The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.20161012 AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING October 12, 2016 4:30 PM City Council Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISITS A. Please visit 500 W. Main on your own II. 4:30 INTRODUCTION A. Roll call B. Approval of minutes September 14, 2016 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. OLD BUSINESS- NONE IV. 4:40 NEW BUSINESS A. 4:40 411 E. Hyman Avenue- Final Major Development and Final Commercial Design Review, PUBLIC HEARING B. 5:50 500 W. Main Street- Conceptual Major Development and Commercial Design Review, Special Review, PUBLIC HEARING V. 7:00 ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: Resolution #31, 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 SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 1 Vice-chairperson, Gretchen Greenwood called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Bob Blaich, Nora Berko, Jim DeFrancia, John Whipple Jeffrey Halferty and Michael Brown. Willis Pember was seated at 4:40 p.m. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Director Justin Barker, Senior Planner MOTION: Nora moved to approve the minutes of August 24th, 2016, second by Jim. All in favor, motion carried. Michael Brown will recuse himself on 110 W. Main St. 517 E. Hopkins – Final Major Development, Final Commercial Design, Growth Management, Establishment of Certificate of Affordable Housing Credits Debbie said the public notices have appropriately been provided – Exhibit I Justin Barker said the project is a 9,000 square foot lot. It is not a designated property but in the historic district. Conceptual was approved in December and HPC approved demolition of the existing building and approved the conceptual design for a new two story building and one story subgrade. At that time the entire building was commercial and tonight the proposal has changed. The second floor is being proposed as affordable housing. Part of that is mitigation for the existing development as well as a request for affordable housing credits for the additional housing that is being provided onsite. In terms of the design for the building the module widths are slightly reduced and staff supports the reduction as it still meets the intent of the guidelines. The normal width is 30 feet. Typically the guidelines require an air-lock entry for new structures but HPC can grant approvals for some kind of air curtain and staff is supportive of that. The materials are traditional which mainly consist of brick, stone and some form of poured concrete and staff is supportive of the material selections. In terms of paving and landscaping this project was initially approved for a small public amenity site in the north east corner of the property and the rest in cash-in-lieu. The P1 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 2 applicant has revised that request and is still proposing the on-site amenity but is proposing some improvements to the adjacent right-of-way instead of the cash-in-lieu. Staff is supportive of that change subject to Parks and Engineering approval of the final design. The growth management is a new piece to the project that HPC hasn’t talked about at length. The existing development has 4 category one studio deed restricted units and the applicant is proposing 6 new two bedroom units. Part of those would off-set the mitigation requirement for those 4 studio units and the additional amount over that is requested for certificates of affordable housing credits. The four studio units generate a number of 5 FTE’s for the requirement and the proposed development would generate 13.5 FTE’s so there is an 8.5 FTE difference between the two. They are requesting the credits for the additional overage. The project was reviewed by the APCHA board and they recommended in favor of both mitigation units as well as the credits and the creation of those. The only request APCHA made was that three of those units be deed restricted as category two and the other they typically category a 4 rate that is required by the code. This is mainly to offset the loss of category one units. The overall difference is that one of the category two units, a portion of that goes to the existing units and the other portion of it would be eligible for credits. So actually it would calculate to 9.26 FTE’s of the category two rates. That will be outlined in the proposed resolution. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. Willis said it was mentioned that the modules have changed. Justin said the modules are the same as conceptual. A typical town site lot has a traditional module width of 30 feet and they are trying to reflect that in the design pattern. The modules are slightly narrower at 26 feet and that was part of the discussion at conceptual. Chris Bendon from BendonAdams Chris said the site is a 3 plus story building now that sticks up into the view plane from the court house plus they have a basement. The space held the Building Dept. down stairs and the Daily News upstairs. There is a pedestrian disconnect from the sidewalk both vertically and horizontally. The 204 S. Galena building which has been up and running for two + years Mark built. The three proposed modules reflect the three sister buildings across the street. At conceptual the second floor was intended for office space and then moved toward affordable housing to keep the project moving forward. At some time in the future there maybe a pivot back to a P2 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 3 commercial enterprise with the same footprint etc. At conceptual there was discussion primarily about the massing of the center section. Growth management: There is a commercial footprint that will be replaced on-site with slightly less net leasable space. In the proposal there are two floors proposed. On the basement level it is intended for a health fitness profile. There would also be a common area with a changing room, showers, bathrooms etc. On the ground floor are the three spaces with a fourth space for the vertical circulation of the entire building. The demising strategy right now is as proposed but we want to be clear that Mark is the owner and wants to be able to respond to various tenant needs over time. For example in the bottom you might see four spaces now and maybe there is a change in tenants and you would see three or even five which is similar to any commercial space in town. The affordable housing is the other review. There are four studio units deed restricted rentals, category one. The code requirement is to replace the number of FTE’s that are housed and it really provides APCHA the flexibility to dictate the form and fashion as how that is replaced. We have found it difficult to rent a category one level. Our proposal is for six two bedroom units all rentals. APCHA has suggested that they like the two bedrooms much more than the studios and they like the category two more than the category one for the replacement units. We are fine with that. There are stipulations about the rental requirements. Several of the units are above the APCHA standards. On the south you have great views and on the north you have great decks. Chris said the existing building has a small amount of pedestrian amenity on the eastern side from the corridor that goes back to the alley. It isn’t the most pleasant experience. We are going to duplicate that amount of space two or three percent of the footprint out of our 10% requirement. The remaining requirement will be with off-site requirements that are adjacent to the building. The improvements at 204 S. Galena are a representation that you could expect, detached sidewalks, street trees, irrigation and electricity. Mark Hunt, owner addressed the materials. Mark said they took the approach to build one building but read as multiple businesses. One material on the corner is board formed concrete and very textural with a brown hue. There is vertical transportation to the basement which is a health and fitness area. We would like to bring in some of the tenants that are already in the building. We desire to design it with proper ventilation and a proper area to change in and men’s and women’s locker P3 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 4 rooms. We want it to be a health and fitness area when people can come before lunch or after and be able to utilize the space. We have found that anytime you can create local traffic like other studios it is good for the town and it is great for the retailers on the street and it really ties in. The next façade is a more contemporary view but using traditional materials. The brick is all handmade and there is a lot of texture which gives a lot of depth. There is a simple soldier course with a simple steel cap. On the storefront closest to 204 E. Hopkins we had wood but we then looked at another brick to tie it in. It is the same form but a different color. Mark said the middle bay is set back. It is more of a contemporary approach to the architecture. Based on the glazing and the materials it is set back to create the shadow. The store fronts are simple with metal and Hope windows. It is one building but we are taking simple natural materials and tying them together with board formed concrete brick, cast stone, steel and glass to add a little energy to that street and engage the sidewalk. We lowered the entire form to be taken out of the view plane. Chris said in the resolution we would like to address the affordable housing. The housing is intended to be rental and there is a stipulation about what happens if there is a non-compliance which is really an APCHA issue. We feel there will be language in the deed restriction that outlines non- compliance. It is also our assumption that there will be plenty of time to cure the violation. In the reso three units are category two and the other three are category four. We would like the ability to have the category 4 units be a lower category or at least have that flexibility. That would give us internal ability for renting the units. That might trigger a re-calculation of the credits and we could work through that with staff. Dwayne Ramero, managing consultant with the applicant Dwayne said we have had a lot of conversation with HPC when we reviewed this for conceptual. We also had a robust conversation with City Council when they called this approval up from conceptual. The concept is having this be a integrated building with collective uses that are similar. You have an active lifestyle in the basement and active retail on the ground floor and incubator offices. This is a worthy direction to take but at the same time clearly the affordable housing is equally worthy. The moratorium may predict a different direction but at this point the affordable housing is a pathway within the code and it still has virtue and it still helps to satisfy the P4 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 5 requirements of this project. There has been a change at the council table whereby credits or added FAR for residential projects throughout the city are no longer just able to write a check if it is over a certain amount of square footage of addition. You must go seek a credit. This is basically an internal self-help program. We would like to be on the record as stated that if the second floor changes there would clearly have to be an amendment process to do all that. We are putting it on the record today that we would be happy to have that conversation if it would happen to arise but here tonight the program and portfolio is as you see it and it ties together nicely and has a integrated approach. Clarifications: Willis asked about the faced brick. Marks said the brick is the same module but a different color. There is subtle detailing between the modules. Nora asked about the sizes of the units. Chris said they are two bedroom and the smallest is 850 square feet and the largest is 950 square feet with decks. Gretchen asked if internal bedrooms are not required to have light and ventilation and an egress. Chris said our architect is fully aware of the building code and if they have to be more of a loft style that can occur. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Willis identified the issues: Details of construction Materials and finishes Signage Lighting Public amenity Landscaping P5 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 6 Willis said if we all can agree that the units will be rentals that will give them the most flexibility to move forward with potential changes to the land use code. Jim said the project looks terrific and they have done a good job and the proposed conditions are appropriate. Gretchen said she agrees with Jim and can support the project. That building has been an eye sore for many years and falling apart. Jeffrey said the project supports our criteria. The egress should be addressed. The materials and scale are compliant and the site coverage works. I appreciate the housing component and the building is a project of its own time. It is an excellent improvement. John said he agrees with the commissioners. It is a great project and it is a well rounded approach. The use of affordable housing is beneficial and the materiality is a good selection. Gretchen said the affordable housing is a good switch. Willis said the affordable housing is big switch from the last presentation but the architecture hasn’t changed. Willis said he supports the affordable housing and the unit sizes are great and the deck space and floor to ceiling are commendable. The ability to shuffle between categories is good to allow them the maximum flexibility. The landscape at 204 E. Hopkins is well done and possibly should migrate down the block. The continuity would be great as you looking down the block. Mark said he feels that same design should continue down the block. Chris said the landscape hasn’t been designed yet and we are fine with a staff and monitor check. Bob said he also supports the project and what he has heard from the commissioners. Nora said she is glad to see affordable housing downtown and it keeps town vibrant and keeps locals downtown. P6 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 7 Michael concurred and it looks like a good project. MOTION: Jim moved to approve resolution #28 for 517 E. Hopkins with the conditions proposed by staff. Section #5 to be amended to add monitor and staff to review the public amenity. Chris asked if they could have the ability to convert the credits from 4 to 3 or 2 at the applicants choosing. Jim agreed to add that to the motion. Justin said section #2 can be changed to a maximum of category 4 rate to give them the flexibility to choose a 2 or 3 if they wanted to. The second change would be in section #3 because we don’t know what category those credits would be established at. We probably should not set a specific number. Any FTE’s above the 5 required would be eligible for credits. Jim accepted the changes to the motion. Motion second by John. Debbie pointed out that 8 members are present and only 7 can vote. Jeffrey was appointed as the regular member. Michael said he thought he was appointed as a regular member. Roll call vote: Jeffrey, yes; John, yes; Gretchen, yes; Jim, yes; Bob, yes; Nora, yes; Willis, yes. Motion carried 7-0. 110 W. Main Street – Planned Unit Development – Other Amendment, Public Hearing Michael recused himself. Debbie said the public notice has been appropriately provided, Exhibit I. Jennifer said the property is in the Main Street Historic District. The request is for a planned development. This is a recommendation from the commission to city council who will be the final decision making body. The last time the commission saw this was in 2014. What was reviewed was the redevelopment of the site which included 54 lodge units, 3 onsite affordable housing units and 3 free market units that face Bleeker. The applicant is P7 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 8 proposing some changes to the site specific approval. One is in regard to circulation of the stairways and walkways. Parts of the lodge were not enclosed in the 2014 approvals and the applicant is requesting to enclose and weather proof these areas. Secondly, one of the affordable housing units had an outdoor patio and that is proposed to be removed to change a trash enclosure on the site. Thirdly, the height of the lodge is proposed to be increased from 28 feet to 32 feet to re-create greater ceiling heights. The pool area is also proposed to be reconfigured with a smaller pool and a more open configuration. The lodge units adjacent to the pool area on the first floor will have their patios removed. The final change is the basement footprint which will be enlarged. Jennifer said staff has no problems with the corridor enclosure. This is a similar design that was shown except glass curtain walls are being added to provide for a similar transparency and provide better protection from the elements for the guests of the lodge. Staff does not support the removal of the patio as it decreases the livability of the individual unit. The removal of the patio still does not meet the requirements of the trash enclosure that was included in council’s ordinance. Jennifer said the 2014 approvals provided for a lodge of 28 feet in height and the bases of it was parts of the existing lodge were represented to be maintained and remodeled and the exterior materials changed out. The request before you is for a 32 foot height maximum. A total demolition is being proposed rather than a partial demolition. This is different from the previous representation that some portions of the lodge would remain and be remodeled. Those portions were at the front façade along Main Street. The approval of the hotel in 2014 was based on these representations. When it was a remodel rather than a demolition it put certain footprints in place. If it had been represented at the beginning of the project that this would be a complete demolition a potential different outcome for the hotel design may have been reached to better meet the Main Street historic district design standards. Staff supports the amenity of the pool and the location of the pool might have been in a different location if total demolition had been considered on the onset of this project. With regard to the basement expansion when city council passed the ordinance to set the site specific approval there was a smaller basement shown. When it came to HPC for final review the applicant showed a larger basement and what is before you is even a larger basement. Staff has no problems with the enlarge basement below grade but does question some of the setbacks and if it is new P8 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 9 construction should it meet the setbacks of the zone district. The side yard is 5 feet and portions of the garage are at zero. What this comes to is when you amend the planned development you open up all aspects of this project. Staff is currently recommending a continuation. Staff recommends that this be restudied and or the applicant look at reducing the overall height of the hotel not to exceed the 28 feet and not demolish the Main Street facing portions of the lodge. If they are to be demolished staff believes the site should be reconsidered due to the total demolition proposed now. The board needs to discuss whether setbacks should be required on the basement. Gretchen asked is there are any kind of thresholds when an application comes in like this for changes and would they need to start over. Jennifer said usually during the review process things can change and they would need memorialized appropriately. In some of the representations total demolition was never anticipated. It was our understanding that the front portion of the lodge/lobby and pool area would remain. It seems that the representations have changed. Gretchen asked if there is anything in the code that would indicate this a new application. Jennifer said the changes are to get better head heights. This is 100% demolition as compared to keeping a portion of the building that was originally represented. John asked why staff is vehemently opposed to the changes. Jennifer said the biggest issue is that this might not have been the project that was approved if we had known that the property was going to be scraped from the very beginning which is where the historical guidelines come in. Willis said there is a huge menu of different kinds of things you have to do in the land use code based on a remodel vs scrape and replace. Jim said scrape and replace is a new project. Jennifer said if this is a true demolition of the entire site should we be looking at the site plan again. P9 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 10 Gretchen said when you tear down a building and you have an encroachment and you do more than 40% you don’t get to keep that encroachment. Are there hard and fast rules regarding the process because this seems like another big project to review. Debbie said you need to keep in mind when the ordinance is passed by council they have the final decision regarding an amendment. John said we should hear what the applicant has to say. Patrick Rawley, Stan Clausen and Associates Bart Johnson Kim Weil Michael Brown, owner Patrick said this is a request to increase the height of the lodge from 28 feet to 32 feet. We are enclosing partially enclosed corridors for the hotel for comfort. We would like to revise the pool configuration to allow for more public amenity space for the lodge users. We would also like to modify the trash/utility area. Council would also have to approve the affordable housing credits as we over provided credits and there are additionals that we would like to create credits for. We also would like an extension of vested rights. HPC resolution 13, 2014 approved the final project and ordinance 51, 2013 approved the Planned Development. The plan is identical and the only modifications made is the enclosed corridor and revised pool area to allow for greater seating. The free markets are completely unchanged. This is a complete reconstruction. The western view of the patio is almost identical to what was approved in 2014 with a slight amount of additional height to allow for greater comfort of the rooms. The lodge was 28 feet tall and now 32 which is almost identical. We are maintaining the prominent drum lobby area. The chimney is there and the same covering over the front porch is there. It is really a question of how we are doing the remodel. 28 feet to the parapet is being increased to 32 feet. The height change does not alter the use of the lodge or the approved floor area. We are exactly where we were in 2014. It is simply to enhance the livability of the individual lodge units. The ceiling heights would be increased from 7’10” to 8’6” which would be more desirable for guests of the hotel. It also allows for ease of construction or more efficient construction techniques and that will reduce the time and impacts of the construction which the neighborhood P10 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 11 would appreciate. The height is within the context of the neighborhood. 32 feet is what the Molly Gibson is across the street and adjacent buildings range from 25 feet to 30 feet. The Semrau affordable housing is at 36 feet in height. Per floor we are asking for 8 inches. This will make for a more efficient building. The 32 feet is allowed by special review in the MU zone district and we aren’t requesting any variances. This is just a reconstruction of an existing building that was built in the 50’s. We are maintaining the setbacks and public amenity spaces that we have always provided. Patrick said on the enclosed corridor we have always proposed metal screens and the glass will be behind the metal screens. The enclosure of the corridors is protection from wildlife and provides for guest comfort. The visual impacts are minor. The pool that is there now is larger than what we need. For safety reasons we want to reconfigure this area. A planter will be in the location where doors access the pool deck and meet code. The pool itself has been reduced to allow for greater seating for the guests of the lodge. The pool footprint is very similar to what you see at the Limelight Lodge. The overall area has not changed since 2014. Regarding the modified trash and recycling utility area we located a transformer into this area as was permitted by ordinance 51. The ordinance said if you just have a trash area and no transformer you can have a compacting trash/dumpster but it you co-locate with the transformer and trash area it has to be a two yard dumpster with recycling. There were two options given in ordinance 51 and we determined that the relocation of the transformer is necessary. The dimensional requirements are met. The enclosure is 10’6” deep where it needs to be ten feet and we have a 15’3” width that is required and we are at 15’1 1/2”. The setting back of the trash area is very helpful so that it allows for an unimpeded access from two egress stairs to the right-of-way. If we were not to move the trash enclosure as originally shown someone exiting the building would have to deviate from the sidewalk into the alleyway and get back onto the sidewalk. It is now a much cleaner means of egress from the building. Demolition: Patrick said the existing lobby and the west wing of the lodge will be rebuilt to the same footprint and same existing architectural character as exists today. The result will be a fully modern building and will appear to be a remodel of the existing structure. When we were going through final approval the free market units were a topic of interest and lots of changes were made up to the final approval. One concern was the setback along P11 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 12 Bleeker which needs to be greater. By moving the free market structures to the south that impinged upon the garage area. When the garage area was impinged upon we had a requirement of 13 parking spaces we needed to provide for in ordinance 51. To do that we pushed the garage area underneath the lobby area. Demolition is necessary to meet the council requirements. That is why we are demolishing and building back to the exact same specifications and you will be getting a modern building and the lodge will be better for it. Patrick said there is some cleanup we need to do. Staff was aware of the proposed conditions. This is a shifting south of the garage subgrade. The actual plan was attached to ordinance #51. Ordinance #51 said a five foot setback for the lodge where the drawings on the subgrade show a zero foot lot line setback. It is a clerical error, the difference between what the ordinance says and what the drawings attached indicated. Regarding the resolution we would like to amend B, which says 13 spaces are required but we are provided 14 even though 13 are required. G) Demolition and reconstruction of all buildings including all structures within the southern half of the property is recommended for approval. Kim Weil clarified that the height of the barrel corner at the entrance is staying the same. Jim said they are also asking for a 3 year vested rights extension. Michael Brown said there is no change in the floor area regarding the basement. Patrick said regarding the barrel corner at the public hearings and outreach people liked the drum corner. It is part of the fabric of the mixed zone district. Nora said a remodel allows you to keep what you have. What happens if it is a demolition. Jennifer said a demolition opens up the question as to whether this should have been a different design or a different product. When you amend a PUD even though you are asking for a little change you are opening up the planned unit development as a whole. P12 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 13 Jeffery said he understands the design and making the circulation better. Have the mitigations or setbacks changed. Jennifer said in the ordinance that City Council approved it is definitely over what was allowed in the underlying zone district as a mixed use project. They had to do a planned development to get some of their dimensions. Nora asked what was approved for the patio and how is it now lost. Patrick said the patio is right behind the trash enclosure which is not the best place. Now there is no patio. A patio is not required to meet the affordable housing requirements. We have two other affordable housing units in the hotel that do not have patios. Bob asked about the parking for the free market homes. Jennifer said in the ordinance three are for the affordable housing, 3 for the free market and the balance is for the lodge. Jim asked how many units are in the lodge. Jennifer said they are going to 54 units. There was a deficit of parking originally for the project and they were allowed to maintain that deficit. Patrick said the ordinance says minimum off street parking and 13 subgrade spaces. Bob said he likes the character and feeling of the building. It has been there for such a long time. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public comment portion of the agenda item was closed. Willis identified the issues: A. The Commission recommends an increase in height of the lodge from 28 feet to 32 feet. B. The Commission recommends an increase in the parking from 13 spaces to 14 spaces even though 13 are required. P13 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 14 C. The Commission recommends an increased basement area and a setback of 0 feet for certain portions of the basement as provided in the exhibit to this resolution. D. The exterior corridors and stair towers are recommended to be enclosed s represented by the applicant. E. The pool area is recommended to be modified per the exhibit. F. The patio area for one of the affordable housing units is recommended for removal and the change in entry location for one of the units is recommended for approval. G. Demolition and reconstruction of all buildings including all structures within the southern half of the property is recommended for approval. Gretchen said after listening to the presentation there are two things in front of us, one is had we not gone down this road we probably would have had a better looking building and visually it would be different. After hearing the outreach with the community they really like that corner and I am hesitant to go down that road again. It is important to increase the height of the building from 28 to 32 feet. The process is unfortunate and the City needs to figure out a way so this doesn’t happen again this way. Michael said as we got into the drawings to advance them along we saw some issues that we wanted to rectify, notably the height and enclosing the corridors. Jim said looking at staff’s recommendation for continuance on the issue of demolition when you have a revised site plan and a revised height and a full demolition as opposed to a partial demolition that is a pretty dramatic change to the project overall. The issue of full demolition vs preserving the portion that they have committed to preserve is reflective of what was reasonably presumed in the considerations of the original approval. If they had originally proposed a full demolition maybe they would have gotten two free markets instead of three. It is a package when you are doing a PUD. This isn’t just a minor change when you go from a commitment to preserve something and then you want to take the whole thing down. John said he is taking the opposite stance. We are making mountains out of mole hills here. This is a better product. If there is ever a time when city council could go on record to make an incentive for lodging, demolition is going to be easier to construct. A better building would be built that wouldn’t be torn down in 15 years. My recommendation to city council is P14 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 15 that I am going with A through F. They should demo the building and this will be a better product and there are good improvements. If the City wants to do incentives for lodges allow them to tear this down and build a better building and it will be cheaper to build and you will have more success in maintaining a viable product. I am opposed to getting into the semantics as to how we got here. It is a better building and I am in full support of it. Nora said her concern is totally philosophical. It is the precedent setting. You get an approval and you come back and it is totally different. What kind of message are we sending. John said the fabric is still there. Jim said they had a commitment to preserve something and it can be preserved. John said it will produce a better product and remodels of this nature when you aren’t restoring an historic fabric don’t make a lot of sense economically and they don’t make a lot of sense functionally. These are minor improvements and we are making a big deal out of them. Nora said she agrees with John but philosophically what are we sending. How do we move forward and not find ourselves in this situation every single time. Gretchen said we can recommend to staff that they look at this issue. Willis said City Council will be good and focus like a razor and they can unravel the conditions that we are talking about like what if it were a full demolition etc. We aren’t fully prepared to address that. John said he would agree with Nora if this building had some kind of historic value to it. We are nostigically attached to those shapes and they have maintained those shapes. Gretchen said what they are proposing is better for the project, the livability, the enclosures and the height. Patrick explained that it is the exact footprint. The difference is the minor increase in height. It is a new building. P15 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 16 Jim said the character of the new building resembles the old building. Jeffrey said the arguments make sense but this is a classic example where there are too many. What I don’t want to do is recommend something that I know council will call up. Deliberating on something that has changed substantially is asking for a call up. Jim said they will call it up anyway. Jeffrey said the issue is a full demolition vs a partial demolition. I am conflicted on how to vote. It is a great hotel especially their price point. I am not sure of our process. John said to incentivize we will have a lesser impact on the City of Aspen in the downtown Main Street because the construction time will be drastically reduced. Gretchen said she agrees with John. With construction having that flexibility should be discussed early on in the application. Things move around regarding construction. I am 100% behind recommending approval given the public’s participation and expectation of this project on that corner. Jim said what they are proposing is comparable to what was to be preserved. The new appearance is very approximate. John said we need to cut the red tape and get a new lodge built. Patrick said the ordinance does specifically say whereas in order to authorize the demolition of structures on the southern half of the property according to section 26.415.80 demolition of historic designated properties must demonstrated that the application meets one of the following criteria. It also says that demolition is approved. They make no specifications of some buildings being kept and some not being kept. It is our belief that the original approval done in 2012 did provide for demolition of all structures. Jennifer said there were other representations and memos of which buildings would be maintained. P16 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 17 Patrick said through the process the building shifted and the final level approvals that were made and this was never hidden and always presented that this modification was going to be made. Some of the design features of the free market units would be pushed to final and that is when this all occurred. We believe the original resolution provided for demolition. Jim said he doesn’t feel the board is in a position to make the motion stronger or weaker and maybe staff should look further into the approvals. Willis said we could say from a design point of view we can approve it and from a process point of view we have no clue and we are uncertain. Gretchen said every process is different and they are never the same. Patrick said this probably will never occur again. John said he has seen other commercial projects get a five year vested rights and this is a way more complex project and should have had a longer vested right from the beginning. MOTION: John made the motion to approve resolution #29, 2016 with the amendment that section 1 G is added in to allow for full demolition on the site and the modification of B regarding the 14 spaces. Willis asked if we could add H regarding the approval process from a planning point of view. We have no certainty that the applicant originally coming forward would end up in the same place. We have no basis for judging if this is fair. Debbie said she disagrees because Jennifer did attach the code that is relevant to this particular application. This was submitted before our code was changed. The major and minor amendments that might kick you into a different process are applicable to this particular application. She said several of the criteria are not met. Gretchen second the motion. Willis said this memo falls short of capturing all the dimensions of the issue. P17 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 18 John said city council will pick this apart and I feel comfortable with the motion. Debbie said you can always continue the meeting to get other information. Roll call vote: Jeffrey, no; John, yes; Gretchen, yes; Jim, no; Bob, no; Nora, yes; Willis, no. Motion failed 4-3. MOTION: Jim moved to continue 110 W. Main Street to November 9th as recommended by staff to address resolution of the criteria question and ample background of the original approval; second by Bob. Nora, yes; Bob, yes; Jim, yes; Gretchen, no; John, no; Jeffrey, yes; Willis, yes. Motion carried 5-2. MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn; second by Jim. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk P18 II.B. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Justin Barker, Senior Planner THRU: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 411 E. Hyman Avenue – Final Major Development, Final Commercial Design Review, Public Hearing DATE: October 12, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: The subject property is located at 411 E. Hyman Avenue, on the south side of the Hyman pedestrian mall. The lot is 1,400 square feet (14’ x 100’) and is zoned Commercial Core. The property is not designated, but is located within the Commercial Core Historic District. The Wheeler Opera House View Plane intersects a portion of the property. The property currently contains a two-story structure, shown in Figure A, that has 767 square feet of net leasable commercial space on the first floor and a 798 square foot one-bedroom free-market residential unit on the second floor. There is one parking space provided along the alley. HPC granted Conceptual approvals on June 10, 2015 to demolish the existing structure and construct a new one-story commercial building. In addition, HPC exempted the proposed development from Mountain View Plane review, approved the use of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation for the loss of the existing residential unit and approved provision of the required on-site Public Amenity through a cash-in-lieu payment. Required parking for the increase in commercial net leasable will be provided through a cash-in-lieu payment. The reviews currently requested include Final Major Development and Final Commercial Design. Staff recommends Final approval with conditions. Figure A – Existing Structure P19 IV.A. 2 APPLICANT: 411 East Hyman Avenue LLC, represented by BendonAdams. ADDRESS: 411 E. Hyman Avenue, East fourteen feet (E14’) of Lot C, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. PARCEL ID: 2737-180-16-005. ZONING: CC, Commercial Core. Figure 1: Map indicating subject property P20 IV.A. 3 FINAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW 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 HPC design guidelines is attached as “Exhibit A.” This project is subject to review under the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. This site is located on the Hyman Avenue pedestrian mall, which contains several historic landmarks, including the structure directly east of this property. HPC included three design conditions in the Conceptual Review approval to be completed by the Applicant prior to Final Review: 1. Further study the storefront entrance to increase the height of the glazing, similar to traditional storefronts in the downtown. 2. Further study the height and detailing of the cornice. 3. Further study the alley façade to create more visual interest. Responses to these three conditions are included in the discussion below. Building Design & Articulation. Guideline 6.41 calls for a recessed entry of approximately 4 feet. The purpose of this is to maintain the pattern of recessed entryways and establish a distinct threshold for pedestrians. The proposed setback is 3 feet. Staff finds this depth to be appropriate and proportionate for the atypical narrow width of the lot and structure. The proposed depth still provides a distinct threshold and represents a continuation of recessed entryways. The Conceptual design included a storefront height of approximately 8 feet (Figure 2). In response to HPC condition 1 above, the applicant has increased the height of the storefront to 13 feet (Figure 3). Staff finds that this better relates to the historic landmark to the east and better responds to Guidelines 6.44-6.45, which suggest a tall first floor and distinction between street level and upper floors. P21 IV.A. 4 Figure 2 : Conceptual Design Figure 3: Proposed Final Design The Applicant has also changed the cornice in response to Condition 2 above. HPC’s main concerns with the originally proposed cornice (Figure 2) was that it was too heavy, did not respect the historic landmark to the east, and was trying to imitate historic detailing. The revised design (Figure 3) replaces the cornice with a simple soldier course of bricks. Staff finds this to be an elegant and simple solution that addresses HPC concerns and respects the adjacent historic landmark. The rear portion of the building is slightly modified from the original proposal. In the original design, the tall 20 ft. volume extended from lot line to lot line. In the revised design, the south 30’10” of the building is dropped to a height of 9’8”. This serves two purposes: responds to Condition 3 above by creating additional visual interest on the alley façade adding depth and varied massing, and it creates a space to accommodate an on-site trash/recycle area requested by Environmental Health. Staff finds these changes to be an improvement on the existing design. Architectural Materials. The proposed materials include primarily hand molded brick (glazed and unglazed) and glass. The original design included CMUs along the alley façade. Also in response to Condition 3 above, the Applicant has revised this façade to include molded brick, prefinished cement siding and painted steel accents. Staff finds that the proposed revisions are successful in creating additional visual interest on the alley façade. Paving and Landscaping. At Conceptual, the project was granted approval to provide the Public Amenity requirement through a cash-in-lieu payment. The applicant is requesting the ability to provide off-site improvements instead of the cash-in-lieu payment. Specific location of the off-site improvements were not identified in the application, but the Applicant has received approval for off-site public amenity improvements for another project and has indicated that they would like to contribute to those improvements to satisfy this requirement. Off-site improvements are permitted by the Code and have been approved for several other projects in town, although they have typically been for nearby right-of-way. The Land Use Code suggests that off-site amenity should be within proximity of the development site. The other approved off-site improvement location is approximately two blocks away. Staff believes this is not the intent of the requirement and does P22 IV.A. 5 not support the off-site amenity proposal. This also creates a difficult tracking situation to have one project’s requirement tied to the completion and associated costs of a different project. Lighting/Signage The proposed design includes both an awning and a gooseneck light fixture that encroach into the right-of-way. Both of these will require Engineering approval of an encroachment license. The proposed gooseneck light fixture may not be in compliance with the City’s outdoor lighting regulations. Staff recommends that the final light fixture and location on the front façade be approved by staff and monitor. Additionally, the submitted drawings include a space labeled for future tenant signage that may not be in compliance with the City’s sign regulations. Staff recommends removal of this label from the final approved drawings, and that any future signage and location would be approved pursuant to the Land Use Code. Staff otherwise finds the proposed building to be in line with the guidelines. ______________________________________________________________________________ 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 grant Final Commercial Design and Final Major Development with the following conditions: 1. The project has a 140 sq. ft. (10%) public amenity requirement. The entirety of the public amenity requirement shall be mitigated through cash-in-lieu payment, to be calculated at the time of building permit review. 2. Final lighting fixture and location on the Hyman Avenue façade shall be approved by staff and monitor. 3. Any encroachments into the right-of-way shall be subject to a permanent encroachment license granted by the Engineering Department. 4. The proposed future tenant signage label shall be removed from the final approved elevations. EXHIBITS: A. Relevant Design Guidelines B. Commercial Design Review Criteria C. June 10, 2015 HPC minutes D. HPC Resolution No. 20, Series of 2015 E. Application P23 IV.A. 6 Exhibit A, Relevant Design Guidelines 6.36 The detailed design of the building façade should reﬂect the traditional scale and rhythm of the block. This should be achieved using all of the following: • The fenestration grouping • The modeling of the façade • The design framework for the ﬁrst ﬂoor storefront • Variation in architectural detail and/or the palette of façade materials 6.38 Buildings should be designed to reﬂect the architectural hierarchy and articulation inherent in the composition of the street façade. All of the following should be addressed: • The design and deﬁnition of the traditionally tall ﬁrst ﬂoor • T h e proportions of the upper level fenestration pattern • The completion of the sheer street façade(s) with capping cornice or other horizontal modeling 6.39 A building should reflect the three dimensiona l characteristics of the street façade in the strength and depth of modeling, fenestration and architectural detail. 6.40 Maintain the repetition of similar shapes and details along the block. • Upper story windows should have a vertical emphasis. In general, they should be twice as tall as they are wide. • Headers and sills of windows on new buildings should maintain the traditional placement relative to cornices and belt courses. 6.41 Maintain the pattern created by recessed entry ways that are repeated along a block. • Set the door back from the front façade approximately 4 feet. This is an adequate amount to establish a distinct threshold for pedestrians. • Where entries are recessed, the building line at the sidewalk edge should be maintained by the upper ﬂoor(s). • Use transoms over doorways to maintain the full vertical height of the storefront. 6.42 The general alignment of horizontal f e a t u r e s o n building fronts should be maintained. • Typical elements that align include window moldings , tops of display windows, cornices, copings and parapets at the tops of buildings. • When large buildings are designed to appear as several buildings, there should be some slight variation in alignments between the façade elements. 6.43 Any new building shall be designed to maintain a minimum of 9 feet from ﬂoor to ceiling on all ﬂoors. 6.44 Maintain the distinction between the street level and upper ﬂoors. • No upper ﬂoor shall be taller than the ﬁrst ﬂoor. • Floor-to-ﬂoor heights should appear to be similar to those seen historically. In particular, the windows in new construction should appear similar in height to those seen traditionally. • The ﬁrst ﬂoor of the primary façade should be predominantly transparent glass. P24 IV.A. 7 • Upper ﬂoors should be perceived as being more opaque than the street level. Upper story windows should have a vertical emphasis. • Highly reﬂective or darkly tinted glass is inappropriate. • Express the traditional distinction in ﬂoor heights between street levels and upper levels through detailing, materials and fenestration. The presence of a belt course is an important feature in this relationship. 6.45 A new building should be designed to maintain the stature of traditional street level retail frontage. • This should be 13-15 ft. in ﬂoor to ﬂoor height on the ﬁrst ﬂoor. • The minimum required ﬁrst ﬂoor height must be maintained for at least the ﬁrst 50 foot depth of the lot, and may only be dropped to a lower height beyond that point for areas that are devoted to storage, circulation, ofﬁces, restaurant kitchens, alley commercial spaces, or similar secondary uses. 6.47 The ﬁrst ﬂoor façade and retail frontage should be designed to concentrate interest at the street level, using the highest quality of design, detailing and materials. • The framework for the ﬁrst ﬂoor of the façade, as identiﬁed in architectural tradition as characteristic ﬁrst ﬂoor design. • An entryway, door and transom light designed to use the full storefront height. • A distinct change in the palette of materials used for the ﬁrst ﬂoor design framework. • The depth and strength of the modeling of elements and details. 6.48 The retail entrance should be at the sidewalk level. • All entrances shall be ADA compliant. • On sloping sites the retail frontage should be designed to maintain as close to a level entrance as possible. 6.49 Incorporate an airlock entry into the plan for all new structures. • An airlock entry that projects forward of the primary façade at the sidewalk edge is inappropriate. • Adding temporary entries during the winter season detracts from the character of the historic district. • Using a temporary vinyl or fabric "airlock" to provide protection from winter weather is not permitted. 6.50 Window area along the ﬁrst ﬂoor shall be a minimum of 60% of exterior street façade area when facing principal street(s). 6.51 A building shall be designed to maintain or create the character and transparency of the traditional street level retail frontage. This shall be achieved using more than one of the following: • A traditional recessed retail entrance • Retail display cases • Appropriately designed signage and lighting 6.52 Design of the ﬁrst ﬂoor storefront should include particular attention to the following: • The basic elements and proportions of storefront design • Depth and strength of modeling • The palette of materials and ﬁnishes used in both the structural framework and the storefront window P25 IV.A. 8 • The concentration of architectural detail to ensure a rich visual experience • The careful and complementary use of signage and lettering to enhance the retail and downtown character • The careful use of lighting to accentuate visual presence. 6.53 Side and rear building façades should be designed and articulated to reduce the apparent scale of the building and create visual interest. 6.58 The roofscape should be designed with the same design attention as the secondary elevations of the building. • Group and screen mechanical units from view. • Locate mechanical equipment to the rear of the roof area. • Position, articulate and design rooftop enclosures or structures to reflect the modulation and character of the building. • Use materials which complement the design of the building façades • Design roof garden areas to be unobtrusive from the street. • Use 'green roof' design best practice, where feasible. 6.59 High quality, durable materials should be employed. • The palette of materials proposed for all developme nt should be specified and approved as part of the general and detailed development approvals process, including samples of materials as required. 6.60 Building materials should have these features: • Convey the quality and range of materials seen historically • Reduce the scale and enhance visual interest • Convey human scale • Have proven durability and weathering characteristics within this climate 6.61 The palette of materials used for new buildings within the core should reﬂect the predominantly masonry (brickwork and natural stonework) palette of this area. 6.62 A building or additions to a building should reﬂect the quality and the variation traditionally found in these materials within the central commercial core. 6.63 Where contemporary materials are used they shall be: • High quality in durability and ﬁnish • Detailed to convey a human scale • Compatible with a traditional masonry palette 12.1 Address accessibility compliance requirements while preserving character defining features of historic buildings and districts. • All new construction must comply completely with the International Building Code (IBC) for accessibility. Special provisions for historic buildings exist in the law that allow some flexibility when designing solutions which meet accessibility standards. 12.3 Exterior light fixtures should be simple in character. • The design of a new fixture should be appropriate in form, finish, and scale with the structure. P26 IV.A. 9 • New fixtures should not reflect a different period of history than that of the affected building, or be associated with a different architectural style. • Lighting should be placed in a manner that is consistent with the period of the building, and should not provide a level of illumination that is out of character. • One light adjacent to each entry is appropriate on an Aspen Victorian residential structure. A recessed fixture, surface mounted light, pendant or sconce will be considered if suited to the building type or style. • On commercial structures and AspenModern properties, recessed lights and concealed lights are often most appropriate. 12.4 Minimize the visual impacts of utilitarian areas, such as mechanical equipment and trash storage. • Place mechanical equipment on the ground where it can be screened. • Mechanical equipment may only be mounted on a building on an alley façade. • Rooftop mechanical equipment or vents must be grouped together to minimize their visual impact. Where rooftop units are visible, it may be appropriate to provide screening with materials that are compatible with those of the building itself. Use the smallest, low profile units available for the purpose. • Window air conditioning units are not allowed. • Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Group them in a discrete location. Use pedestals when possible, rather than mounting on a historic building. • Paint mechanical equipment in a neutral color to minimize their appearance by blending with their backgrounds • In general, mechanical equipment should be vented through the roof, rather that a wall, in a manner that has the least visual impact possible. • Avoid surface mounted conduit on historic structures. 12.5 Awnings must be functional. • An awning must project at least 3 feet, and not more than 5 feet from the building façade. • An awning may only be installed at a door or window and must fit within the limits of the door or window opening. • Awnings are inappropriate on AspenModern properties unless historic evidence shows otherwise. 12.6 Signs should not obscure or damage historic building fabric. • Where possible, install a free standing sign that is appropriate in height and width. Consolidate signage for multiple businesses. • Mount signs so that the attachment point can be easily repaired when the sign is replaced. Do not mount signage directly into historic masonry. • Blade signs or hanging signs are generally preferred to wall mounted signs because the number of attachment points may be less. • Signs should be constructed of wood or metal. • Pictographic signs are encouraged because they add visual interest to the street. 12.7 Sign lighting must be subtle and concealed. • Pin mounted letters with halo lighting will not be approved on Aspen Victorian buildings. • The size of a fixture used to light a sign must be minimized. The light must be directed towards the sign. If possible, integrate the lights into the sign bracket. 12.8 Locate signs to be subordinate to the building design. • Signs should be located on the first floor of buildings, primarily. • Signs should not obscure historic building details. P27 IV.A. Historic Preservation Commission Resolution No.--, Series 2016 Page 1 of 7 RESOLUTION NO. -- (SERIES OF 2016) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION GRANTING APPROVALS FOR FINAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND FINAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT FOR 411 E HYMAN AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS EAST FOURTEEN FEET (E14’) OF LOT C, BLOCK 89, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-180-16-005 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from 411 East Hyman Avenue, LLC, represented by BendonAdams, requesting HPC approvals for: • Commercial Design Final Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412; • Major Development Final Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415; 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, for a property located within the Commercial Core Historic District, the Historic Preservation Commission shall approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the land use application for commercial design review, pursuant to Section 26.412.050; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.304, Common Development Review Procedures, and Section 26.304.060.B.4, Modification of Review Procedures, all other necessary land use reviews, as identified herein, have been combined to be considered by the Historic Preservation Commission at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, such combination of review procedures was done to ensure clarity of review, was accomplished with all required public noticing provided as evidenced by an affidavit of public noticing submitted to the record, and the public was provided a thorough and full review of the proposed development; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Application and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the Application at a duly noticed public hearing on October 12, 2016, during which the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were requested and heard by the Historic Preservation Commission; and, P28 IV.A. Historic Preservation Commission Resolution No.--, Series 2016 Page 2 of 7 WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on October 12, 2016, the Historic Preservation Commission approved Resolution --, Series of 2016, by a ---- to ---- (- - -) vote granting approvals for Commercial Design Final and Major Development Final with the recommended conditions of approval listed hereinafter. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Approvals Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Historic Preservation Commission hereby grants – Major Development Final approval and Final Commercial Design approval for the final design as depicted on Exhibit A attached and as represented through the approval process, and subject to the recommended conditions of approval as listed herein. 1. Light fixture Type “A” is approved (Exhibit B). Final lighting fixture and location on the Hyman Avenue façade shall be approved by staff and monitor. 2. Any encroachments into the right-of-way shall be subject to a permanent encroachment license granted by the Engineering Department. 3. The proposed future tenant signage label shall be removed from the final approved elevations. Section 2: Reconstruction Credit The existing development provides 767 square feet of net leasable area and may be credited toward the proposed development. Any reconstruction credit shall be valid for one (1) year following issuance of a demolition permit, pursuant to Chapter 26.470.130. Existing and proposed net leasable calculations shall be verified with the Zoning Officer at time of building permit. Section 3: Public Amenity The project has a 140 sq. ft. (10%) public amenity requirement. The entirety of the public amenity requirement shall be mitigated through cash-in-lieu payment. The final calculation of public amenity shall be confirmed by the Zoning Officer at the time of building permit review, in accordance with the Land Use Code. Section 4: Parking The Applicant shall provide a cash-in-lieu payment for the parking requirement based on the increase in net leasable area, pursuant to Chapter 26.515.030. Existing and proposed net leasable calculations shall be verified with the Zoning Officer at time of building permit. Section 5: Environmental Health The Applicant shall obtain Special Review approval from the Environmental Health Department for a variation from the required trash/recycle area size requirements. Section 6: P29 IV.A. Historic Preservation Commission Resolution No.--, Series 2016 Page 3 of 7 All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department and the Historic Preservation Commission are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. Section 6: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 7: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 8: 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, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 411 East Hyman Avenue. 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. P30 IV.A. Historic Preservation Commission Resolution No.--, Series 2016 Page 4 of 7 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. FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 12th day of October, 2016. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: __________________________ ______________________________ James R True, City Attorney Willis Pember, Chair Attest: _______________________________ Kathy Strickland, Deputy Clerk Attachments: Exhibit A: Approved final elevations and floor plans Exhibit B: Approved lighting plan for Fixture Type “A” only P31 IV.A. Historic Preservation Commission Resolution No.--, Series 2016 Page 5 of 7 EXHIBIT A P32 IV.A. Historic Preservation Commission Resolution No.--, Series 2016 Page 6 of 7 P33 IV.A. Historic Preservation Commission Resolution No.--, Series 2016 Page 7 of 7 EXHIBIT A P34 IV.A. Exhibit B – Commercial Design Standards Page 1 of 4 EXHIBIT B COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 26.412.050. Review Criteria. An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the standards. Staff Findings: See discussion for Section 26.412.060 below. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the façade of the building may be required to comply with this Section. Staff Finding: The existing structures will be demolished and not reused or converted. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means. Staff Finding: This property is located within the Commercial Core Historic District. Staff finds that the proposed design complies with applicable guidelines for Final Review. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 26.412.060. Commercial Design Standards. The following design standards, in addition to the commercial, lodging and historic district design objectives and guidelines, shall apply to commercial, lodging and mixed-use development: A. Public Amenity Space. Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive, exciting and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights-of-way or private property within commercial areas. P35 IV.A. Exhibit B – Commercial Design Standards Page 2 of 4 On parcels required to provide public amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Public amenity, the following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity. Acceptance of the method or combination of methods of providing the public amenity shall be at the option of the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, according to the procedures herein and according to the following standards: 1. The dimensions of any proposed on-site public amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of uses and activities to occur, considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants and uses. 2. The public amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade trees, solar access, view orientation and simple at-grade relationships with adjacent rights-of-way are encouraged. 3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures, rights-of-way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment. 4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls, sidewalks or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian environment. 5. Any variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity, Subsection 26.575.030.F., promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements. Staff Findings: There is no proposed on-site public amenity. HPC approved a cash-in-lieu payment to satisfy the public amenity requirement at Conceptual Review. Staff finds these criteria to be not applicable. B. Utility, delivery and trash service provision. When the necessary logistical elements of a commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success of the district. Poor logistics of one (1) building can detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The following standards shall apply: 1. A trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum size and location standards established by Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, unless otherwise established according to said Chapter. 2. A utility area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum standards established by Title 25, Utilities, of the Municipal Code, the City’s Electric Distribution Standards, and the National Electric Code, unless otherwise established according to said Codes. 3. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located and combined to the greatest extent practical. 4. If the property adjoins an alleyway, the utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be along and accessed from the alleyway, unless otherwise approved through Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. P36 IV.A. Exhibit B – Commercial Design Standards Page 3 of 4 5. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be fenced so as not to be visible from the street, unless they are entirely located on an alleyway or otherwise approved though Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. All fences shall be six (6) feet high from grade, shall be of sound construction, and shall be no less than ninety percent (90%) opaque, unless otherwise varied through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. 6. Whenever utility, trash, and recycle service areas are required to be provided abutting an alley, other portions of a building may extend to the rear property line if otherwise allowed by this Title, provided that the utility, trash and recycle area is located at grade and accessible to the alley. 7. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property. Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall be minimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site conditions, such as an historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed. 8. All commercial and lodging buildings shall provide a delivery area. The delivery area shall be located along the alley if an alley adjoins the property. The delivery area shall be accessible to all tenant spaces of the building in a manner that meets the requirements of the International Building Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. All non-ground floor commercial spaces shall have access to an elevator or dumbwaiter for delivery access. Alleyways (vehicular rights-of-way) may not be utilized as pathways (pedestrian rights-of-way) to meet the requirements of the International Building Code. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged. 9. All commercial tenant spaces located on the ground floor in excess of 1,500 square feet shall contain a vestibule (double set of doors) developed internal to the structure to meet the requirements of the International Energy Conservation Code as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen, or an air curtain. 10. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical. 11. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a public right-of-way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for future ventilation and ducting needs. 12. The trash and recycling service area requirements may be varied pursuant to Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code. All other requirements of this subsection may be varied by special review (see Chapter 26.430.040.E, Utility and delivery service area provisions). Staff Findings: A proposed trash area of 10’ wide x 30’10” deep x 9’8” high is located on the south side of the building adjacent to the alley. An area of 20’ wide x 15’ deep x 10’ high is P37 IV.A. Exhibit B – Commercial Design Standards Page 4 of 4 required for commercial buildings that may contain food service. The lot is only 14’ wide, and cannot physically accommodate the required 20’ width so Special Review is requested from Environmental Health. The proposed area includes a metal enclosure which still allows for ventilation and serves as wildlife protection but is at least 90% opaque. A cantilevered roof provides weather protection for the space. All deliveries to the commercial space will be from the alley and accessed from the commercial space through a ramp that is necessary due to grade change from the north to south end of the lot. All venting and mechanical equipment is located on the roof and will be set back from the street façade and screened by the proposed parapet. The proposed space is less than 1,500 square feet and will provide an air curtain at the main entrance. All required utilities will be located on private property. Staff finds these criteria to be met. P38 IV.A. P39 IV.A. P40 IV.A. P41 IV.A. P42 IV.A. P43 IV.A. P44 IV.A. P45 IV.A. P46 IV.A. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 500 W. Main Street– Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design and Special Review, PUBLIC HEARING DATE: October 12, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to make an addition to the landmarked building at 500 W. Main Street. The property is within the Main Street Historic District and contains an 1890 false front building, the largest remaining in Aspen. The structure was built as a grocery store and later operated as The Mesa Store Bakery. Aspects of the new development to be addressed by HPC at this hearing include site plan, architectural design, public amenity, utility/delivery/trash and mitigation of transportation impacts. Two variations related to floor area and setbacks are requested. Affordable housing mitigation will be addressed at Final. Some exemption will be given as a landmark incentive. As with all Conceptual reviews, Council will have the authority to call up HPC’s determination and require the board to reconsider the project if appropriate. APPLICANT: Rowland+Broughton, authorized by Aspen Mesa Store LLC, c/o Blue Sky Holdings LLC, 514 E. Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611. ADDRESS: 500 W. Main Street, Lots R and S, Block 30, City and Townsite of Aspen. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-43-007 ZONING: MU, Mixed Use. CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW & COMMERCIAL DESIGN Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval 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 P47 IV.B. 2 and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. The design guidelines for conceptual review of the proposed new structure are found in the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines; Main Street Historic District chapter. This project is also subject to the new City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The applicable guidelines for this hearing are attached as “Exhibit A.” The applicant proposes to make an addition along the west side of the property, an area which is currently vacant except for parking. The connector between the historic structure and new addition will attach to the historic resource for a length of approximately 35’, midway along the building, below a historic exterior stairway. It will contain a common lobby area linking together office spaces and a new residential unit. The historic structure will remain in place, directly along, and even slightly past the south and east property lines. The applicant plans to reinforce the existing foundation from within and continue to use the basement for commercial purposes. Staff finds the proposal is sympathetic to the historic structure and the adjacent miner’s cottage to the west. The addition is a one story flat roofed area closest to Main Street topped by a gable roofed upper floor that sits far back on the lot, almost completely past the adjacent miner’s cottage. The pitch of the gable roof appears to match the historic roof hidden behind the false front. As can be seen from the 1893 Bird’s Eye View of Aspen at right in red, in the Victorian era there were three small storefronts directly alongside 500 W. Main. Their date of demolition is unknown. Staff finds the addition is a good fit with the scale of the surrounding development. The proposed addition is lower in height than the historic building and meets all setback requirements. The width of the addition, not including the recessed connector, is 20’. Materials and windows will be discussed at Final, but the project seems to be compatible while still being architecturally interesting itself. While the project is approximately 250 square feet below the 6,000 square foot total maximum floor area allowed for the lot, commercial use is limited to 0.75:1, or 4,500 square feet. Any more space to be constructed would have to be residential or another use. The applicant is asking to be allowed to construct approximately 190 square feet of additional commercial space, rather P48 IV.B. 3 than to devote that square footage to the proposed apartment, which is approximately 1,000 square feet, though it could have been designed to be as much as twice that size if the applicant proposed less office space. HPC has the authority to allow the additional space devoted to commercial area, so long as the total project remains below 6,000 square feet of floor area, as follows: Dimensional requirements. Whenever the dimensional requirements of a proposed development are subject to special review, the development application shall only be approved if the following conditions are met. 1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district. 2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts, including but not limited to the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the neighborhood or blocking of a designated view plane. As stated above, staff finds the project to be a good fit for the neighborhood and supports the requested variation. It must be noted that the exact calculation of commercial, residential and shared areas can be complicated and the applicant has made minor errors as pointed out in the attached comments from Zoning. The applicant must verify their calculations with staff by noon on Tuesday, Oct. 11th to allow the HPC to have correct information for decision-making. The applicant is not lifting the historic structure. Encroachment licenses have been issued in the past to recognize that the building, particularly the entry porch, sits well past the front lot line. The building is also slightly past the east lot line. Staff recommends setback variations be granted as part of this process to note that the building sits within required setbacks and that is accepted. The Mixed Use zone district requires a front yard setback of at least 10’, with side and rear yards to be a minimum of 5’. In order to grant a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. Staff recommends that HPC grant a waiver of the 10’ front yard setback and a waiver of the 5’ east yard setback. With regard to parking, the project requires 1 space per 1,000 square feet of net leasable, so 6.1 spaces) and 1 space for the residential unit. 1 space is proposed for the residence and 2 for the P49 IV.B. 4 commercial area, leaving about three spaces to be mitigated. The applicant has the right to pay cash in lieu for the unmet parking, at $30,000 per space. HPC also has the authority to waive the mitigation fee as part of the benefits for landmark properties, upon a finding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance or architectural character of a designated historic property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district. Staff supports the waiver of the cash-in-lieu fee as Section 26.415.110 of the Land Use Code establishes benefits for historic properties and states: The City is committed to providing support to property owners to assist their efforts to maintain, preserve and enhance their historic properties. Recognizing that these properties are valuable community assets is the basic premise underlying the provision of special procedures and programs for designated historic properties and districts. Benefits to encourage good historic preservation practices by the owners of historic properties are an important aspect of Aspen's historic preservation program. Historic resources are a valuable community asset and their continued protection is the basic premise supporting the creation of an innovative package of preservation tools that are unlike any other in the country. With the granting of the additional commercial area and the fee waiver for parking, staff encourages the applicant to propose restoration efforts for the historic structure at Final review. In particular, a number of the original upper floor windows have been changed from paired double hungs into tripartite windows that are architecturally inappropriate to the building. The front porch of the building was altered in the 1980s, removing a beadboard skirt along the eave and adding a much more bulky detail wrapping around this element. Reversing some of the alterations to this important and high profile building would be appropriate. P50 IV.B. 5 The project must meet requirements for adequate utility, trash and recycling areas. These topics will be more fully vetted at building permit by Environmental Health, Engineering and Utilities. The applicant is currently indicating about half of the area that is required to be devoted to these purposes. Environmental Health has indicated that approval is possible if the bins are enclosed with walls. A roof is not necessary. The standards are: 1. A trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum size and location standards established by Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, unless otherwise established according to said Chapter. 2. A utility area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum standards established by Title 25, Utilities, of the Municipal Code, the City’s Electric Distribution Standards, and the National Electric Code, unless otherwise established according to said Codes. 3. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located and combined to the greatest extent practical. 4. If the property adjoins an alleyway, the utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be along and accessed from the alleyway, unless otherwise approved through Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. 5. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be fenced so as not to be visible from the street, unless they are entirely located on an alleyway or otherwise approved though Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. All fences shall be six (6) feet high from grade, shall be of sound construction, and shall be no less than ninety percent (90%) opaque, unless otherwise varied through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. 6. Whenever utility, trash, and recycle service areas are required to be provided abutting an alley, other portions of a building may extend to the rear property line if otherwise allowed by this Title, provided that the utility, trash and recycle area is located at grade and accessible to the alley. 7. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property. Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall be minimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site conditions, such as an historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed. 8. All commercial and lodging buildings shall provide a delivery area. The delivery area shall be located along the alley if an alley adjoins the property. The delivery area shall be accessible to all tenant spaces of the building in a manner that meets the requirements of the International Building Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. All non-ground floor commercial spaces shall have access to an elevator or dumbwaiter for delivery access. Alleyways (vehicular rights-of-way) may not be utilized P51 IV.B. 6 as pathways (pedestrian rights-of-way) to meet the requirements of the International Building Code. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged. 9. All commercial tenant spaces located on the ground floor in excess of 1,500 square feet shall contain a vestibule (double set of doors) developed internal to the structure to meet the requirements of the International Energy Conservation Code as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen, or an air curtain. 10. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical. 11. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a public right-of-way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for future ventilation and ducting needs. 12. The trash and recycling service area requirements may be varied pursuant to Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code. All other requirements of this subsection may be varied by special review (see Chapter 26.430.040.E, Utility and delivery service area provisions). Staff recommend a revised plan including the walls required by Environmental Health be included in the Final design. Redevelopment of this site requires the applicant to at least maintain the current amount of on- site public amenity, which amounts to 648 square feet, or just over 10% of the site that currently meets standards in the form of on-site open space. The current parking area does not count for this purpose. The proposal actually exceeds the requirement by increasing public amenity to approximately 1,011 square feet of qualifying area. Desirable characteristics of on-site amenity space are addressed by the following requirements: 1. The dimensions of any proposed on-site public amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of uses and activities to occur, considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants and uses. 2. The public amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade trees, solar access, view orientation and simple at-grade relationships with adjacent rights-of-way are encouraged. 3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures, rights-of-way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment. P52 IV.B. 7 4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls, sidewalks or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian environment. 5. Any variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity, Subsection 26.575.030.F., promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements. Finally, the application must incorporate improvements to pedestrian and transit amenities, such as safety improvements, public bike racks, etc. The application is considered to have a minor impact due to the credits for the existing structure, however the applicant is required to complete a “Transportation Impact Analysis.” A draft is included in the application. It appears that the applicant may be overestimating their obligation by not giving themselves credit for the existing space. Only the gross new area being constructed, and the new residential unit, must be addressed. The applicant must continue to work with the Engineering, Parks and Transportation Departments for an approved plan for Final review. REFERRAL COMMENTS As part of the preparation of this project for HPC review, staff and the applicant met with other City Departments to discuss any conditions for the redevelopment. Although many of the concerns of other departments will be resolved as part of the building permit review process, HPC may wish to be aware of the comments, which are attached as Exhibit B. In particular, Engineering has suggested that the walkway to the new addition may need to be shifted in order to avoid impacts to a tree and allow for sidewalk improvements. Also, Environmental Health requests that the trash area at the back of the site be enclosed. Building has raised some questions about exiting which will ideally be resolved internally. ______________________________________________________________________________ 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 grant approval as follows: • The applicant must verify their calculations with staff by noon on Tuesday, Oct. 11th to allow the HPC to have correct information for decision-making. • HPC grants a waiver of the 10’ front yard setback and a waiver of the 5’ east yard setback. • HPC grants a waiver of the cash in lieu fee required for all parking above and beyond the three spaces provided on the site plan. P53 IV.B. 8 • The applicant is to consider restoration actions for Final review, especially related to upper floor windows and the porch on the historic resource. • A revised trash, recycling and utilities plan, including the walls required by Environmental Health, must be included in the Final design. • The applicant must continue to work with the Engineering, Parks and Transportation Departments for an approved plan for Final review. Exhibits: Resolution #__, Series of 2016 A. Design Guidelines B. DRC Comments C. Application Exhibit A- Relevant Design Guidelines HPC Guidelines 1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood or district. • Building footprint and location should reinforce the traditional patterns of the neighborhood. • Allow for some porosity on a site. In a residential project, setback to setback development is typically uncharacteristic of the historic context. Do not design a project which leaves no useful open space visible from the street. 1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces. • Reflect the established progression of public to private spaces from the public sidewalk to a semi-public walkway, to a semi private entry feature, to private spaces. 1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on residential projects. • Meandering walkways are not allowed, except where it is needed to avoid a tree or is typical of the period of significance. • Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style and install them in the manner that they would have been used historically. For example on an Aspen Victorian landmark set flagstone pavers in sand, rather than in concrete. Light grey concrete, brick or red sandstone are appropriate private walkway materials for most landmarks. • The width of a new entry sidewalk should generally be three feet or less for residential properties. A wider sidewalk may be appropriate for an AspenModern property. 1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site. • Ensure that open space on site is meaningful and consolidated into a few large spaces rather than many small unusable areas. P54 IV.B. 9 • Open space should be designed to support and complement the historic building. 1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process. • When included in the initial planning for a project, stormwater quality facilities can be better integrated into the proposal. All landscape plans presented for HPC review must include at least a preliminary representation of the stormwater design. A more detailed design must be reviewed and approved by Planning and Engineering prior to building permit submittal. • Site designs and stormwater management should provide positive drainage away from the historic landmark, preserve the use of natural drainage and treatment systems of the site, reduce the generation of additional stormwater runoff, and increase infiltration into the ground. Stormwater facilities and conveyances located in front of a landmark should have minimal visual impact when viewed from the public right of way. • Refer to City Engineering for additional guidance and requirements. 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 must be compatible with the historic character of the primary building. • An addition must be subordinate, deferential, modest, and secondary in comparison to the architectural character of the primary building. • An addition that imitates the primary building’s historic style is not allowed. For example, a new faux Victorian detailed addition is inappropriate on an Aspen Victorian home. • An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. • Proposals on corner lots require particular attention to creating compatibility. 10.4 The historic resource is to be the focus of the property, the entry point, and the predominant structure as viewed from the street. • The historic resource must be visually dominant on the site and must be distinguishable against the addition. • The total above grade floor area of an addition may be no more than 100% of the above grade floor area of the original historic resource. All other above grade development must be completely detached. HPC may consider exceptions to this policy if two or more of the following are met: o The proposed addition is all one story o The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of the historic resource and the proposed design is particularly sensitive to the scale and proportions of the historic resource o The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older addition that is considered to have been particularly detrimental to the historic resource o The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable floors as existed historically o The project is on a large lot, allowing the addition to have a significant setback from the street P55 IV.B. 10 o There are no variance requests in the application other than those related to historic conditions that aren’t being changed o The project is proposed as part of a voluntary AspenModern designation, or o The property is affected by non-preservation related site specific constraints such as trees that must be preserved, Environmentally Sensitive Areas review, etc. 10.6 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. • An addition shall be distinguishable from the historic building and still be visually compatible with historic features. • A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material, or a modern interpretation of a historic style are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from historic construction to new construction. • Do not reference historic styles that have no basis in Aspen. • Consider these three aspects of an addition; form, materials, and fenestration. An addition must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from the historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design response. • Note that on a corner lot, departing from the form of the historic resource may not be allowed. • There is a spectrum of appropriate solutions to distinguishing new from old portions of a development. Some resources of particularly high significance or integrity may not be the right instance for a contrasting addition. 10.7 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic alignments on the street. • Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings may align at approximately the same height. An addition can not be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured. 10.8 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. 10.10 Place an addition at the rear of a primary building or set it back substantially 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 primary building is inappropriate. • Additions to the side of a primary building are handled on a case-by-case basis and are approved based on site specific constraints that restrict rear additions. • Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. 10.11 Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building. • A simple roof form that does not compete with the historic building is appropriate. P56 IV.B. 11 • On Aspen Victorian properties, a flat roof may only be used on an addition to a gable roofed structure if the addition is entirely one story in height, or if the flat roofed areas are limited, but the addition is primarily a pitched roof. 10.12 Design an addition to a historic structure that does not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. • Loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices, and eavelines must be avoided. Commercial Design Standards 7.3 Parking shall not be positioned between the building and the street. Visual impacts shall be minimized in one or more of the following ways: Parking shall be placed underground or in a structure wherever possible. Where surface parking must be provided, it shall be located to the rear or the interior of the property, behind the structure. Surface parking shall be externally buffered with landscaping, and internally planted and landscaped to soften parking areas. 7.5 Respect historic settlement patterns. Site a new building in a way similar to historic buildings in the area. This includes consideration of building setbacks, entry orientation and open space. 7.8 Provide a walk to the primary building entry, perpendicular from the public sidewalk. 7.9 Orient a new building in a manner that is similar to the orientation of buildings during the mining era, with the primary entrance facing the street. The building should be oriented parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of the block. A structure, or each street-facing unit in the case of a multifamily structure, should have a primary entrance that faces the street. The entrance to the structure should be at an appropriate residential scale and visible from the street. 7.10 When constructing a new building, locate it to ﬁt within the range of yard dimensions seen in the block historically during the mining era. These include front yard , side yard and rear yard setbacks. Setbacks vary in some areas, but generally fall within an established range. A greater variety in setbacks is inappropriate in this context. Consider locating within the average range of setbacks along the block. 7.12 A new structure should step down in scale where it abuts a single story historic structure. 7.13 A new building or addition should reﬂect the range and variation in building height of the Main Street Historic District. Refer to the zone district regulations to determine the maximum height limit on the subject property. A minimum second story ﬂoor to ceilling height of 9 ft. should be used in a method that is respectful to historic buildings. Additional height, as permitted in the zone district, may be added for one or more of the following reasons: - The primary function of the building is civic. (i.e. the building is a Museum, Performance Hall, Fire Station, etc.) P57 IV.B. 12 - 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 daylighting. 7.14 Design a new building to appear similar in scale to those in the district during the mining era. Generally, a new building should be one to two stories in height. 7.15 On larger structures, subdivide the mass into smaller “modules” that are similar in size to single family residences or Victorian era buildings seen traditionally on Main Street. Other subordinate modules may be attached to the primary building form. P58 IV.B. Historic Preservation Commission Resolution #__, Series 2016 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION #__ (SERIES OF 2016) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL REVIEW AND VARIATIONS FOR 500 W. MAIN STREET, LOTS R AND S, BLOCK 30, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Parcel ID: 2735-124-43-007 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Rowland+Broughton, authorized by Aspen Mesa Store LLC, c/o Blue Sky Holdings LLC, for the following land use review approvals: • Commercial Design Review, Conceptual pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412, • Major Development, Conceptual pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415, • Special Review pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.430, WHEREAS, all code citation references are to the City of Aspen Land Use Code in effect on the day of initial application, March 15, 2016, as applicable to this Project; and, WHEREAS, as a result of a Development Review Committee meeting held on September 21, 2016, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Parks Department, Environmental Health and Zoning; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Application and recommended approval with conditions, and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the Application at a duly noticed public hearing on October 12, 2016, during which time the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were requested and heard by the Historic Preservation Commission; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing the Historic Preservation Commission approved Resolution #__, Series of 2016, by a __ to __ vote, granting approval with the conditions listed hereinafter. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Historic Preservation Commission hereby grants Special Review approval for the proposed project to allow the Commercial floor area to exceed 0.75:1 based on a finding of appropriateness to context. P59 IV.B. Historic Preservation Commission Resolution #__, Series 2016 Page 2 of 3 The Historic Preservation Commission hereby reduces the south and east setbacks to 0’ in recognition of conditions created in 1890 and HPC grants a waiver of the cash in lieu fee required for all parking above and beyond the three spaces provided on the site plan as part of the City’s commitment to support owners of historic properties in their efforts to maintain, preserve and enhance their historic properties. Conditions of approval are as follows: • For Final review, the applicant is to consider restoration actions, especially related to upper floor windows and the porch on the historic resource. • A revised trash, recycling and utilities plan, including the walls required by Environmental Health, must be included in the Final design. • The applicant must continue to work with the Engineering, Parks and Transportation Departments for an approved plan for Final review. • A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of 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. Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department and the Historic Preservation Commission are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. Section 4: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. P60 IV.B. Historic Preservation Commission Resolution #__, Series 2016 Page 3 of 3 FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 12th day of October, 2016. Approved as to content: ______________________________ Willis Pember, Chair Approved as to form: __________________________ Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Attest: _______________________________ Kathy Strickland, Deputy Clerk P61 IV.B. REFERRAL COMMENTS Engineering Department, PJ Murray These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the project packet submitted for purpose of the DRC meeting. ROW Improvements: Bring alley into compliance with the COA Engineering Design Standards, include walkway. Replace C&G along Main and 4th Streets if in poor condition. If trees along 4th St are removed: detached 6’ wide sidewalk with 5’ buffer and new tree plantings. Design and implement a new unidirectional ADA ramp at corner of Main and 4th to cross east/west. Provide adequate width/landings/cross slopes for the covered ADA ramp to the Mesa Store Building. The sidewalk adjacent to the addition shall be aligned along the property line to provide maximum buffer width for the existing cotton wood and to remove the jog in the sidewalk. This sidewalk shall be 6’ width with the remainder ROW as a buffer. TIA Analysis: MMLOS: o “New Large-scale landscaping” credit does not apply. Applicable to large campus like sites only. o Enhanced pedestrian access points credit does not apply to access from the sidewalk to the building but does count for the improved ADA ramp at the corner, and the improved alley walkway. (Access to the “site” not the building itself). TIA: no comments. Utilities: Is a new transformer required? If so, it must be located within property boundaries with proper easements. Call out water service line location, size and type on the plans. Will one service line be utilized? Provide fire suppression calculations if fire suppression is proposed. Clarify if fire suppression will be used in the existing building and in the addition. Stormwater Requirements: Capture and treat the WQCV for the entire site and route to the City’s storm system. If this is not achievable then full detention must be provided. P62 IV.B. ______________________________________________________________________________ ACSD, Tom Bracewell Service is contingent upon compliance with the District’s rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. Oil and Grease interceptors (not traps) are required for all food processing establishments. Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance establishments. Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells. Elevator shafts drains must flow thru o/s interceptor Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements and prior to soil stabilization. Soil nails are not allowed in ROW. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. Above grade development shall flow by gravity. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned capacity of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. The District would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the material cost difference for larger line). P63 IV.B. Glycol heating and snow melt systems must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and requirements once detailed building and utility plans are available. Parks Department, Dave Radeck Sidewalk alignment will need to match property on west. Any trees that will be removed will require a tree removal permit from the Parks Department. There may be an opportunity to install 1 tree along Main Street, depending on sight triangle. Zoning, Jim Pomeroy 1. Floor Area: a. As per 25.575.020.D.14, Allocation of non-unit Space, garages are always considered non-unit space in a mixed-use building. You do however still enjoy the residential garage exemption. b. A portion of the basement is exposed to daylight where the exterior stairs go down to the basement, therefore a portion of the basement commercial and non- unit space will count towards FA for those uses. Please show exterior subgrade walls, and the percentage of exposed wall, and then the percentage of commercial and non-unit space that counts as FA. c. For calculating non-unit space allocation, as per 26.575.020.D.14, when calculating the percent of non-unit being allocated to use, use gross square footage (including the basement), and then use FA later to figure out what percent of non-unit FA counts towards each use. I gave Dana a mock-up on how to chart out all of this properly. 2. Height: a. According to the survey, there is a 2’ drop across the east side of the property, and a 2.5’ drop from the sw to the ne corners of the property. Please show these drops in existing/natural grade on the relevant elevations. b. Add the elevator overrun to the elevations. c. Show lines for existing and proposed grades with labels d. Please add a height over topography chart 3. Site plan: Please include any exterior AC units, air handlers, etc. It may be that you might just show where they would go if wanted in the future. 4. Lighting: Please include a detailed exterior lighting plan with the permit. P64 IV.B. ______________________________________________________________________________ Building Department, Nick Thompson 1. 2015 IBC allows exit access stairs as both exits from a story but only if the two connected stories aren’t open to any other stories. Will need to work out the means of egress system. If any of the stairs need to be enclosed as interior exit stairs or the exterior stairs need to become exterior exit stairs, fire ratings could affect the exterior look of the building. 2. If indoor garage is non-unit space it must be van-accessible (including 98” headroom). If residential, one of the other spaces will need to be van-accessible. Accessible connecting route required. 3. 60% of entrances must be accessible. Environmental Health, Liz Chapman 1. The application does not meet the 200 sq. ft. space requirements for a Commercial building (Municipal Code 12.10.030(A) a.) a. The applicant has indicated they would consider enclosing the space in lieu of providing the full space required. b. Applicant was informed that an electric barrier would be considered and enclosure and would not require a solid roof. 2. Access to all trash and recycling areas must be ADA compliant. And not encroach upon the right of way. P65 IV.B. Page 1 of 2 TRANSMITTAL Project: Mesa Store, 500 W. Main Street Subject: Land Use Application Date: 15 March 2016 To: Amy Guthrie From: Sarah Broughton, AIA Via: Hand Attachments: See Below If you do not receive all attachments listed above please call immediately.  Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement.  Check for $6,500.  Pre-application Conference Summary  Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application.  Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.  HOA Compliance form  Documentation showing the proposal meets all Transportation Mitigation Requirements as outlined in the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines and Mitigation Tool.  A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application and relevant land use approvals associated with the property.  A site improvement survey (no older than a year from submittal) including topography and vegetation showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor by licensed in the State of Colorado.  Written responses to all review criteria.  An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.  List of adjacent property owners within 300’ for public hearing.  A proposed site plan.  Scaled drawings of all proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their form, including their height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the primary features of all elevations.  Preliminary selection of primary exterior building materials. P66 IV.B. Page 2 of 2  Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the designated historic property or historic district including at least one (1) of the following: diagrams, maps, photographs, models or streetscape elevations. P67 IV.B. Page 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM Project: Mesa Store, 500 W. Main Street Subject: Project Description Date: 15 March 2015 This project consists of: - Interior remodel of the historic building, Mesa Store. Exterior improvements will include repairing decaying siding and the removal of a non-historic ramp along the alley. - A 2-story addition is proposed on the empty lot west of the historic resource. The additional is attached to the Mesa Store with a 1-story link that is set back significantly from Main Street and the front façade of the Mesa Store. - The addition has been designed to be compatible and complementary to both the Main Street historic district and the historic Mesa Store resource. The project has been designed to comply with the relevant land use parameters. A written description response to the applicable guidelines (Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and Main Street Historic District guidelines in the Commercial Design Guidelines is included in this application. P68 IV.B. Page 1 of 1 Vicinity Map Project: Mesa Store Subject: Land Use Application Date: 15 March 2016 500 W Main St P69 IV.B. P70 IV.B. CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Amy Simon, 970.429.2758 DATE: March 15, 2016 PROJECT: 500 W. Main Street REPRESENTATIVE: Sarah Broughton, John Rowland REQUEST: Major Development for property within a Historic District, Commercial Design Review, Special Review DESCRIPTION: The potential Applicant is interested in renovating the existing historic structure at 500 W. Main Street and constructing an addition containing commercial space and free market unit. This 6,000 sf property is zoned Mixed Use (MU) and is located within the Main Street Historic District. The property is a historic landmark. Commercial Design Review and Conceptual HPC Review of a Major Development is required for the project. In terms of design, the Applicant shall address the requirements in Chapters 1 & 12 of the recently adopted Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Additionally, the Applicant will address the Main Street Historic District guidelines for Conceptual Review as defined in the Commercial Design Guidelines. The Applicant is considering pursuing an approval to allow for an increase to the permitted FAR on the property. The maximum cumulative FAR in the MU Zone District is 1:1; which may be increased to 1.25:1 by Special Review. Commercial floor area is capped at .75:1 and may also be increased to 1:1 by Special Review. Variations to the dimensional requirements of the underlying Zone District may be approved with or without conditions by Special Review. The criteria outlined in Sec. 26.430.040.A Dimensional Requirements shall be addressed for any FAR increase. The parking requirement is to provide one space per 1,000 square feet of new net leasable floor area or by a cash in lieu payment of $30,000 per space. Existing parking may be removed by payment of cash in lieu. HPC has the authority to waive the cash in lieu fee as a benefit for landmarks. The Applicant will need to be aware of other requirements of a redevelopment, including provision of Public Amenity. A calculation of existing Public Amenity will be needed. There are several options for mitigating Public Amenity, including a cash in lieu payment. Other issues that will need to be addressed are current requirements for on-site trash, utility and recycling areas, and the City’s guidelines for Traffic Impact mitigation. The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) reviews all development within the Historic District and will perform all reviews for this project. There will be two steps; Conceptual Review and Final Review. GMQS review is required for an increase in net leasable area. GMQS may be reviewed after Conceptual Review is granted. A separate pre-application addressing Final HPC Review of a Major Development and GMQS review will be required. REVIEW PROCESS: Step 1: HPC Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Special Review City Council has an optional call-up of the consolidated application. Step 2: HPC Final Major Development, Final Commercial Design review and GMQS P71 IV.B. 2 Below are links to the Land Use Application form and Land Use Code for your convenience: Land Use Code: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Title-26-Land-Use-Code/ Land Use Application: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/Apps%20and%20Fees/2011%20Historic%20Land%20Use%20App %20Form.pdf Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/Comm%20Desgn%20Stnds/Commercial%20Design%20Guidelin es_Commercial%20Core%20Historic%20District.pdf Historic Preservation Design Guidelines: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/HPC/New%20Historic%20Preservation%20Guidelines.pdf Transportation Impact Analysis Requirements: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community- Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Current-Planning/ Relevant Land Use Code Section(s): 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.304.060.B.1 Combined Reviews 26.314 Variances 26.412 Commercial Design Review 26.415.070.D Historic Preservation – Major Development Review 26.430 Special Review 26.515 Off-Street Parking 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements 26.575.030 Public Amenity 26.610 Impact Fees 26.630 Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines 26.710.180 Mixed Use Zone District and Municipal Code Section 12.10 Space Allotment for Trash and Recycling Storage Review by: Staff for completeness and recommendation Review agencies for recommendation HPC for decisions Public Hearing: Yes, at HPC Neighborhood Outreach: No Planning Fees: $4,550 for 14 hours of staff time. Referrals: Engineering ($325 one hour deposit) P72 IV.B. 3 Environmental Health ($975 flat fee) Parks ($650 flat fee) Total Deposit: $6500 Additional Engineering and Planning Staff hours, if needed, will be billed at $325 per hour. Any unbilled portion of this deposit will be refunded at the conclusion of the case. To apply, submit 1 complete copy of the following information:  Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement.  Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).  Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application.  Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.  HOA Compliance form (Attached)  Documentation showing the proposal meets all Transportation Mitigation Requirements as outlined in the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines and Mitigation Tool, available online at: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Recent-Code- Amendments/. A copy of the tool showing trips generated and the chosen mitigation measures should be included with the application.  A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application and relevant land use approvals associated with the property.  A site improvement survey (no older than a year from submittal) including topography and vegetation showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor by licensed in the State of Colorado.  Written responses to all review criteria.  An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.  List of adjacent property owners within 300’ for public hearing.  A proposed site plan.  Scaled drawings of all proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their form, including their height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the primary features of all elevations.  Preliminary selection of primary exterior building materials. P73 IV.B. 4  Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the designated historic property or historic district including at least one (1) of the following: diagrams, maps, photographs, models or streetscape elevations. Once the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted:  1 digital PDF copy of the complete application packet  12 sets of all graphics printed at 11x17  Total deposit for review of the application.  A sketch up model will be required for the public hearing. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. P74 IV.B. City C970 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Homeowner Association Compliance Policy All land use applications within the City of Aspen are required to include a Homeowner Association Compliance Form (this form) certifying the scope of work included in the land use application complies with all applicable covenants and homeowner association policies. The certification must be signed by the property owner or Attorney representing the property owner. Property Owner (“I”): Name: Email: Phone No.: Address of Property: (subject of application) I certify as follows: (pick one) □ This property is not subject to a homeowners association or other form of private covenant. □ This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application do not require approval by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. □ This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application have been approved by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. Evidence of approval is attached. I understand this policy and I understand the City of Aspen does not interpret, enforce, or manage the applicability, meaning or effect of private covenants or homeowner association rules or bylaws. I understand that this document is a public document. Owner signature: _________________________ date:___________ Owner printed name: _________________________ or, Attorney signature: _________________________ date:___________ Attorney printed name: _________________________ P75 IV.B. P76 IV.B. Page 1 of 6 MEMORANDUM Project: Mesa Store, 500 W. Main Street Subject: Guideline Review Summary Date: 15 March 2015 The following summary outlines how the application for Mesa Store, 500 W. Main Street applies to Chapters 1 and 12 of the Historic Preservation Guidelines and the Main Street Historic District guidelines in the Commercial Design Guidelines. Chapter 1 Historic Preservation Guidelines: 1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood or district. The proposed addition is in keeping with the historic development pattern of the neighborhood, oriented orthogonally to Main Street. The addition is set back from the historic resource and there is small 1-story link to the historic resource, allowing for some porosity on the site. 1.2 Preserve the system and character of the historic streets, alleys, and ditches. The alley is being preserved in its current condition. 1.3 Remove driveways or parking areas accessed directly from the street if they were not pat of the original development of the site. Does not apply. 1.4 Design a new driveway or improve an existing driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. Does not apply. 1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces. Does not apply. 1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on residential projects. Does not apply. 1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site. P77 IV.B. Page 2 of 6 There is positive open space that is designed to support and complements the historic resource. There is a front yard facing Main Street in front of the addition that creates usable outdoor space. 1.8 Consider storm water quality needs early in the design process. Storm water management will be incorporated with minimal visual impact into the site design. 1.9 Landscape development on AspenModern landmarks shall be addressed on a case by case basis. Does not apply. 1.10 Built-in furnishings, such as water features, fire pits, grills, and hot tubs, that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate Does not apply. 1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. The significant trees along 4th Street and Main Street will be maintained. There are no other historic landscape features. 1.12 Provide an appropriate context for historic structures. See diagram. The proposed addition is simple and restrained. It is attached to the historic resource with a simple and small 1-story link. The additional is set back from the historic resource so that historic resource remains the prominent feature on the site. 1.13 Additions of plant material to the landscape that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate. The plant material will be simple and will not interfere or block views of the historic resource. 1.14 Minimize the visual impacts of landscape lighting. Landscape lighting will be minimized and will not have visual impacts. 1.15 Preserve original fences. There are no original fences and no fence is being proposed. 1.16 When possible, replicate a missing historic fence based on the photographic evidence. Does not apply. 1.17 No fence in the front yard is often the most appropriate solution. Does not apply. 1.18 When building an entirely new fence, use materials that are appropriate o the building type and style. P78 IV.B. Page 3 of 6 Does not apply. 1.19 A new fence should have a transparent quality, allowing views into the yard from the street. Does not apply. 1.20 Any fence taller than 42” should be designed so that it avoids blocking public views of important features of a designated building. Does not apply. 1.21 Preserve original retaining walls. Does not apply. 1.22 When a new retaining wall is necessary, its height and visibility should be minimized. Does not apply. 1.23 Re-grading the site in a manner that changes historic grade is generally not allowed and will be reviewed on a case by case basis. The historic grading will not be altered. 1.24-1.27 Cultural and Designed Landscapes Does not apply. Chapter 12 Historic Preservation Guidelines: 12.1 Address accessibility compliance requirements while preserving character defining features of historic building and districts. The IBC will be complied with for the proposed design. The existing historic resource will have accessibility through an elevator proposed in the addition. 12.2 Original light fixtures must be maintained when there is evidence as to the appearance of original fixtures that are no longer present, a replication is appropriate. The original light fixtures do not exist. An appropriate light fixture will be proposed for approval. 12.3 Exterior light fixtures should be simple in character. The proposed exterior light fixtures will be simple in character. 12.4 Minimize the visual impacts of utilitarian areas, such as mechanical equipment and trash storage. Mechanical equipment and trash storage will be designed so their visual impact is minimized. 12.5Awnings must be functional. P79 IV.B. Page 4 of 6 Does not apply. 12.6 Signs should not obscure or damage historic building fabric. Proposed signage will comply with the City of Aspen signage guidelines and will not obscure or damage the building fabric. 12.7 Sign lighting must be subtle and concealed. The sign lighting will be subtle and concealed. 12.8 Locate signs to be subordinate to the building design. The proposed sign will be subordinate to the building design. 12.9 Preserve historic signs. Does not apply. Main Street Historic District guidelines in the Commercial Design Guidelines: 7.1 Preserve the historic district’s street plan. The historic district street plan will be maintained. 7.2 Maintain the traditional character and function of an alley where it exists. The traditional character and function of the alley will be maintained. 7.3 Parking shall not be positioned between the building and the street. Visual impacts shall be minimized in one or more of the following ways: Parking will be in the form of 2 surface spaces behind the historic resource, accessed from the alley. The addition will have a 1 car garage. Planting will be proposed to provide historically appropriate buffering from the surface spaces. 7.4 Underground parking access shall not have a negative impact on the character of the street. Underground parking success shall be: Does not apply. 7.5 Respect historic settlement patterns. The addition is sited similar to the historic buildings along Main Street. 7.6 Where a sidewalk exists, maintain its historic material and position. The historic covered boardwalk will be maintained in front of the historic resource. The non-historic sidewalk in front of the addition will be maintained. 7.7 Minimize the use of curb cuts along the street. P80 IV.B. Page 5 of 6 Does not apply. 7.8 Provide a walk to the primary building entry, perpendicular from the public sidewalk. A perpendicular to the public sidewalk walk is proposed to the addition. 7.9 orient a new building in a manner that is similar to the orientation of the buildings during that mining era, with the primary entrance facing the street. The addition is oriented similar to the orientation of buildings during the mining era (parallel to the lot lines). 7.10 When construction a new building, locate it to fit within the range of the yard dimensions seen in the block historically during the mining era. The addition is set back similarly to other buildings found in the historic district and along this block. 7.11 Locate a new secondary structure in a manner that is similar to those seem historically in the district. The addition (secondary structure) is placed along the alley edge. 7.12 A new structure should step down in scale where it abuts a single story historic structure. There is a 1-story link attaching the addition to the 2-story historic resource. 7.13 A new building or addition should reflect that range and variation in building height of the Main Street Historic District The addition is proposed as a 2-story structure. It is shorter in height than the historic resource. 7.14 Design a new building to appear similar in scale to those in the district during the mining era. The additional is designed to appear similar in scale to other buildings in the district. 7.15 On Larger structures, subdivide the mass into smaller “modules” that are similar in size to single family residences or Victorian era buildings seen traditionally on Main Street. Does not apply. 7.16 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the Victorian era residences seen traditionally on Main Street. Does not apply. 7.17 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. We are not imitating the historic resource and instead are taking architectural ques as to mass and scale so that we complement and highlight the historic resource. 7.18 The retain entrance should be a t the sidewalk level. P81 IV.B. Page 6 of 6 Does not apply. 7.19 Incorporate an airlock entry into the plan for all new structures. Does not apply. 7.20 Use building materials that are similar to those used historically. The addition will be clad in a combination of exterior materials to include painted wood lap siding and rain screen. 7.21 Use roofing materials that are similar in appearance to those seen historically. The historic resource roof will remain wood shingle. The addition will have a metal roof similar to those seen historically in the district. 7.22 Landscaping and paving should have that following characteristics: The landscaping will enhance Main Street and will reflect the quality of the architectural materials. The significant trees along 4th Street and Main Street will be maintained. There are no other historic landscape features. 7.23 Landscaping should create a buffer between the street and the sidewalk. The proposed addition has a front yard that provides a buffer between the street and the sidewalk. P82 IV.B. P83 IV.B. P84 IV.B. P85 IV.B. P86 IV.B. P87 IV.B. P88 IV.B. P89 IV.B. P90 IV.B. Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners. Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or data obtained on this web site. This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the margins such that they no longer line up on the labels sheet. Print actual size. From Parcel: 273512443007 on 03/15/2016 Instructions: Disclaimer: http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com P91 IV.B. NATIONWIDE THEATRES CORP LOS ANGELES, CA 90048 120 N ROBERTSON BLVD ASPEN FSP ABR LLC RESTON, VA 20190 11921 FREEDOM DR #950 CARINTHIA CORP ASPEN, CO 81611 45 E LUPINE DR JOHNSTON FAMILY TRUST COSTA MESA, CA 92626 2018 PHALAROPE RAINBOW CONNECTION PROPERTIES LLC MORRISON, CO 80465 151 SUMMER ST #1109 400 WEST HOPKINS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 570 S RIVERSIDE AVE STUART DANIEL S & TAMARA B ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 3274 VERNER DANIEL A & MERYLE BOCA RATON, FL 33496 2577 NW 59TH ST GOLDENBERG STEPHEN R & CHERYL J ASPEN, CO 81611 430 W HOPKINS AVE TYCHER DANA 2012 TRUST ROSELAND, NJ 07068 75 EISENHOWER PKWY #180 DRATCH KATE TYCHER 2012 TRUST SHORT HILLS, NJ 07078 233 CANOE BROOK RD TYCHER JACK 2012 TRUST SHORT HILLS, NJ 07078 233 CANOE BROOK RD HILLMAN DORA B TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 504 W BLEEKER FERGUS ELIZABETH DAWSON ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 1515 HILLMAN TATNALL L REV TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 504 W BLEEKER ST BLEEKER STREET PROPERTIES LLC DENVER, CO 80202 1801 CALIFORNIA ST #4400 HUDGENS ROBYN RANCHO SANTA FE, CA 920670570 PO BOX 570 FISCHER SISTIE ASPEN, CO 81611 442 W BLEEKER CITY OF ASPEN ASPEN, CO 81611 130 S GALENA ST CONNERFAMILY LLC PALISADE, CO 81526 PO BOX 38 LHG HOLDING LLC LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 11777 SAN VICENTE BLVD 9TH FL FRIAS PROPERTIES OF ASPEN LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 730 E DURANT HY-MOUNTAIN TRANSPORTATION INC ASPEN, CO 81611 214 B AABC ASPEN SQUARE CONDO ASSOC INC ASPEN, CO 81611 617 E COOPER CLEANER EXPRESS ASPEN, CO 81611 435 E MAIN ST NORTH AND SOUTH ASPEN LLC WOODY CREEK, CO 81656 PO BOX 308 ULLR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ASPEN, CO 81611 600 E HOPKINS #304 GARMISCH LODGING LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 110 W MAIN ST WAGNER HOLDINGS CORP LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 605 E MAIN ST ALPINE BANK ASPEN GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 PO BOX 10000 P92 IV.B. GANT CONDO ASSC ASPEN, CO 816112142 610 S WESTEND ST ASPEN SQUARE CONDO ASSOC INC ASPEN, CO 81611 617 E COOPER AVE ULLR CONDO LLC LA JOLLA, CA 92037 6450 AVENIDA CRESTA ASPEN FAMILY HOLDINGS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 137 WESTVIEW DR GANT CONDO ASSOC INC ASPEN, CO 816112142 610 S WESTEND ST WHIPPLE JOHN TAGGART ASPEN, CO 81611 400 E HYMAN AVE #A202 STERTZER ELIANE C ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 9686 FELER LAURIE & CLAUDIO CARBONDALE, CO 81623 550 FOX RUN CORTALE ITA ASPEN, CO 816129237 PO BOX 12346 CHRISTIANA A105 LLC SAN MATEO, CA 94401 PO BOX 542 TOMS CONDO LLC BASALT, CO 81621 132 MIDLAND AVE #4 KINGEN DAVE & CHRISTINE PARADISE VALLEY, AZ 85253 6500 E CHOLLA DR WERLIN LAURA B TRUST SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94115 2279 PINE ST CORONA VANESSA LOPEZ ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 3670 CARTER RICHARD P TELLURIDE, CO 81435 PO BOX 2932 MONARCH III LLC KANSAS CITY, MO 64112 PO BOX 30476 HESSIAN ASPEN LLC WINTER PARK, FL 32792 807 W MORSE BLVD #105 FINE FREDRIC N & SONDRA JUPITER, FL 33477 412 MARINER DR POWDERDAYSKIING LLC DOVER, DE 19901 9 E LOOCKERMAN ST #215 SCHULMAN WILLIAM PAUL CHARLEVOIX, MI 49720 301 MERCER BLVD KATZMAN LORI ANN CHARLEVOIX, MI 49720 301 MERCER BLVD TUCKER LUCY LEA ASPEN, CO 81611 PO BOX 1480 ALPINE BANK GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 PO BOX 10000 DAHL W ROBERT & LESLIE A GREENWICH , CT 06831 83 PECKSLAND RD BLOCKER LAURA G ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 9213 SEAL MARK ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 9213 LINDAUER REBECCA F AUSTIN, TX 78703 1115 ELM ST SMITH ANDREW C & DONNA G DALLAS, TX 75205 3622 SPRINGBROOK ST PERRY EMILY V SANTA BARBARA , CA 93108 1497 ISABELLA LN BROOKS NORMAN A & LESLEE S ENCINO, CA 91436 16311 VENTURA BLVD #690 P93 IV.B. CHRISTIANA UNIT D101 LLC MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140 795 LAKEVIEW DR SCHALL FAMILY TRUST ENCINO, CA 91436 3841 HAYVENHURST DR PERRY IAN MICHAEL ASPEN, CO 81611 426 E HYMAN AVE PROMISE LAND LLC ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111 6412 S QUEBEC ST WENDT ROBERT E II PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 350 MT HOLYOKE AVE 501 WEST MAIN LLC ASPEN, CO 81611-1818 532 E HOPKINS AVE JEWISH RESOURCE CENTER CHABAD OF ASPEN ASPEN, CO 81612 435 W MAIN ST 430 WEST HOPKINS CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 432 W HOPKINS AVE SCOTT BUILDING CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 400 W HOPKINS AVE 604 WEST LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 604 W MAIN ST HUERGO DELFINA ASPEN, CO 81611 518 W MAIN ST #A101 REECE MARK ASPEN, CO 81611 518 W MAIN ST #A-102 LEADINGHAM CAROLINE ASPEN, CO 81611 518 W MAIN ST #A-102 DUNKELBERG AMBER & KEVIN SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 PO BOX 5804 MICHAEL JACE ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 569 BONETTI MARYSUE ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 569 PHILLIPS SHAUN E ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 2505 OGUIN MEGAN L ASPEN, CO 81611 518 W MAIN ST #B203 DJORDJEVIC VLADAN ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 9566 FAVORITE PRATHUAN ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 9566 HAVANDJIAN GASTON MATIAS ASPEN, CO 81611 518 W MAIN ST #B205 FORNELL CLARITY ELISE & PETER ASPEN, CO 81611 518 W MAIN ST #B-206 HARRIS ANGELA ASPEN, CO 816111618 518 W MAIN ST #C107 MAUPIN KENNETH ASPEN, CO 81611 518 W MAIN ST #C-207 FORNELL CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 518 W MAIN ST KARBANK 430 LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 604 W MAIN ST 420 W MAIN LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 424 PARK CIR #TH5 NORTHWAY CONDO OWNERS ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 420 W MAIN ST 605 W BLEEKER LLC MONROE, CT 06468 PO BOX 5010 MACDONALD BETTE S TRUST ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110 15 BLACKMER RD P94 IV.B. = input = calculation DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION: NAME, COMPANY, ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL Minor Entering Exiting Total Entering Exiting Total Commercial (sf)4609.0 sf 7.22 3.24 10.46 7.63 11.45 19.08 Free-Market Housing (Units)1 Units 0.19 0.48 0.67 0.46 0.36 0.82 Affordable Housing (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lodging (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Essential Public Facility (sf)0.0 sf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.41 3.72 10.69 8.09 11.81 17.12 Land Use Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting Commercial 2.27 0.69 0.31 4.14 0.4 0.6 Free-Market Housing 0.67 0.29 0.71 0.82 0.56 0.44 Affordable Housing 0.75 0.48 0.52 0.89 0.55 0.45 Lodging 0.25 0.57 0.43 0.31 0.52 0.48 Essential Public Facility 0.86 0.62 0.38 1.66 0.4 0.6 Net New Units/Square Feet of the Proposed ProjectProposed Land Use *For mixed-use (at least two of the established land uses) sites, a 4% reduction for AM Peak-Hour and a 14% reduction for PM Peak-Hour is applied to the trip generation. Sarah Broughton, John Rowland Rowland + Broughton Architecture 234 E Hopkins Ave (970) 544-9006 sarah@rowlandbroughton.com, john@rowlandbroughton.com Trip Generation 3/15/2016 AM Peak Average PM Peak Average Trips Generated AM Peak-Hour PM Peak-Hour TOTAL NEW TRIPS ASSUMPTIONS ASPEN TRIP GENERATION Is this a major or minor project? 500 W Main St Mesa Store Instructions: IMPORTANT: Turn on Macros: In order for code to run correctly the security settings need to be altered. Click "File" and then click "Excel Options." In the "Trust Center" category, click "Trust Center Settings", and then click the "Macro Settings" category. Beneath "Macro Settings" select "Enable all Macros." Sheet 1. Trip Generation: Enter the project's square footage and/or unit counts under Proposed Land Use. The numbers should reflect the net change in land use between existing and proposed conditions. If a landuse is to be reduced put a negative number of units or square feet. Sheet 2. MMLOS: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable under each of the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections. Points are only awarded for proposed (not existing) and confirmed aspects of the project. Sheet 3. TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project. Sheet 4. Summary and Narrative: Review the summary of the project's mitigated trips and provide a narrative which explains the measures selected for the project. Click on "Generate Narrative" and individually explain each measure that was chosen and how it enhances the site or mitigates vehicle traffic. Ensure each selected measure make sense Minor Development - Inside the Roundabout Major Development - Outside the Roundabout Helpful Hints: 1. Refer to the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for information on the use of this tool. 2. Refer to TIA Frequently Asked Questions for a quick overview. 2. Hover over red corner tags for additional information on individual measures. 3. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should be new and/or an improvement of existing conditions. A project will not receive credit for measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense in the context of project location and future use. Transportation Impact Analysis TIA Frequently Asked Questions P95 IV.B. = input = calculation 20 Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points 1 Does the project propose a detached sidewalk where an attached sidewalk currently exists? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer meet standard minimum widths? NA 0 2 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width greater than the standard minimum width?No 0 3 Does the project propose a landscape buffer greater than the standard minimum width?NA 0 0 4 Does the project propose a detached sidewalk on an adjacent block? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer meet standard minimum widths? No 0 5 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width on an adjacent block greater than the standard minimum width?No 0 6 Is the proposed landscape buffer on an adjacent block greater than the standard minimum width?Yes 5 5 7 Are slopes between back of curb and sidewalk equal to or less than 5%?NA 0 8 Are curbs equal to (or less than) 6 inches?Yes 0 9 Is new large-scale landscaping proposed that improves the pedestrian experience? Properties within the Core do not have ample area to provide the level of landscaping required to receive credit in this category. Yes 5 10 Does the project propose an improved crosswalk? This measure must get City approval before receiving credit. No 0 5 11 Are existing driveways removed from the street?NA 0 12 Is pedestrian and/or vehicle visibility unchanged by new structure or column?Yes 0 13 Is the grade (where pedestrians cross) on cross-slope of driveway 2% or less?Yes 0 14 Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian access points from the ROW? This includes improvements to ADA ramps or creating new access points which prevent pedestrians from crossing a street. Yes 5 15 Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian or bicyclist interaction with vehicles at driveway areas?No 0 5 16 Is the project's pedestrian directness factor less than 1.5?Yes 0 17 Does the project propose new improvements which reduce the pedestrian directness factor to less than 1.2? A site which has an existing pedestrian directness factor less than 1.2 cannot receive credit in this category. No 0 18 Is the project proposing an off site improvement that results in a pedestrian directness factor below 1.2?* NA 0 19 Are traffic calming features proposed that are part of an approved plan (speed humps, rapid flash)?*NA 0 0 20 Are additional minor improvements proposed which benefit the pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff? No 0 21 Are additional major improvements proposed which benefit the pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff? No 0 0 15 Pe d e s t r i a n s Subtotal Ad d i t i o n a l Pr o p o s e d Im p r o v e m e n t s TOTAL NUMBER OF TRIPS MITIGATED: Pe d e s t r i a n R o u t e s Tr a f f i c C a l m i n g a n d Pe d e s t r i a n N e t w o r k Dr i v e w a y s , P a r k i n g , a n d A c c e s s Co n s i d e r a t i o n s MMLOS Input Page Subtotal Subtotal Si d e w a l k C o n d i t i o n on A d j a c e n t B l o c k s Si d e w a l k C o n d i t i o n on P r o j e c t F r o n t a g e Subtotal Instructions: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable to each measure under the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections. Subtotal Subtotal Pedestrian Total* P96 IV.B. Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points 22 Is a new bicycle path being implemented with City approved design? NA 0 23 Do new bike paths allow access without crossing a street or driveway?No 0 24 Is there proposed landscaping, striping, or signage improvements to an existing bicycle path?No 0 25 Does the project propose additional minor bicycle improvements which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?No 0 26 Does the project propose additional major bicycle improvements which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?No 0 0 Bi c y c l e Pa r k i n g 27 Is the project providing bicycle parking?Yes 5 5 5 Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points 28 Is seating/bench proposed?NA 0 29 Is a trash receptacle proposed?NA 0 30 Is transit system information (signage) proposed?NA 0 31 Is shelter/shade proposed?NA 0 32 Is enhanced pedestrian-scale lighting proposed?NA 0 33 Is real-time transit information proposed?NA 0 34 Is bicycle parking/storage proposed specifically for bus stop use? NA 0 35 Are ADA improvements proposed?NA 0 0 36 Is a bus pull-out proposed at an existing stop?NA 0 37 Is relocation of a bus stop to improve transit accessibility or roadway operations proposed?No 0 38 Is a new bus stop proposed (with minimum of two basic amenities)? No 0 0 0 Tr a n s i t Ba s i c A m e n i t i e s Subtotal Subtotal En h a n c e d Am e n i t i e s Subtotal Subtotal Bicycles Total* Transit Total* Bi c y c l e s Mo d i f i c a t i o n s t o E x i s t i n g B i c y c l e P at h s P97 IV.B. Category Measure Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT Reductions Will an onsite ammenities strategy be implemented? No Which onsite ammenities will be implemented? Will a shared shuttle service strategy be implemented?No What is the degree of implementation? What is the company size? What percentage of customers are eligible? 3 Nonmotorized Zones Will a nonmotorized zones strategy be implemented?No 0.00% 0.00% Category Measure Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT Reductions Will a network expansion stragtegy be implemented?No What is the percentage increase of transit network coverage? What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips? Will a service frequency/speed strategy be implemented?No What is the percentage reduction in headways (increase in frequency)? What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips? What is the level of implementation? Will a transit access improvement strategy be implemented?No What is the extent of access improvements? 7 Intercept Lot Will an intercept lot strategy be implemented?No 0.00% 0.00% Category Measure Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT Reductions Will there be participation in TOP?No What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a transit fare subsidy strategy implemented?No What percentage of employees are eligible? What is the amount of transit subsidy per passenger (daily equivalent)? Is an employee parking cash-out strategy being implemented?No What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a workplace parking pricing strategy implemented?No What is the daily parking charge? What percentage of employees are subject to priced parking? Is a compressed work weeks strategy implemented?No What percentage of employees are participating? What is the workweek schedule? Is an employer sponsered shuttle program implemented?No What is the employer size? What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a carpool matching strategy implemented?No What percentage of employees are eligble? Is carshare participation being implemented?No How many employee memberships have been purchased? What percentage of employees are eligble? Is participation in the bikeshare program WE-cycle being implemented?No How many memberships have been purchased? What percentage of employees/guests are eligble? Is an end of trip facilities strategy being implemented?Yes What is the degree of implementation? High What is the employer size? Small Is a self-funded emergency ride home strategy being implemented?No What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a carpool/vanpool priority parking strategy being implemented?Yes What is the employer size?Small What number of parking spots are available for the program?2 Is a private employer shuttle strategy being implemented?No What is the employer size? What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a trip reduction marketing/incentive program implemented?No What percentage of employees/guests are eligible? 0.81% 0.00% 0.81% 1. 22% work trips represents a mixed-used site (SF Bay Area Travel Survey). See Assumptions Tab for more detail. 21 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 Participation in TOP Transit Fare Subsidy Employee Parking Cash-Out Workplace Parking Pricing Compressed Work Weeks Employer Sponsored Vanpool Carpool Matching Carshare Program Self-funded Emergency Ride Home Carpool/Vanpool Priority Parking Private Employer Shuttle Trip Reduction Marketing/Incentive Program End of Trip Facilities Cross Category Maximum Reduction, Neighborhood and Transit Global Maximum VMT Reductions TDM Input Page 0.00% 3.50% 0.00% Co m m u t e T r i p R e d u c t i o n P r o g r a m s S t r a t e g i e s Onsite Servicing Shared Shuttle Service Ne i g h b o r h o o d / S i t e En h a n c e m e n t s S t r a t e g i e s 0.00% 0.00% Network Expansion Service Frequency/Speed Transit Access Improvement Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Bikeshare Program 0.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category Maximum Reduction Allowed in CategoryTr a n s i t S y s t e m I m p r o v e m e n t s St r a t e g i e s 1 2 4 5 6 8 9 10 Instructions TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should be new and/or an improvement of existing conditions. A project will not receive credit for measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense in the context of project location and future use. P98 IV.B. DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION: NAME, COMPANY, ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL Peak Hour Max Trips Generated MMLOS TDM Total Trips Mitigated PM 17.1 20 0.14 20.14 0.00 The project shall provide an enhanced landscape design between the current sidewalk and proposed new addition on the adjacent lot. By setting back the new building approximately 12' off the sidewalk, we will avoid the 24" "shy" zone. Describe the enhanced pedestrian access point(s). This measure is to improve pedestrian access to the site from the ROW. It includes adding additional access points which prevent pedestrians and bicyclists from crossing a street, improvements to the project's ADA ramps in the ROW, and improvements to existing access points. An additional access point will be provided on the adjacent lot. Include any additional information that pertains to the MMLOS plan in the space provided below. Project Description In the space below provide a description of the proposed project. Remodel the existing Mesa store and connect to new commercial and residential building on the adjacent lot with a glass connector link. MMLOS In the space provided desicribe what new landscaping is proposed and how the proposed landscaping plan enhances the pedestrian experience. This measure is only applicable to large scale projects and requires more extensive landscaping then a few plantings or lawn area. The project shall establish extensive landscaping which significantly benefits the site and improves the pedestrian comfort and experience. Click on the "Generate Narrative" Button to the right. Respond to each of the prompts in the space provided. Each response should cover the following: 1. Explain the selected measure. 2. Call out where the measure is located. 3. Demonstrate how the selected measure is appropriate to enhance the project site and reduce traffic impacts. 4. Explain the Enforcement and Financing Plan for the selected measure. 5. Explain the scheduling and implementation responsibility of the mitigation measure. 6. Attach any additional information and a site map to the narrative report. Sarah Broughton, John Rowland Rowland + Broughton Architecture 234 E Hopkins Ave (970) 544-9006 sarah@rowlandbroughton.com, john@rowlandbroughton.com Summary and Narrative: Narrative: 3/15/2016 Mesa Store 500 W Main St Trip Generation SUMMARY Trip Mitigation NET TRIPS TO BE MITIGATED P99 IV.B. N/A Monitoring and Reporting Provide a monitoring and reporting plan. Refer to page 17 in the Transportation Analysis Guidelines for a list of monitoring plan requirements. Components of a Monitoring and Reporting Plan should include (1) Assessment of compliance with guidelines, (2) Results and effectiveness of implemented measures, (3) Identification of additional strategies, and (4) Surveys and other supporting data. The owners will survey employees on an annual basis to determine the level of participation and success of the implemented strategies. Enforcement and Financing Provide an overview of the Enforcement and Financing plan for the proposed transportation mitigation measures. N/A Scheduling and Implementation Responsibility of Mitigation Measures Provide an overview of the scheduling and implementation responsibility for the proposed transportation mitigation measures. Landscape Plan 2% Slope at Pedestrian Driveway Crossings Enhanced Pedestrian Access Point Pedestrian Directness Factor (See callout number 9 on the MMLOS sheet for an example) Bicycle Parking Include any additional information that pertains to the TDM plan in the space provided below. N/A MMLOS Site Plan Requirements Include the following on a site plan. Clearly call out and label each measure. Attach the site plan to the TIA submittal. Landscape Buffer on Adjacent Property TDM Explain the proposed end of trip facilities strategy below. The provision of convenient facilities for pedestrians and cyclists encourages these types of alternative modes, thus reducing SOV trips. Non-residential projects may provide facilities such as showers, secure bicycle lockers, personal lockers, changing spaces, etc. The project shall include showers, changing areas, lockers, and bike parking. Explain the proposed carpool/vanpool priority parking strategy below. Priority parking for carpools and vanpools encourages and incentivizes employees to ride-share to work, thus reducing SOV trips. The successful project will located the carpool and vanpool spaces at the front entrances of the buildings and will monitor use of parking spaces to ensure compliance. Priority carpool parking will be granted to employees who sign up in advance for the benefit. P100 IV.B. U P H U D D L E T A B L E 4 ' - 0 " X 4 ' - 0 " D N D N D N P R O P O S E D S I T E P L A N 1 A 1 . 1 D N U P U P N . 4 T H S T R E E T SIDEWALK S I D E W A L K 1 0 " A S P E N 1 2 " A S P E N 9 " A S P E N 9 " A S P E N 9 " A S P E N 24"DECIDUOUS N . 4 T H S T R E E T 500 W. MAIN STREET SIDEWALK S I D E W A L K 1 0 " A S P E N 1 2 " A S P E N 9 " A S P E N 9 " A S P E N 9 " A S P E N 24"DECIDUOUS N . 4 T H S T R E E T SIDEWALK S I D E W A L K 1 0 " A S P E N 1 2 " A S P E N 9 " A S P E N 9 " A S P E N 9 " A S P E N 24"DECIDUOUS PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE P R O P E R T Y L I N E S E T B A C K L I N E SETBACK LINE S E T B A C K L I N E ALLEY W E S T N E I G H B O R W E S T N E I G H B O R P R O P E R T Y L I N E E N T R Y W A L K 31'-2 5/8"CROW FLIES DISTANCE31'-2 5/8"WALKING DISTANCE 66'-3 11/16"CROW FLIES DISTANCE78'WALKING DISTANCEFile Path: P:\Proj-2015\2015 Potential Projects\P2015.44_Mesa\06_Documentation\01_Drawings\P2015.44_A1.1_TIA PLAN.dwgPlot Date/Time: March 15, 2016 - 3:39 pm C O P Y R I G H T 2 0 1 6 R O W L A N D + B R O U G H T O N A R C H I T E C T U R E A N D U R B A N D E S I G N T H E I N F O R M A T I O N A N D D E S I G N I N T E N T C O N T A I N E D O N T H I S D O C U M E N T I S T H E P R O P E R T Y O F R O W L A N D + B R O U G H T O N A R C H I T E C T U R E A N D U R B A N D E S I G N . N O P A R T O F T H I S I N F O R M A T I O N M A Y B E U S E D W I T H O U T T H E P R I O R W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F R O W L A N D + B R O U G H T O N A R C H I T E C T U R E A N D U R B A N D E S I G N . R O W L A N D + B R O U G H T O N A R C H I T E C T U R E A N D U R B A N D E S I G N S H A L L R E T A I N A L L C O M M O N L A W S T A T U T O R Y A N D O T H E R R E S E R V E D R I G H T S , I N C L U D I N G C O P Y R I G H T T H E R E T O . R e v i s i o n : I s s u e : S H E E T T I T L E P R O J E C T N O : D W G F I L E : S C A L E : P 2 0 1 5 . 4 4 _ A 1 . 1 _ T I A P L A N . d w g 5 0 0 W . M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N , C O 8 1 6 1 1 P 2 0 1 5 . 4 4 1 8 3 0 b l a k e s t , s t e 2 0 0 d e n v e r , c o 8 0 2 0 2 3 0 3 . 3 0 8 . 1 3 7 3 o 3 0 3 . 3 0 8 . 1 3 7 5 f 2 3 4 e h o p k i n s a v e a s p e n , c o 8 1 6 1 1 9 7 0 . 5 4 4 . 9 0 0 6 o 9 7 0 . 5 4 4 . 3 4 7 3 f r o w l a n d + b r o u g h t o n a r c h i t e c t u r e / u r b a n d e s i g n / i n t e r i o r d e s i g n 1 5 M A R C H 2 0 1 6 L A N D U S E A P P L I C A T I O N A 1 . 1 - T I A 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " P R O P O S E D T R A F F I C I M P A C T A N A L Y S I S P101 I V . B . P102 I V . B . P 1 0 3 I V . B . P 1 0 4 I V . B . P 1 0 5 I V . B . P 1 0 6 I V . B . P 1 0 7 I V . B . P108 I V . B . P 1 0 9 I V . B . P 1 1 0 I V . B . P 1 1 1 I V . B . P 1 1 2 I V . B . P 1 1 3 I V . B . P 1 1 4 I V . B . P 1 1 5 I V . B . P 1 1 6 I V . B . P 1 1 7 I V . B . P118 IV.B.