said she has been a parishioner for 20 years. We were told that the building has to be modern and not look like part of the original. I looked at P206 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 9 the addition to the Hotel Jerome and it is red brick that looks just like the Hotel Jerome. Why are you requiring us to have a more modern building on a block that everything else is historic. Willis said all we ask for is a dialogue between an addition and the historic resource. We don’t compel applicants one way or another with the stylistic outcome. Aspen is rich is modern history and Victorian history. Sue Twig said we are a church and when we have events there are volunteers. We don’t hire more people because of those events. We have a good volunteer base. Lisa Markalunas said she is a 50 year parishioner. It is important that the addition be compatible and secondary to the main church building. The new addition should not compete for attention with the historic building on the site. All the various iterations of the proposed designs to date have called attention to themselves. Option B offered this evening looks like the Rubey Park bus station ran into the side of the church. While the applicant should be commended by putting the bulk of their square footage underground I believe the above grade entrance needs to be reduced significantly in size. With the basement level of over 8,000 square feet and a new lobby within the church it is hard to believe that programing and events need to take place at the above grade space entrance. The entrance should be as minimal in size as possible to accommodate circulation and the proposed circular stair. It should be physically disconnected from the church and the design and materials should be more compatible with the historic buildings that surround it. Most importantly it should not block the view by the community of the historic buildings from Main Street. While not ideal I believe a much smaller entrance structure and more appropriate on the alley side of the grounds then located on Main Street in the most prominent location one can imagine as you come west along Main Street and foresee the church. It is also important that any additions to the side be respectful of the historic church while being cognoscente of the greater Aspen community and Aspen’s overall historic and architectural heritage. The property deserves the where with all to have a design that respects its historical significance. We are looking at architecture and the site. The survey was not independent and did not encompass the entire parish community. I hope you will do what is right for St. Mary’s and at least push the development away from the front of the church and the view plane and what people first see when they come down Main Street. P207 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 10 Tom Marshall said he agrees with Pomeroy that the glass box should not attach to the historic building. When all the blinds are pulled it will have a different look. My other concern is the entryway and they have taken away the covered entryway. The cover is a beautiful feature of the church. Marina said there will be a cover presented at final. Renee Crawford said she is a relatively new parishioner. She has lived in Aspen for 16 years. I am quite involved with the community of the church. Part of the reason is the vibrancy of the community of the church. I am in favor of Option B due to the welcoming aspect of the design. It has a view and it has a view into the back lawn area. It is open alive vibrant space. The connector is necessary due to our weather issues. If there wasn’t a connector the people wouldn’t flow as easily. Judy Dunn said she is a new parishioner for 5 years. I also participate on the building committee. I agree with Roger that we have had lively debates for the past two years as to what should be built and why. Many of our young parishioners brought up the idea of a pavilion and social hall. With the social hall being on the front of Main Street it will be used with a variety of activities. I like what Amy said about livening the community and showing what we are doing. With the social hall on Main Street it will be a lively scene and used a lot. The connection is also essential. We chose Option B and decided to locate the social hall up front on Main Street. By doing that we weren’t creating another connection to the church. The connection to the church is necessary for our children and disabled individuals and the weather. Julia Debaucher said she has been a parishioner for 4 years. I am also working part time at the church. The catholic faith is the heart of my family. We are blessed with a beautiful church that we absolutely love. I have 5 children. The social hall is absolutely necessary. As a parent and parishioner it would be wonderful if we had space for a nursery. We are a house of worship and we need extra space. We have pot lucks outside whenever possible. If we are having events downstairs in the basement I need to be able to go upstairs seeing my kids play on the lawn. Kids are always on the lawn. As the secretary all the space is necessary for our current programs. We aren’t going to need extra staff for the space. The sanctuary is a sacred space where the alter is and where the priest says the P208 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 11 mass. I have never ever been to a catholic church where there is an entrance or exit into or out of the sanctuary. Ivan Cassar said he has been in the parish for 23 years. Maybe there could be access to the stair inside. I agree with Pomeroy that the church should be separated from the glass. Putting the new addition on the south side is probably the better idea, Option A. I’m not sure why the porch has to go because people are attached to it. John O’Donough said he has been a parishioner over 20 years. I love St. Mary’s and I consider it the most beautiful building in Aspen and hope it stands 1,000 years from now. St. Mary’s is more than brick and mortar, it is a vital pillar of our Aspen community. This is about the future not the past. I would encourage all you commissioners to support Option B for the future of St. Mary’s and all the good things St. Mary’s does now and in the future. Julie Markalunas Hall said she agrees with Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Markalunas and Tom Marshall. We are here with this project because of its historic nature. All the shepherding Father Hilton is providing for his parish is important and it needs to be done in the context of the community and our history. Blocking the west façade with a modern building even if you can see through it is not good historic preservation and definitely connecting the building is not good historic preservation. The site has two historic buildings on it and even the open space as historic value to it. I would encourage HPC to approve the most minimal on grade portion. I comment the applicant for putting as much as they did down below and that takes the stress off the church in terms of having a huge building which was originally proposed. We need to be aware of the community and the impact on the community in modifying this historic site and connecting a modern building to the old building. Mary Woulfe said she has been here since 1982. I am currently the part time business manager and very familiar with coming in at odd times. The amount of time and energy that we as the staff do tearing down and putting space back up in those classrooms on a regular basis is ridiculous. The space proposed underground is extremely important to us in terms of the sustainability of minimal staff so that we don’t need to increase our housing or increase our employee hours. That is important to understand. We are a community of part time people who volunteer our time to keep our church going and make it what it is. There are many parishes throughout the P209 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 12 country that have gymnasiums and other space for their children to play in and use that are permanently dedicated to that purpose. Because we as a community wish to outreach and provide space for the homeless shelter and AA meetings and things like that that need private space as well. The tear down etc. takes forever. I have looked at the numbers and looked at what it will take to run this space etc. and we have looked at it and presented it to the archdiocese. They are extremely excited about the possibility of having more potential space up here to have meetings for the archdiocese. Hopefully the underground space will be energy efficient as well. Mary Ellen Seecrist said she has been a parishioner for 43 years. Mary Ellen said she is concerned about the contemporary look of the building in a very historic block. What we see right now makes it look very transparent. Once you have the shades, blinds and furniture it’s not going to look that way. People will see a different view of that building. I think a more historic building would be much better for that site. I looked at the markers today and think we would lose 1/3 of our lawn and I would hate to see that go. Molly said she has been a parishioner for 7 years. Anybody who questions the need for more space doesn’t volunteer enough at the church. In regards to a modern design the art museum looks like a wicker basket and takes up a block and it is very cool and beautiful and it doesn’t seem to bother people. There is only 700 square feet of a low impact glass structure being proposed. I support Option B. Georgeann Waggaman said she was on HPC for 20 years and 43 years in Aspen. I agree with some of the statements that maybe it is a little too contemporary and could be softened a little bit. You have to remember that it will be filled with people and furniture and blinds on the windows and bright lights at night that may change the feeling a little bit. I came in here opposed to having the building on the street side but the sun will come in and use that patio a lot more if it is in the front and this might be an asset, Option B. Lets push and minimize the trash compactor so that it doesn’t impact on the lawn because the lawn is very important. Amy said letters or e-mails were sent from Tom and Ellen Marshall, Lisa Markalunas, Junee Kirk, John Kelleher, Stowman Stines, Julie Markalunas Hall. In John Kelleher letter he provided some history of the church. Time is moving on and progress requires change. Stowman said he feels the P210 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 13 project would be a positive influence on St. Mary’s and the City of Aspen. The expansion is clearly needed. Chairperson, Willis Pember closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Applicant rebuttal. Patrick R. said the pavilion will actually help the functionality of the lawn. We have no plans for the shades and blinds. The idea is to make this transparent and inviting visual contact with the pedestrians on the street. Patrick pointed out that the historic church was always without a front porch. We are intending to have some kind of light material for the covering over the front door. We would be opening a portion of the transom window to the public view and improve snow shedding. We did the survey as best we could reaching out to parishioners. On the glass connector it is important to have someone with disabilities access the above grade pavilion. The glass connector is a direct connection for the ADA and for the functionality of the church. The connector is behind a non-historic addition, the elevator. We have established that the space is desperately needed. Charles said the glass connector is ADA compliant. The only access to the social hall is the existing elevator. Where the circular stair is going down there would be a chair lift that goes down from there. Handicapped people would come in the same entrance. None of the connection in plan B connects to any of the historic fabric. We would use the elevator ramp to continue the connection to the pavilion. Patrick R. said we will develop the final details for finals. We have looked at pulling some of the elements of the existing church over such as data lines, materiality and coloring. We are well aware that we need a dialogue with the historic resource. Willis identified the issues: Egress stair, Option a,b,c,d,f, parking, front entry will be addressed at final, GMQS, the applicant would like a simple audit in two years. Employee generation; there was ample demonstration of an active volunteer network at the church which would offset the need for full time employees. The view plane, Option A is out of the view plane entirely. Option B asks for two feet of the view plane. Connector piece is a yes no question. There was a lot of P211 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 14 presentation as to why it is needed. Trash enclosure and minimizing the height seems to be the right direction. We are talking about mass and scale and we aren’t taking about style and fenestration although it is part of the presentation in terms of the feel of the design. Jim commented on the affordable housing and employee generation. At Christ Episcopal Church which was expanded ten years ago they said there would be no new employees generated and there haven’t been any employees generated. There is absolutely a need for the space and the issue of an Audit is a perfect solution. They are only asking for two feet in the view plane and I challenge it as a questionable view plane anyway. Parking is not needed and I support staff’s recommendation which is Option B with conditions. Amy said we didn’t have all the information at the time of the memo and it would be our preference not to have to add that to the building. We hope that the occupancy doesn’t demand it. If it does we still lean hiding it behind the elevator but that hasn’t been completely worked out. Nora thanked the public for coming to the meeting and speaking. There is no question that you need more space. It is certainly necessary for expanding needs. I am looking at this from a global experience of our town and the long term impact of our community. For 74 years we have had this lawn with an open side on the west as our historic reference. The green lawn has become part of our cultural heritage. The experience coming down Main Street does speak of open space and green space. The view plane is critical and when they get eaten away at it is incrementalism. The 1992 addition is unfortunate. If we don’t need a stair case that is great. The open space corridor is very important to me. If you can snug it up against the alley as a separate building. The idea of adding attachments to the west side of the building we lose control of it. I would say no on the connector stair and I support the view plane and the trash door should be lowered. What is important is keeping the openness in the yard and the historic feeling of what is left of the side of the church and the yard. I would support Option A with no connector. Bob said we have seen several design proposals since this project first came to us. The question that we have dealt with is function and aesthetics. The functional issues have been resolved in either A or B proposal. Aesthetics can be very personal. From an aesthetic point of view I have no issues with P212 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 15 either A or B as long as they are in the well-respected HPC guidelines that we work with. I do respect the opinions of the people who have come here tonight and have expressed their opinions. Jim and I were involved in Christ Church and a lot of the same issues came up. The architects have listened to our concerns as we have gone through the meetings. Either proposal could be worked on and listening tonight I am leaning toward B which has green space. John said he is in agreement with Bob. My personal opinion is plan A but either one is acceptable and they fit the guidelines. After hearing everyone tonight there is an overwhelming support for B. We need people to show up and give us guidance. I am in support of plan B with staff’s conditions. On the egress our charge is historic preservation and we can’t have the burden of life safety put on us. I would defer to the Building Dept. after the math equation is completed. In terms of the affordable house mitigation I’m in favor of the two year audit. Regarding the trash enclosure in the back if the Health Dept. would be willing to accept an 8 foot door that would help the project to minimize that are as much as possible. Everyone has worked hard and it is good to see so much compassion about a project. Gretchen thanked the applicant for presenting options to the board. Our only task here is to preserve our existing history of the buildings. We are all in favor of the expansion and it will be a great asset to the community. Most of the expansion is below grade which is appropriate and a small percentage above. I really feel that the lawn belongs to the community. The smaller pavilion option A is the right choice for the building. When you look at the story polls the building blocks the view plane and completely blocks from both angles the west side of the historic church. I have lived here 39 years and the lawn is a beautiful asset to the community. I feel it is a mistake to have the massing of the new structure on Main Street. It is going to be a glass box at night. One of the beauties of St. Mary’s is its regal presence with the windows. The lilacs bloom three weeks of the year and that is a non-issue in terms of masking the glass box. It also violates the view plane which I cannot vote for. I would be in favor of seeing the building in the back of the property, a glass box. Regarding the connector I do believe in accessibility to buildings to be equal for all parties. I see the addition as a glass box if on the rear of the property would be subordinate to the church and that is a better historical preservation concept. The addition would also hide the trash enclosure and be a building of its own time. The lawn should be kept for the community. The building blocks everything. I implore the P213 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 16 board to potentially move in the direction of Option A. Regarding employee housing I would defer to staff if they feel a two year audit is appropriate that is fine with me. I am in favor of the link for better accessibility. It should be a subordinate property and be to the back of the property. Patrick said the basement at 8,000 square feet is great. As far as the stair if they can be used I am in favor of that and if not the preferred alternative in back by the alley is OK. Anything that is going to be built in Main Street is going to block the view and is also two feet into the view plane. Putting the addition in the back, Option A is appropriate and fits well. As far as the glass box we also need to consider the historic character. This is an historic Victorian site and a flat roof where there are three pitched roofs is out of character. Something in back would be appropriate but what is planned would destroy the character of the site completely. It should be re -designed slightly so that it enhances rather than contrasts the other three buildings on site. Willis commented that the HPC is struggling as to how we minimize the interventions of new work to the west elevation. Staff recommended to the applicant consolidation of those interventions next to what is already there, the elevator tower. If you look at perspectives from the west and you compare option A to B you can see that there is more contamination of the historic facade with A than B from Main Street. Both plans have increased the amount of activity in the historic fabric of the west façade. The elevator corridor is not an historic structure and if that were to be reviewed today we would not allow a galvanized mini pyramid on the side of the historic resource. While we aren’t asking them to move it they could consider taking that 90’s piece and putting it into the vocabulary of what they are doing now and dressing it up and take off the dormer and slip it under the eave to restore the eave of the historic resource. The preservation of the lawn is a social and cultural part of Aspen. I supported what was presented at the Jan. 27th meeting but that design wasn’t passed. I can support what the congregation wants which is Option B. Staff also supports option B. I would also prefer no egress stair if possible. We can use the exclusion from page 64 of the packet from the planning office to support the view plane exemption. MOTION: Jim moved to approve resolution #8 for 533 E . Main Street as recommended by staff and represented by Option B with the 9 conditions as P214 IV.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2016 17 recommended by staff. Motion second by Bob. Clarifications of the conditions. 1. HPC is in support of having the connector at grade. 2. No exit stair should be approved at this time. 3,4, ok 5. The two year audit is recommended. 6,7,8, ok 9. There is a minimal impact on the view plane in Option B. John said after the site visit he found that the buildings behind the story polls are encroaching on the view plane far greater than what is being proposed. Bob said the story polls which we asked for and got really made it clear that any obstructions to the traditional view plane are from other buildings not from this potential building. Jim said that should be inherent in the motion. Roll call vote: Nora , Option A with no connector, no; Bob, yes; Jim, yes; Jon, yes; Gretchen, no; Patrick, no, Willis, yes. Motion carried 4-3 300-312 E. Hyman Ave. – Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Demolition, Public Hearing Jim recused himself Nora recused herself John recused himself, conflicted within 300 feet Debbie said the affidavit of posting has been provided. – Exhibit I Amy said the property is a 9,000 square foot lot which is composed of the Crystal Palace building and a small one story commercial space next to it. The applicant proposes to demolish 2/3rds of the exiting construction peeling back to the original footprint of the Crystal Palace bldg. The property was landmarked in the 1980’s; however, it has gone through numerous changes through its history. The Sanborn map shows the 3,000 square foot lot in the 1800’s. There some photographs from that time period showing the building we are preserving and an adjacent building very similar in size and design that used to sit next to it that was demolished many years ago. Around the 1930’s the building started to deteriorate and P215 IV.A. P216 IV.A. P217 IV.A. P218 IV.A. P219 IV.A. P220 IV.A. June 1, 2016 Lisa Markalunas 15 Williams Ranch Court, Aspen, CO Mailing: P.O. Box 8253 Aspen, CO 8:1612 970-925-8623 City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE:St. Mary’s Catholic Church, 533 E. Main Street, Aspen, CO Proposed Pavilion/Social Hall Addition & Entrance -Conceptual Approval Dear HPC Commissioners: I believe that your approvals as a Commission must be a balance of the best interests of good historic preservation, the applicant’s requests and the best interests of the community at large. As a life-long member of St. Mary’s Parish, I believe approving Option B will significantly and adversely affect the best interests of the entire Aspen community and the significance of St. Mary’s Church’s historic place in our built environment. If an addition is to be built, I believe Option A, moving the proposed entrance to the applicant’s initially proposed location along the alley, would offer the least impact to the historic site. I hope that you have considered both the comments and the vote (3-1) by City Council strongly endorsing Option A at their meeting of April 25th’ 20:16. Voting for the Option A along the alley will allow preservation of the historic view of the west fa(;ade of the historic St. Mary’s Church building from Main Street. it will serve to preserve the historic Church building and the Church lawn and the community interaction that have been integral components of the site and the community for generations. Insuring that Option A is fully disconnected from the Church above grade, will preserve and further protect the historic building. Approval of Option A will allow as many as six lilacs to remain along Main Street. Contrary to much of the other comment being put forth at various public meetings, there are many St. Mary’s parishioners who may or may not be in favor of the proposed plans, but if they had to choose they would favor the alley option. The Council record and minutes include a copy of a petition I submitted for the record at their April 25th meeting representing over 1,000 years of collective parish membership requesting that the entrance be placed adjacent to the alley and not in front of the historic Church facade. As stated, the prominence and significance of the entire half block to the community, and being among the most qionifirant hiqtnric h~dlrlings in all of Aspen. makP it Psn~ciallv deserving of your careful consideration. I’m sure you recognize that both the built environment and the open space are key components of this historic parcel. At the very least, I believe that all above-grade construction should be reduced in size, be fully disconnected above grade from the Church building and be located in the less prominent location along the alley. I hope that you will consider both the community and the parish by voting for Option A as an acceptable resolution that recognizes City Council’s strong majority vote and comments in support and considers the numerous comments I have witnessed from both community and parish members advocating for preserving this historic site for the community while providing the parish with a very reasonable entrance solution. Sincerely, Lisa Markalunas P221 IV.A. file:///G|/...se%20Cases/Current/Current%20HP%20Cases/533%20emain/HPC%20Remand/Public%20comment/St.%20Mary%20Approval.txt[6/2/2016 3:01:14 PM] From: Barry Mink <barrymink@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 4:53 PM To: Amy Simon Subject: St. Mary Approval W e both strongly support Option A. Dr. Barry & Peggy Mink Sent from my iPad P222 IV.A.