HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20170322
AGENDA
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
March 22, 2017
4:30 PM City Council Meeting Room
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
I. SITE VISITS
A. Please visit the sites on your own.
II. 4:30 INTRODUCTION
A. Roll call
B. Approval of minutes
Draft of Minutes for March 8th, 2017
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
A. None.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
A. 4:40 300-312 E. Hyman Avenue- Growth Management Review, PUBLIC
HEARING
B. 5:10 540 E. Main Street- Rescinding Designation of Historic Property, PUBLIC
HEARING
C. 5:30 110 E. Hallam Street, 215 N. Garmisch Street, 630 W. Main Street, 1101 E.
Cooper Avenue and Aspen Pedestrian Mall - Designation of Historic Property,
PUBLIC HEARING
V. 7:00 ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: 7
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.
1
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MARCH 8, 2017
Chairperson Halferty called the meeting to order at 4:34 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance were Jeffrey Halferty, Gretchen Greenwood, Jim DeFrancia, Nora Berko,
Roger Moyer and Richard Lai. Absent were Bob Blaich and John Whipple.
Staff present: Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney; Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner and
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
MOTION: Mr. Moyer motioned to approve the minutes from February 8th, 2017, Mr. DeFrancia
seconded. All in favor, motion carried.
Mr. Halferty asked for any public comment regarding items not listed on the agenda and there were
none.
Mr. Halferty asked for any commission member commentary. Ms. Berko thanked Ms. Simon for sending
out the memo regarding modern city property designation. Mr. Pember mentioned that he ran into Ms.
Bryan’s predecessor Debbie and she wishes everyone well and also mentioned that he saw that the
Aspen Art Museum won a National AA Award, he didn’t see that it was in the paper, but should be
noticed and recognized in our minutes. Mr. Halferty thanked staff and Ms. Simon for the commissioner
training at the retreat and felt like it was a lot of good information. Ms. Simon summarized and said the
one thing that will be implemented is that the facilitator mentioned that in the staff memos, we need to
create more of a chart so we can see what we agree on, what we don’t, what guidelines are met, which
ones aren’t and where we are split as a group, etc. We will start doing this to help find common ground
and recognizing polarizing situations to see if this helps you all organize the discussion. Ms. Simon
mentioned typing up a summary for everyone. Mr. Halferty said the facilitator was also very effective in
how to run meetings in the affirmative sense from a preservation and land use standpoint. She is a very
obviously well skilled lady. It was really helpful and she was well received. Mr. Pember mentioned that
he ran into Jen Phelan who feels like the training has a lot to do a lot with the psychology of the
meeting.
Mr. Halferty asked for any disclosures of conflicts of interest. Ms. Berko mentioned that she would be
leaving for the Project Monitoring at 211 E Hallam, Ms. Greenwood stated that she would be leaving for
all New Business, Mr. Pember stated that he will be leaving for Part B. of New Business. Ms. Simon
mentioned that Mr. Lai is on the mailing list for the Race Alley project and said that he would need to
recuse on that one.
Mr. Halferty asked for the Project Monitoring summary for 211 E Hallam from Ms. Simon. She stated
that is the remodel and expansion of the Berko Studio and Ms. Greenwood is the project monitor. Ms.
Mirte Mallory spoke first and brought up that during the course of the project, they have learned a lot
about circulation. The front unit is facing Hallam street and the studio is accessed from Hallam street so
it has become apparent that the glass slider is not very functional. For that reason, they are looking for
support to replace the slider with a five-panel folding door. Philp Jeffreys was also in attendance
P1
II.B.
2
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MARCH 8, 2017
speaking on the project. The door being proposed is more energy efficient with a thicker frame and has
not already been installed. There is also a screen door that has always been there. Ms. Greenwood
stated that this is a matter of functionality and a thicker frame. Mr. Jeffreys believes that this façade is
going to be really difficult to see from the alley for one and there are already a number of impacts on
this façade. The street façade is going to be perfect and a lot of work was done on the sides. On the
back, there were major alterations including the construction of a duplex so this is the façade that is the
last and most impacted already. “Bastardized” Mr. Pember stated and then asked how the screen door
operates. Mr. Jeffreys replied that it’s a full panel that you just pull on and it goes across and will not be
used moving forward, but going to the five-panel folding door.
Mr. Pember said it’s the most bastardized elevation and will hardly be seen at all and tends to support it.
It meets the goals of modernism and functionally and it works. Ms. Greenwood states that she agrees
and supports it along with Mr. DeFrancia and Mr. Halferty.
MOTION: Mr. Pember makes motions to approve, Ms. Greenwood seconds. All in favor, motion carried.
Mr. Halferty asks for any staff comments. Ms. Simon mentions that City Council is volunteering to have
you review the designations of the five city properties that you will be talking about on March 22nd and
they will talk about on April 24th. We had sent out about a thousand public notices, posted information
on Community Voice, one of the cities websites, and doing an open house to answer questions. You’ll
have a thick packet for next time for the history of these five properties.
Mr. Halferty asked for any certificates of no negative effect. Ms. Simon replied that she did issue a no
negative effect to replace the sliding glass doors on the Prospector Lodge, which is a non-historic
building across the street from the Crystal Palace. They are just replacing to match so no significant
change, but will be facing Hyman Avenue.
Mr. Halferty asked if we have ample Public Notice for our agenda items in which Ms. Bryan says she still
needs the publication and Ms. Simon gives to her.
Mr. Halferty asked for any call up reports and Ms. Simon says yes she presented Council with a call up
for the Bidwell/Kemo Sabe & Red Onion project – 434 and 422 E Cooper – and they have asked for
additional information. The call up discussion is expected to happen on April 3rd.
Mr. Halferty asked for any additional typical HPC proceedings in which Ms. Simon said no. Mr. Halferty
said there was no old business to discuss so moving on to new business, 210 S First St – Substantial
Amendment to Major Development Approval Variations.
Ms. Bryan mentioned that she has reviewed all public notice and all is good.
P2
II.B.
3
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MARCH 8, 2017
Ms. Simon introduces the project and states that it is for 210 S First St and is a request for substantial
amendment and this property is located on the corner of Hopkins and First. This is a Victorian house
and a carriage house structure from the 1950’s era residential unit. The applicant received approval to
restore the Victorian and demolish and replace the carriage house structure. The restoration moved
forward and was a really great project. The structure, which was to be replaced, did not move forward
due to the height limit and HPC approved an amendment to resolve this, but the code changed again
and there was an issue with floor area so we are looking at this project again for the third time trying to
bring it into compliance with today’s codes. HPC should be aware of the fact that you are looking at
conceptual and final all at once. You are considering all issues tonight. The project is not a complete
departure from what HPC saw previously, the footprint is very similar. Most changes are regarding roof
form, fenestration and materials. New variations being requested that were not granted previously
regarding setbacks and a floor area bonus stemming from a portico share. This project is subject to the
new design guidelines and the vested right expired several years ago so must comply with today’s
regulations. Ms. Simon has provided the new guidelines and highlighted the ones of concern. The
applicant will need to apply for a building permit by November of this year or they will no longer be able
to build the unit. It’s a non-conforming lot so their period of time to demo and rebuild is running out.
HPC is being asked to find whether the design guidelines are met. In the memo, we are concerned with
compatibility looking for new and old structures to be compatible and relatable. We are concerned with
asymmetrical shape of roof and the fact that the ground floor and upper floor plate height is not equal.
There is a top heavy character to it that HPC should be aware of. There was 330 sq ft previously
received so we are now requesting remaining 170 sq ft. Until the guideline and compatibility issues are
resolved, we will not grant the additional sq footage. There is a 7 ft combined side yard reduction and
we are recommending continuation at this time.
Mr. Halferty asked for questions for Ms. Simon from the commissioners.
Mr. DeFrancia asked Ms. Simon what she wants to accomplish with the continuation. She replied that
she would primarily like to revisit the compliance with design guidelines 11.6. Mr. Halferty added in that
the review is for materials, plate heights, roof, roof forms, etc.
Mr. Pember asked when we need to lock in approvals for this project and Ms. Simon said that once HPC
is granted, they will need to submit a building permit by November 8.
Patrick Rolley of Stan Clausen Associates was joined by the applicant and owner, John Key. Mr. Rolley
started off by reading a statement for the record from Ms. Greenwood who recused herself.
Mr. Rolley feels they’ve really pushed to meet the guidelines for the owner and his family’s needs.
P3
II.B.
4
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
FEBRUARY 8, 2017
We are here to amend the existing approval of a single-family residence, totalizing current code, design
guidelines and evolving understanding of the client. We are also seeking approval to build the residence
as project vesting has expired. A 500 sq ft bonus was previously granted in 2007 and partially utilized
and now the applicant would like to utilize the remaining 180 sq ft. Per the owner, there has not been a
change to the design, but a change to the land use code.
The Holiday House (the Skico project) is immediately to the east. The Cottonwood Condos, a multi-
family project that is three stories, is on other side of alley. The Molly Gibson lodge will be torn down
and replaced with two single-family residences. It is important to point out from where we have come.
The cabin in 2007, is shown on the screen and was in a very poor state. Mr. Key said it was “quite a
project”. The features kept the look of it as far as design and want to maintain the visibility of the
historic resource. In 2004, initial HPC approval for the single-family home with western elevation
showing on screen. The City issued a building permit in 2006 and at this time, the City determined that
two buildings could be built and two building permits were issued and that is how we are moving
forward today. In 2007, we came back for the major conceptual and final HPC application which
approved of two structures utilizing 325 sq ft of the 500sq ft bonus. Now we’ve detached it. In 2008-10
we did the restoration of the historic resource and was beautifully done and offers an all sides view of
the historic resource. There is a generous lawn in between the historic and proposed residence. Design
approaches are to preserve this. Following in 2011, construction of the second home was put on hold
due to the recession and at this time we also received confirmation from Sara Adams that the house can
be built and not be subject to demolition by neglect, but would come under the new land use code. In
2016, the owner, John, has committed to a third design to build a family home.
Looking at the modified design, it is very similar to what it always has been with the footprint being
largely the same. There are the same setbacks. The second house is pushed to the south and utilizes
primary east/west access so it can be appreciated on all sides. Some of the rear design that has occurred
has some significant footprint changes and this is highlighted as a variance request for an egress window
well from the basement. They have spoken with Claude, the zoning officer, regarding the code change
of the carport area allowing vehicles to pass through. Claude said this will be considered a carport and
has a horizontal projection. The code provides for three zones: Zone A being the most significant
historic zone, allowing all sides to be viewed. Zone B, moderately significant for historic reasons and
contains the area of separation between residences. Zone C, which is unrestricted, utilizes the area of
the driveway and covered carport. We tried to use as much from west to east as possible to maintain
separation between the two.
Discussing the new modified design, please note that there is a deck that has been truncated to be
smaller and more articulated and a roof top deck that has been incorporated into the design. The height
has been reduced from 30 ft and now comes down to 25ft. The difference between the historic resource
and the proposal is 5’2”. This is a modern design, but we’re supposed to design a product of its own
time. We have gone for a more contemporary palate and this is what the owner likes. There are lots of
windows and lots of living space. The focus points to the historic resource and shows nicely how we are
mimicking the roof form of the Dutch dormer into the new construction.
P4
II.B.
5
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MARCH 8, 2017
The Eastern elevation on the screen is showing that height has been brought down and new design was
lowered quite a bit. The owner is interested in having a roof top deck and likes the views of Aspen and
Red Mountain. The greater articulation of the 2016 building is that the height has been brought down
and there is more variation and less foreboding in the background.
Section 11.6 of the guidelines – roof forms are being mimicked. There is a unique roof form and nice to
repeat and draws a correlation between the two structures. There are playful and subtle chimney
similarities. Horizontal mass – a little wider building that will mimic form of historic resource. Second is
materials, vertical and horizontal siding. It will be painted the same color as the historic resource. The
metal roof is the same as the one on the historic property. The stone, which is already present, will be
consistent.
Regarding the floor area bonus, we have met the criteria B through F, shown in blue on the screen. G
and h are not applicable. There is the unchanged condition of pass through that allows access to historic
resource garage.
John, the owner, commented that he bought the house 21 years ago. He thanked the HPC commission
for being here and hearing the project. Initially, he said, this was a rental property and brought to
conformity. There was a building permit pulled in 1958, which was found out by his attorney and this
supersedes everything. He would like to proceed as soon as possible. He continued to say that initially
when we started, our total focus was on the Victorian house and since the recession came, things have
become more modern, my family has grown and we have moved the living area to the street side, which
was a huge improvement. He stated that he is asking for approval tonight and to continue moving
forward.
Mr. Halferty asked if the board had questions.
Ms. Bryan stated that she was sorry for not saying something sooner, but that Ms. Greenwood’s letter
should be struck from the record and was not appropriate because she had to recuse herself.
Ms. Simon apologized and stated that she encouraged Ms. Greenwood to write the letter to express
herself.
Mr. Rolley said that his presentation adequately covered the points without Ms. Greenwood’s letter
being factored in.
Mr. Pember stated that he is not sure why they are asking for the additional sq footage if it was already
granted in past, it’s just a matter of reallocating.
Ms. Simon replied that there was a small discrepancy in past approvals and looking at the different
design. She said they are looking at what’s left on the table, whether it’s 170 or 180 sq ft.
Mr. Rolley said that we need 180 sq ft. primarily due to the modifications of land use code .
P5
II.B.
6
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MARCH 8, 2017
Mr. Lai stated that this is one lot with two houses on it and asked if this is tied together forever? Mr.
Rolley said yes, there is a possibility of separating via condominium agreement and can be sold
separately but not separated and has just one parcel ID.
Mr. Lai commented that the height of the second building is 5’2” higher than the original building and
asked if that’s allowable?
Ms. Simon said yes, it’s allowable because it is 25 feet and it depends on the shape of the roof so yes, it
conforms to the code.
Mr. Halferty asked Ms. Simon what stood out to her the most as far as compatibility and she replied that
the best compatibility is with the building materials being used. It’s the other two categories; form and
fenestration that are a little less solid.
Mr. Pember reminded everyone that this is an amendment to a previous approval. Conceptual and final
are rolled into one evening and that this is a lot for one night. “It’s all in here.”
Mr. Key noted that regarding the height, the Cottonwood Condos, has three stories looking over into the
house and in comparison, it looks small next to that huge structure.
Mr. Halferty opened Public comment, but there was none.
Mr. Key said that he doesn’t understand the top heaviness comments that were made.
Jeffrey recapped approvals and agreed with Willis, that there is a lot here and asked if the board is
comfortable with the changes and if so, there is a discussion and motion to be made. Mr. Halferty
noted that he was on the original board and appreciates the amount of work that has been done on this
project.
Roger mentioned that he used to give tours and it was a lot fun for him to see how Victorians were
made to fit into the modern world. With this project, it would be its own entity. When I look at this, he
stated, I think this is a darn good job of separating the two and a job well done. I don’t see the sq.
footage approval as an issue. Window wells are a safety issue and should be taken into consideration,
but it’s a pretty terrific project.
Ms. Simon said that she wanted to clarify that the west facing gambrel roof is historic. No other house
looks like this, but it is original.
Mr. Key mentioned that it was an 1882 Sears miners cabin.
Ms. Simon replied that Sears wasn’t in business at that time and that this is a rumor that goes around
town.
Ms. Berko said that this was the only solution for back then and that for her, it’s a very unique and
sparse resource. She stated that the compatibility of the new building is totally there and her only
question would be, is it possible to bring the 13-ft. ceiling down to 12 so it doesn’t read as top heavy?
P6
II.B.
7
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MARCH 8, 2017
She said she loved how you move around the building and discover how to they talk to each other. She
said she had to stand on the corner for a long time to get a sense and felt that it needed something very
light and very sparse.
Mr. Lai said that he agrees with what you’ve done in terms of making the addition to be something of
this time. It merits between the old and new, but he would like to address the top heaviness. You have
that right-angle corner, that gives the impression of being top heavy so if that might be softened a little
bit, that’s the only hard angle there.
Mr. Key asked about a covered patio and Mr. Lai said no, not a covered patio, but it might be if we can
echo the gambrel angle –a 45-degree angle.
Mr. Rolley said, more like an eyebrow.
Mr. Lai said exactly and it doesn’t have to be very large or significant, but that would soften the top
heavy impression and other than that, it’s an excellent job.
Mr. Key commented that he doesn’t really see how it would work, but says that he’s not that creative
and that Ms. Greenwood could better speak to this.
Mr. DeFrancia stated that the glass mitigates that issue and said that we’re looking at a rendering, but in
real life, the glass will make it open and clear and will diminish that top heaviness. This mitigates the
right angle and the top heaviness and said that he does not have a problem with this.
Mr. Rolley agreed that the rendering doesn’t show the clarity of the glass.
Mr. Pember commented that he generally would echo the others comments and feels that the roof is
echoed very successfully and said that we can check the boxes pretty carefully to meet guidelines 2 out
of 3. He noted that much less successful projects than this have been given approval and in this case, he
thinks it’s a solid 1.85 which is a big stumbling block for staff. He thinks the guideline regarding the roof,
is somewhat harmonious and said that Victorians are notoriously bottom heavy instead of top heavy, so
he can see the concern there. He noted that the views are upstairs , not downstairs and said that he
doesn’t personally mind the top heaviness. He thinks it is a handsome and/or lovely project and very
successful as a stand-alone piece of architecture.
Ms. Simon commented that there are mostly recessed cans for lighting and really no other fixtures.
Mr. Pember noted the handrail saying it has an under light, which is a continuous strip light on the
second level deck. Ms. Simon replied that it may get caught in the lighting code if you can see the light
source from the underside.
Mr. Halferty stated that he is in consensus with board and that the improvements from the original
design are excellent and does meet guidelines, in his opinion. He said that it is a product of its own time
and the materials are sensitive to the addition and he is Ok with the lighting. He said that he can also
support this piece of architecture.
P7
II.B.
8
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MARCH 8, 2017
Mr. Pember mused that we are lucky that the 2007 version is not being built.
Ms. Simon stated the previous conditions saying that it is a major development and substantial
amendment with HPC approving the remaining bonus up to 500 sq. ft., setback variances granted, and
the criteria is met. The development order will expire Nov. 8 and acomplete building application will
need to be received during that time.
MOTION: Mr. DeFrancia motioned to approve Resolution #5; Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr.
DeFrancia, yes; Mr. Pember, yes; Mr. Lai, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes. 6-0
motion carried.
Ms. Simon asked for a monitor and Ms. Berko volunteered.
Mr. Halferty asked for the public notice for Item B, in which Ms. Bryan stated that she has a copy of it
and we can go ahead and proceed. Mr. Halferty mentioned that it must be received by noon the
following day in the Clerk’s office since she did not have the actual ad.
Ms. Simon introduced Item B of New Business – 541 Race Alley in the Fox Cross subdivision. This is a
Final Development and HPC granted conceptual a year ago. Most of this area was a wide open meadow
with a Victorian building and line shacks owned by the Griffith family. We required that the Victorian
building be restored to what it is now and these buildings be restored as well. This is the 3rd version of
what we’ve seen and will be a single-family home with a connecting element.
The focus of the recommended conditions of approval that HPC needs to weigh in on are: Page 108 of
the packet, which states that the entire exposed foundation should be board form concrete and the
foundation should not be the same as under the log cabins with a standard concrete finish. The rest of
the exposed foundation can be board form. Condition 2 has to do with the connectors between the log
cabins and this will be the main focus of tonight’s discussion. The architect is proposing to face
mirrored glass and isn’t all four surfaces of the connectors, just two. One that faces park & south facing
connection between log cabins in garage. The mirror is an unusual material for HPC and you will need to
find that it is compatible and secondary to historic materials that we’ve seen in other applications.
According to the residential design standards, there should be no highly reflective materials and this will
be 8 ft by 8 ft in size. HPC only needs to approve the connectors that have conventional glass and should
look at in the field regarding the applicant’s mock-up. She stated that they are concerned with not
creating a nuisance to neighbors.
These are rustic 1960’s very modest cabins and HPC likes the new and old contrast. The landscape is
being driven in a contemporary direction and the proposed color is much darker, the landscape palate is
more formal and different. In terms of the landscape plan, there is no clear walkway to the front door of
the cabins from the park and needs to be added, but still should express entry, which is Condition 3.
Condition 4 is to add a sconce at front porch. Condition 5 is regarding the landscape plan with the lawn
paved system and we need some clarification on that and the sodded area. Condition 6, is regarding the
repetition from conceptual with a 500sq ft bonus. The same goes with Condition 7 and we will need an
P8
II.B.
9
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MARCH 8, 2017
additional 30,000 bond. The last condition is regarding vested rights. This is a very successful project
and we are leaving only enough floor area to build off what we see.
Derek Skalko is speaking on behalf of Willis Pember along with the Chief landscape architect, Ryan
Vugteveen and design partner Meghan Nemechek.
Mr. Skalko stated that on April 27th, last year was when we all convened on this and from the idea of
mass and scale and how we addressed everything, shows in this first elevation. This is a delicate project
that is very minimal. It sits below plate heights of north and south sides and is very tied into its location,
making sure the cabins are the focus from the park, which is the primary façade. This is a similar
condition to the north side and is nestled into spaces. Mr. Skalko brought a model presentation and
asked if anyone would like to look up close. He stated that these are mining cottages or as Ms. Simon
stated, line shacks that have material palates replicating wood and are Alpine driven in color scheme
with contemporary detail. The color palate doesn’t relate to anything right now, but Mr. Pember sees
the new color palate tying this into more consistent language of the whole area. Regarding the sconce
idea, there are currently no sconces on the property. A wall sconce isn’t appropriate, but we prefer to
have an upplight that would be based on porch light with downlighting from soffit down.
Mr. Vugteveen stated that the goal is that the landscape feels at home and one of the most important
goals is to maintain the visual connection to the resource. They want to invent a context for the shacks
that feels authentic since this used to be a meadow and that is the part of the integration now.
He went on to say that the intent is that the cabins are set in a field of grass and are meadow-like. There
will be white chinking on the line shacks; maintaining , but elevating. We want to imply the walkway
with a lawn paved system. The connections will be with the proposed black and white garden, which is
inspired by the white chinking of the line shack. There will be shrubs, grasses and perennials with a light
and darker color palate with native seed reaching a height of 24 inches tall on average with taller grasses
wrapping around the architecture. There will be a black and white entry, a mirrored entry that looks like
you’re looking right through the house at the landscaping. This is a nice response to the connectors with
the meadow field, but more articulated. There is a fence to the south, which keeps the mirror from
returning any light. There is a long continued discussion on various shrubs/grasses, etc.
Mr. Vugteveen continues stating that instead of having light pedestals, we want it all to be integrated
with the architecture with soffit lights located above the garage, with angle to them and not projecting
out into Race Alley with the same lights on the overhang. He continues with a lengthy discussion
regarding lighting.
Mr. Moyer asked if the siding for the garage will be painted or stained?
Ms. Nemechek responded and said it will be stained.
Mr. Moyer asked about the courtyard wall and if it is going to be back sealed before the seal is put in
and asked if the top of the wall have a cap and if the backside of the cement wall will be sealed.
P9
II.B.
10
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
MARCH 8, 2017
Mr. Vugteveen answered yes, but not the top, you won’t see it. The landscaping will come up right next
to it.
Mr. Halferty asked about the door that is coming off of the elevation and if it will need some sort of deck
or porch with a 4 ft drop and Mr. Vugteveen responded that the slope that is shown on there, at
conceptual is still above grade and we need to articulate a little bit of the landing there, but the door is
basically locked. We will make efforts for a visual connection so it doesn’t look odd. Mr. Halferty stated
that this isn’t really an HPC question, but noticed that they have done an extensive job with civil
engineering. He asked if regarding the courtyard, did they envision having dry wells down there and if
it’s a code requirement. Mr. Vugteveen commented that Josh Rice is the civil engineer of Woody Creek
Engineering and that some of that water is going to have to be pumped. He said that in the front yard,
below, we will do a civil cell system that is also used by the City of Aspen.
Mr. Halferty opened public comment, but there was none and then he stated that we are in
consideration for this motion regarding materials, landscape , lighting, a questionable mirror and some
of the architecture.
Ms. Simon noted that on page 108 is the resolution.
Mr. Moyer said that he was confused about the walkways and noted that the park is to the west and if
you have a walkway going out to the public park, it’s a really defined walkway and do we want the
public walking up to the house or will there be some type of fence or gate?
Ms. Simon said that there is a way of delineating that line by putting up a fence or gate in creating a
pathway to the door and seems like step in the right direction. She stated that it is really important that
you feel like this is the front of the house.
Mr. Halferty recapped the conditions for the board.
MOTION : Resolution #6: Mr. DeFrancia motioned to approve with the recommended conditions intact
with addition of monitoring duties regarding board form concrete and mirror detail and 1. Review a
mockup 2. Is ok, 3. addressed by revised landscape plan 4. not as interested so struck from the record, 5.
clarification also struck 6. the rest is fine. Ms. Berko seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms.
Berko, yes, Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. DeFrancia, yes. 4-0, motion carried.
Mr. Halferty volunteered to be the monitor. Mr. DeFrancia moved to adjourn at 6:57 pm
________________________________________
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
P10
II.B.
11
P11
II.B.
1
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 300-312 E. Hyman–Growth Management Review, PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: March 22, 2017
______________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY: On February 8th, HPC granted Final design approval to renovate the existing
building commonly known as The Crystal Palace in order to develop a lodge and restaurant.
Typically, HPC would have simultaneously considered Growth Management allocations for the
project, but because the 2016 lodge allotments were all used in 2016, the applicant had to delay
submittal of this portion of their request until after the 2017 allotments became available.
This hearing is the last review step before the applicant may proceed to building permit. Staff
recommends HPC grant Growth Management approval.
APPLICANT: 312 E. Hyman Avenue, LLC, represented by BendonAdams.
ADDRESS: 300-312 E. Hyman Ave, Lots K, L & M, Block 81, aka Crystal Palace Subdivision,
City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-38-009.
ZONING: CC, Commercial Core.
26.470.050.B General requirements. All development applications for growth management
review shall comply with the following standards. The reviewing body shall approve, approve
with conditions or deny an application for growth management review based on the following
generally applicable criteria and the review criteria applicable to the specific type of
development:
1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed
development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Applications for multi-year
development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to meet
this standard.
2. The proposed development is compatible with land uses in the surrounding area, as well
as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan.
P12
IV.A.
2
3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district.
4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation
Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the
Planned Development – Project Review approval, as applicable.
5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60%) of the employees
generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection
26.470.100.A, Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of
affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant
to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at a Category 4 rate as defined in the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may
choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. If an applicant chooses
to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter
26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for
Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate.
6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above
natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at
least thirty percent (30%) of the additional free-market residential net livable area, for
which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher.
Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable
housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide
mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable housing units that are being
provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may be deed-restricted at any level of
affordability, including residential occupied. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of
Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate
shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative
Extinguishment of the Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.100
Employee/Square Footage Conversion.
7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such
additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project.
Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment,
energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid
waste disposal, parking and road and transit services.
Staff response: The appropriateness of the project in terms of land use and design has been
evaluated and approved by the HPC over several hearings. Mitigation for impacts on public
infrastructure has been addressed through conditions of approval contained with the HPC
resolutions and will also be ensured through fees assessed by the building permit.
P13
IV.A.
3
This meeting is to evaluate the compliance of the project with Growth Management. The
Growth Management Quota system sets a limit on the amount of new net leasable and new lodge
development that is to occur annually.
Typically, when an existing commercial building in Aspen is expanded, any new net leasable
square footage above and beyond the existing has required some degree of mitigation for
affordable housing. In this case, the use of the building is being changed from all commercial to
primarily lodge. The building is comprised of lodge rooms and spaces which provide accessory
functions to the lodge. Though the proposed new project is dimensionally larger than the
building that stands today, the lodge rooms require a significantly smaller amount of affordable
housing mitigation per square foot than commercial uses do (as an incentive for lodge
development), therefore the new project has less impact than the existing and no new affordable
housing mitigation or allotment of net leasable square footage from the 2017 program is needed.
The FTE calculations are included in Table A, below.
Table A. FTE Calculation
The application does require HPC approval of lodge allotments. Each year there are 112 lodging
“pillow” allotments available. Each lodge room is said to equal 2 pillows. This project proposes
20 rooms, or 40 pillows. There are sufficient allotments available in the 2017 program to award
to this application.
Finally, regarding the Transportation Impact Assessment which must be finalized at this meeting,
every project which generates new net leasable space, housing, lodging or essential public facility
space is required to address impacts through the development of a Transportation Impact Plan.
To the extent that new trips to the site are generated by the project, mitigation is required,
generally by providing physical improvements or operational improvements. This project, as a
lodge, generates less trips than the existing use according to the calculation methodologies used.
Because of the decreased impact, the applicant is not required to make any physical
improvements to address new trips. The project does need to identify at least two operational
characteristics which can be cited as a means to reduce trips. Within the TIA plan that has been
provided the applicant has indicated that 1) the fact that the lodge provides on-site amenities in
the form of food service has the potential to reduce the off-site trips made by guests and 2) the
P14
IV.A.
4
hotel operator will promote alternative transportation options to employees. This satisfies the
TIA requirements.
__________________________________________________________________________
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 Growth Management approval for this project as stated in the
attached Resolution.
Exhibits:
Resolution #__, Series of 2017
A. Application
P15
IV.A.
Historic Preservation Commission
Resolution #__, Series 2017
Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION #__
(SERIES OF 2017)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
GRANTING GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPROVAL FOR 300-312 E. HYMAN
AVENUE, LOTS K, L, AND M, BLOCK 81, AKA CRYSTAL PALACE SUBDIVISION,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
Parcel ID: 2737-073-38-009
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from 312 E.
Hyman Avenue, LLC, represented by BendonAdams for the following land use review approval:
Growth Management; and
WHEREAS, the application is subject to the City of Aspen Land Use Code in effect on the day
of initial application – November 18, 2015, as applicable to this Project; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed
Application and recommended approval; and,
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the Application at a duly noticed
public hearing on March 22, 2017, 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 on March 22, 2017, the Historic Preservation
Commission approved Resolution #__, Series of 2017, 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 Growth Management approval for 300-312 E.
Hyman Avenue with the following conditions:
1. The Transportation Impact Analysis is approved as proposed. Any revisions shall be
approved by the City of Aspen Engineering Department.
2. HPC has approved the allocation of 40 lodge pillows from the 2017 Growth Management
program. Because the project generates fewer FTEs than the existing development (see
Table A), no affordable housing mitigation is due.
Table A. FTE Calculation
Existing FTEs (Credit) 54.19 FTEs
Approved Project 28.5 FTEs
Net Change -25.69 FTEs
P16
IV.A.
Historic Preservation Commission
Resolution #__, Series 2017
Page 2 of 3
Section 2:
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 3:
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 4:
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 5: Vested Rights
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: 300-312 E. 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
P17
IV.A.
Historic Preservation Commission
Resolution #__, Series 2017
Page 3 of 3
City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this
approval.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review;
the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until
the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section
26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado
Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 22nd day of March, 2017.
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
__________________________ ______________________________
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Jeffrey Halferty, Chair
Attest:
_______________________________
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
P18
IV.A.
February 15, 2017
Ms. Amy Simon
Historic Preservation Officer
City of Aspen
130 So. Galena St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: 300-312 East Hyman Avenue, Crystal Palace, Growth Management Review
Ms. Simon:
Please accept this application for Growth Management Review to remove non-historic portions of
the existing commercial building located at 300-312 East Hyman Avenue and to construct a three-
story above grade lodge with ground level commercial space, and lodging use on all levels. This
parcel is on the City of Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures (the Inventory),
and is located within the Commercial Core Historic Overlay District. The property is owned by
312 East Hyman Avenue LLC; Mark Hunt, Manager.
This application includes the building known as the Crystal Palace, currently occupied by Bootsy
Bellows and the adjacent one-story commercial building, currently occupied by Testosterone. The
9,047square foot property is legally described as the Crystal Palace Subdivision, per the Plat
thereof recorded September 7, 2016 in Plat Book 115 at Page 58, and as Reception No. 631971,
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. The 9,047 square foot parcel is comprised of Lots K, L, and
M, Block 81, City & Townsite of Aspen (Parcel ID 2737-073-38-007).
Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, and Demolition
approvals were granted on March 9, 2016 via HPC Resolution 9, Series of 2016. Notice of Call
up was provided to City Council on April 11, 2016 at which time the project was called up. The
call up discussion was held on April 25, 2016. Council decided to uphold HPC’s decision to grant
conceptual approval, demolition approval, and commercial design approval of the project.
Final Major Development and Final Commercial Design Review were granted on February 8,
2017 via HPC Resolution 4, Series of 2017.
The final step in the Land Use review process is Growth Management. Typically, Growth
Management is combined with Final Design reviews; however, there were inadequate lodge
allotments available in 2016. This required a delay in the Growth Management application to
calendar year 2017 when sufficient annual allotments are available.
P19
IV.A.
Page 2 of 7
300-312 e. Hyman GMQS Review
This application is submitted pursuant to the following sections of the Aspen Land Use Code:
• 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
• 26.470 Growth Management
• 26.575.020 Miscellaneous Calculations and Measurements
• 26.630 Transportation Impact Analysis
• 26.710.140 Commercial Core (CC) Zone District.
The application is divided into three sections: Section I describes the existing conditions of the
project site and environs. Section II outlines the applicant’s proposed development and Section
III addresses the proposed development’s compliance with the applicable review criteria of the
Code. Exhibits are provided as follows:
• Exhibit 1: Land Use Application, Dimensional Requirements Form
• Exhibit 2: Homeowners Association Compliance Form
• Exhibit 3: Vicinity Map
• Exhibit 4: Pre-Application Conference Summary
• Exhibit 5: Fee Agreement
• Exhibit 6: Proof of the Applicant’s Ownership and Authority
• Exhibit 7: Authorization for BendonAdams, LLC to represent the applicant
• Exhibit 8: Transportation Impact Analysis
• Exhibit 9: Mailing addresses of owners within 300 feet of the subject property;
• Exhibit 10: Drawings and Calculations
The applicant has attempted to address all relevant provisions of the Code and to provide
sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of the application. Upon request,
BendonAdams will gladly provide such additional information as may be required in the course of
the review.
Sincerely,
Sara Adams, AICP
BendonAdams LLC
300 So. Spring St. #202 | Aspen, CO
sara@bendonadams.com | 970.925.2855
P20
IV.A.
Page 3 of 7
300-312 e. Hyman GMQS Review
Section I: Existing Conditions
300 West Hyman, commonly known as the Crystal Palace, is currently occupied by Bootsy
Bellows and the adjacent one-story commercial building, currently occupied by Testosterone. The
entire 9,047 square feet lot is designated historic and is located within the Commercial Core
Historic District. The southwest corner of the lot contains a historic building. There have been
many significant changes to the historic building over time as described in the preservation plan
that was presented with the Final HPC application.
Section II: Project Description/The Proposal
The applicant requests Growth Management Review for new lodge rooms, “pillows”, as the final
step in the review process.
The applicant proposes to demolish non-historic additions and buildings on the property to
construct a three story lodge that incorporates the historic landmark. An additional subgrade level
is proposed to house only mechanical equipment for the building. A total of 20 lodge units are
proposed for the project. As the project has been further developed from Conceptual to Final
Review, the proposed lodge net livable area has increased by about 1,800 sf of net livable area.
An additional basement level only to accommodate the necessary space for mechanical that
services the building is proposed for the project. This change, shown at Final Design Review,
does not affect the Conceptual Design Reviews, as massing, height and floor area are not
impacted.
The basement level is proposed to have 3 lodge rooms and accessory lodge services. The ground
level is proposed to have a restaurant, a café, back of house, 3 lodge rooms, and lobby area for
lodge guests. The two upper levels are proposed to contain 14 lodge rooms. A range of lodge
rooms sizes are proposed to accommodate a wide range of guests. All lodge units contain one
bedroom. A total of 20 lodge rooms are proposed. The 20 lodge rooms are an average of 499.8
square feet in size [9,995 sf nla/20 units]. The proposed lodge use is about 1.82:1 [specifically
16,454 sf], where 2.5:1 [22,618 sf] is the maximum allowed. The entire project proposed about
21,160 sf or an FAR of about 2.34:1. The maximum allowable is 2.75:1 or 24,879 sf.
The third floor is setback a maximum of 42 feet from the Hyman façade to reduce the visual impact
of the third story and to provide space for an outdoor area for lodge guests. The third story is just
over 37 feet and the third floor footprint comprises less than 50% of the of the gross parcel square
footage. Consistent with the Conceptual approval, the second floor is 28 feet tall to the top of the
parapet of the new construction.
The existing building contains a total of 12,905 square feet of net leasable area, which calculates
to 54.19 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs), as calculated in Section III.A below. The proposed project
generates 28.5 FTEs; therefore, affordable housing mitigation is not required for this project.
Existing parking is proposed to be removed as part of the project. The mitigation for the removal
of existing parking is proposed to be mitigated through cash in lieu payment, as allowed by the
Land Use Code for development in the Commercial Core Zone District and included as a condition
of approval during Conceptual Review. Lodge units in the Commercial Core do not require parking
and there is a decrease in the amount of net leasable commercial space from existing.
The trash/utility area is accessed off the alley and has interior access from the individual tenants.
The transformer is open to the sky.
P21
IV.A.
Page 4 of 7
300-312 e. Hyman GMQS Review
Section III: Review Requirements
A. Growth Management Review
Existing: The existing buildings have a credit of 54.19 FTEs generated by
existing net leasable area.
Lower Level: 1,794 sf nla (@3.53/1,000) = 6.33 FTEs
Main Level: 7,382 sf nla (@4.7/1,000) = 34.7 FTEs
Upper Level: 3,729 sf nla (@3.53/1,000) = 13.16 FTEs
54.19 FTEs credit
Proposed: The proposed project generates a total of 28.5 FTEs.
Lodge Units: 20 bedrooms (@ 0.6 FTEs per lodge bedroom) = 12 FTEs
Commercial: 3,511sf nla (@ 4.7/1,000) = 16.5
26.470.040.6 Remodeling or replacement of existing commercial or lodge development.
Remodeling or replacement after demolition of existing commercial or hotel/lodge buildings and
portions thereof shall be exempt from the provisions of growth management, provided that no
additional net leasable square footage or lodge units are created and there is no change in use.
If redevelopment involves an expansion of net leasable square footage or lodge units, only the
replacement of existing development shall be exempt. Existing, prior to demolition, net leasable
square footage and lodge units shall be documented by the City Zoning Officer prior to demolition.
Also see definition of net leasable commercial and office space, Section 26.104.100.
The project proposes to replace the commercial use and to add 20 lodge units to the new
addition/historic building.
26.470.050. General requirements.
A. Purpose: The intent of growth management is to provide for orderly development and
redevelopment of the City while providing mitigation from the impacts said development and
redevelopment creates. Different types of development are categorized below, as well as the
necessary review process and review standards for the proposed development. A proposal may
fall into multiple categories and therefore have multiple processes and standards to adhere to and
meet.
B. General requirements: All development applications for growth management review shall
comply with the following standards. The reviewing body shall approve, approve with conditions
or deny an application for growth management review based on the following generally applicable
criteria and the review criteria applicable to the specific type of development:
1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed
development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Applications for multi-year
development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to meet
this standard.
P22
IV.A.
Page 5 of 7
300-312 e. Hyman GMQS Review
There are 112 lodge pillows available per calendar year. Planning Staff has indicated that
there are available allotments in 2017 for the 40 requested lodge pillows associated with the
300 Hyman project.
2. The proposed development is compatible with land uses in the surrounding area, as well
as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan.
The proposed development is mixed use: lodge and commercial uses. The surrounding
buildings include commercial, lodging, residential, office and civic uses. There are no
regulatory master plans associated with this area.
3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district.
The proposed development conforms to the Commercial Core Historic District dimensional
requirements.
4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation
Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the
Planned Development – Project Review approval, as applicable.
The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual and Final Design approvals.
5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60%) of the employees
generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection
26.470.100.A, Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of
affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant
to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at a Category 4 rate as defined in the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may
choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. If an applicant chooses
to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540,
such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for
Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate.
Please see calculations below. Affordable housing is not generated by the project.
6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural
or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least
thirty percent (30%) of the additional free-market residential net livable area, for which the
finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher.
Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable
housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide
mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable housing units that are being
provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may be deed-restricted at any level of
affordability, including residential occupied. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of
Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate
shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative
Extinguishment of the Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.100
Employee/Square Footage Conversion.
No residential units are proposed.
P23
IV.A.
Page 6 of 7
300-312 e. Hyman GMQS Review
7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such
additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project.
Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy
and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste
disposal, parking and road and transit services.
The project is committed to mitigating its proportionate share, as defined by the Aspen
Municipal Code, that is generated by the additional lodge units proposed.
26.470.070 Planning and Zoning Commission applications.
The following types of development shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the
Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Section 26.470.110, Procedures for review, and
the criteria for each type of development described below. Except as noted, all growth
management applications shall comply with the general requirements of Section 26.470.050.
Except as noted, the following types of growth management approvals shall be deducted from
the respective development ceiling levels but shall not be deducted from the annual development
allotments. Approvals apply cumulatively. Growth Management approvals for Subsections
26.470.070(6-10) shall be deducted from the respective annual development allotments.
1. Enlargement of an historic landmark for commercial, lodge or mixed-use development.
The enlargement of an historic landmark building for commercial, lodge or mixed-use
development shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning
Commission based on the following criteria:
a. Up to four (4) employees generated by the additional commercial/lodge development shall
not require the provision of affordable housing. Thirty percent (30%) of the employee
generation above four (4) and up to eight (8) employees shall be mitigated through the
provision of affordable housing or cash in lieu thereof. Sixty percent (60%) of the
employee generation above eight (8) employees shall be mitigated through the provision
of affordable housing or cash in lieu thereof.
For example: A project generating 15 employees shall require employee mitigation for a
total of 5.4 employees, as follows:
First 4 employees = 0 employee
mitigation
Second 4 employees mitigated at
30%
= 1.2 employees
Remaining 7 employees
mitigated at 60%
= 4.2 employees
Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Subsection 4, Affordable housing, of
this Section and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide
mitigation units at a lower category designation.
There are 54.19 FTEs generated from the existing buildings. The proposed lodge project
generates a total of 28.5 FTEs. The existing carry forward credit from the current building
accommodates the proposed lodge project without requiring affordable housing mitigation.
P24
IV.A.
Page 7 of 7
300-312 e. Hyman GMQS Review
b. Up to one (1) free-market residence may be created pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.060.4,
Minor enlargement of an historic landmark for commercial, lodge or mixed-use
development. This shall be cumulative and shall include administrative GMQS approvals
granted prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2007. Additional free-market
units (beyond one [1]) shall be reviewed pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.7, New free-
market residential units within a multi-family or mixed-use project.
Not applicable.
B. Transportation Impact Analysis
Transportation Impact Analysis is required for this project due to the additional lodge rooms
proposed, even though there is a reduction in employees and net leasable area for the property.
A complete TIA is included in the application. TIA is finalized at Growth Management Review,
the final step in the review process.
P25
IV.A.
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
March, 2016 City of Apen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5050
ATTACHMENT 2 – LAND USE APPLICATION
PROJECT:
Name: _______________________________________________________________________________________________
Location:_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)
APPLICANT:
Name: _______________________________________________________________________________________________
Address: _______________________________________________________________________________________________
Phone #:
REPRESENTIVATIVE:
Name: _________________________________________________________________________________________________
Address:________________________________________________________________________________________________
Phone#:
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (Please check all that apply):
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
PROPOSAL: (Description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
Have you attached the following?
Pre-Application Conference Summary
Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement
Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form
Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements – including Written Responses to Review Standards
3-D Model for large project
All plans that are larger than 8.5” X 11” must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be
submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3-D model. Your pre-application conference
summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model.
GMQS Exemption Conceptual PUD Temporary Use
GMQS Allotment Final PUD (& PUD Amendment)
Special Review Subdivision
Conceptual SPA
ESA – 8040 Greenline, Stream Subdivision Exemption (includes
Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, Condominiumization)
Mountain View Plane Final SPA (&SPA
Commercial Design Review Lot Split Amendment)
Residential Design Variance Lot Line Adjustment Small Lodge Conversion/
Expansion
Conditional Use Other:
300 East Hyman Avenue
300 - 312 East Hyman Avenue, Crystal Palace Subdivision
2737-073-38-005 and -007
312 East Hyman Avenue LLC
2001 North Halsted #304, Chicago, IL 60614
312- 850-1680
Mark Hunt - 312-749-2050 mhunt@mdevco.com Sara Adams, BendonAdams , sara@bendonadams.com
970-925-2855
300 S. Spring St. #202, Aspen
see above
x
Final -HPC Major Review
one and two story commercial buildings
construction of three story lodge.
FEES DUE: $ ____3250_________
Exhibit 1
P26
IV.A.
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
March, 2016 City of Apen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5050
ATTACHMENT 3
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM
Project: ______________________________________________________________________________
Applicant: ______________________________________________________________________________
Location: ______________________________________________________________________________
Zone District: ______________________________________________________________________________
Lot Size: _______________________________________________________________________________
Lot Area: _______________________________________________________________________________
(For the purpose of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high-water
mark, easement, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal
Code.)
Commercial net leasable: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _________________________________
Number of residential units: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _________________________________
Number of bedrooms: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _________________________________
Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): ______________
DIMENSIONS:
Floor Area: Existing: _____________ Allowable: ___________Proposed ____________
Principal bldg. height: Existing: _____________ Allowable: ___________Proposed____________
Access. Bldg. height: Existing: _____________ Allowable: __________ Proposed_____________
On-Site parking: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed_____________
% Site coverage: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed_____________
% Open Space: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed_____________
Front Setback: Existing: _____________ Required ____________Proposed _____________
Rear Setback: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed _____________
Combined F/F: Existing: _____________ Required ___________ Proposed _____________
Side Setback: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed _____________
Side Setback: Existing: _____________ Required ___________ Proposed _____________
Combined Sides: Existing: _____________ Required ___________ Proposed _____________
Distance between Bldgs. Existing: _____________ Required: ___________ Proposed _____________
Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed: _____________
Existing non-conformities or encroachments: __________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Variations requested: _____________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
300-312 East Hyman Avenue
312 East Hyman Ave LLC, Mark Hunt Manager
corner of Hyman Avenue and Monarch Street
Commercial Core Historic District
9,047 sf
same as above
12,905 sf 3,511 sf
0 0
0 0
over 40%
2.75:1
24,879 sf
2.34:1 or
21,160 sfabout 13,135 sf
29' 5" historic 40'37' 3" top of parapet
n/a
4 spaces 4 spaces cash in lieu for 4 spaces
n/a0 sf 10%off site improvements
0'
0'
0'
0'NO CHANGE
NONE
P27
IV.A.
Exhibit 2P28IV.A.
Exhibit
300 & 312 East Hyman Avenue – Vicinity Map
3
P29
IV.A.
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Amy Simon, 970.429.2758 DATE: 10/26/16
PROJECT: 300/312 E. Hyman
REPRESENTATIVE: BendonAdams
REQUEST: GMQS Review
DESCRIPTION: On March 9, 2016, HPC granted Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual
Commercial Design Review and Demolition approval for redevelopment of this 9,000 square foot lot.
The applicant proposes to create a new lodge by renovating the existing building commonly known
as The Crystal Palace, and demolishing and replacing an adjacent commercial space. The property
is in the Commercial Core Historic District and is landmark designated.
Development of this lodge project requires Growth Management review because the new lodge units
must receive allocations. Review will be conducted by HPC due to the landmark status of the site.
The applicant proposes 16 lodge rooms which, with each room assumed to accommodate two people,
equates to 32 lodge “pillows.” There are 112 lodge pillows available through GMQS each year. A
project that is in the review process is first in line for all of the 2016 allotments and 50 from 2017. This
applicant intends to apply at the first opportunity to receive remaining 2017 pillows. The earliest date
that an applicant can be taken in is January 2nd, the first business day after the 2017 allotments
become available.
The project will be reviewed as an “Enlargement of a Historic Landmark for Commercial, Lodge or
Mixed Use Development.” Based on calculations provided during the HPC Conceptual review, it is
anticipated that the FTEs represented by the proposed project are less than the FTEs that are
represented by the existing development. If this is the case, no mitigation will be required. A credit
for the difference between the two projects will be created, but the credit will expire if a building permit
is not submitted to make use of it within one year of the date of issuance of a demolition permit
initiating the lodge development. Below are links to the Land Use Code and Land Use Application form
for your convenience:
Land Use Code:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Business-Navigator/Get-Approval-to-Develop/Refer-to-Land-Use-
Code/
Land Use Application:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/Apps%20and%20Fees/Land%20Use%
20Application%20Form.pdf
Relevant Land Use Code Section(s):
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.470.030 Aspen Metro Area Development Ceilings and Annual Allotments
26.470.040.6 Remodeling or Replacement of Existing Commercial or Lodge
Development
26.470.070.1 Enlargement of a Historic Landmark for Commercial, Lodge or
Mixed Use Development
26.470.100 Growth Management, Calculations
26.575.020 Miscellaneous Calculations and Measurements
Exhibit 4
P30
IV.A.
2
Review by: Staff for completeness and recommendation
HPC for decision
Public Hearing: Yes
Planning Fees: $3,250 for 10 hours of staff time. Any unbilled portion of this deposit will be
refunded at the conclusion of the case. Additional staff hours, if needed, will be
billed at $325 per hour.
Referrals: None.
Total Deposit: $3,250
To apply, first submit one printed copy of the following information:
Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement.
An 8 1/2” x 11” vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen.
Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).
Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur,
consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an
ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado,
listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements,
contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply
for the Development Application.
Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states
the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of
the applicant.
HOA Compliance form (Attached).
List of adjacent property owners within 300’ for public hearing.
Scaled drawings representing the HPC Final proposal.
Existing and proposed floor area and net leasable calculations.
A written description of the proposal and an explanation of how the proposed development
complies with the review standards relevant to the development application and relevant land
use approvals associated with the property.
Once the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be
submitted:
Fee for review of application.
A complete copy of the application, including all items listed above, provided by email to the
assigned planner in .pdf format.
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.
P31
IV.A.
312 East Hyman LLC, a Coloradolimited liability company; Mark Hunt, manager312-850-1680mhunt@mdevco.com300-312 East Hyman Avenue, AspenMDev2001 N. Halsted St., Suite 304Chicago, IL 60614325010Mark HuntManager, 312 East Hyman LLCExhibit 5P32IV.A.
Active/43775075.1
730 East Durant Avenue, Suite 200, Aspen, Colorado 81611
Telephone: 970.925.6300 Fax: 970.925.1181 www.shermanhoward.com
Curtis B. Sanders
Sherman & Howard L.L.C.
Direct Dial Number: 970.300.0114
E-mail: csanders@shermanhoward.com
September 27, 2016
City of Aspen
Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: 312 East Hyman Avenue, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; Certificate of
Ownership
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am an attorney licensed by the State of Colorado to practice law.
This letter shall confirm and certify that 312 East Hyman Avenue, LLC, a Colorado
limited liability company, is the owner of certain improved real property located at 300 and 312
East Hyman Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611, and legally described as follows (the "Subject
Property"):
Crystal Palace Subdivision, according to the Plat thereof recorded September 7, 2016 in
Plat Book 115 at Page 58, and as Reception No. 631971, County of Pitkin, State of
Colorado.
312 East Hyman Avenue, LLC’s ownership of the Subject Property is subject to the
following matters of record:
1. Exceptions and mineral reservations as contained in Patent to Aspen Townsite
recorded March 1, 1897 in Book 139 at Page 216 as Reception No. 60156.
2. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Notice of Historic
Designation by City of Aspen recorded January 13, 1975 in Book 295 at Page 515 as Reception
No. 172512.
3. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in City of Aspen, Historic
Designation recorded in Book 307 at Page 909.
Exhibit 6
P33
IV.A.
2
Active/43775075.1
4. Deed of Trust, Assignment of Leases and Rents and Security Agreement dated as of
April 24, 2014 between Jefferies Loancore LLC and 312 East Hyman Avenue, LLC recorded
April 25, 2014 as Reception No. 609760, as amended by First Amendment to Deed of Trust,
Assignment of Leases and Rents and Security Agreement dated as of June 10, 2014 between
Jefferies Loancore LLC and 312 East Hyman Avenue, LLC recorded June 17, 2014 as Reception
No. 611161.
5. Assignment of Leases and Rents dated April 24, 2014 between Jefferies Loancore LLC
and 312 East Hyman Avenue, LLC recorded April 25, 2014 as Reception No. 609761, as
amended by First Amendment to Assignment of Leases and Rents and Security Agreement dated
as of June 10, 2014 between Jefferies Loancore LLC and 312 East Hyman Avenue, LLC
recorded June 17, 2014 as Reception No. 611162.
6. UCC-1 Financing Statement of Jefferies Loancore LLC recorded April 25, 2014 as
Reception No. 609761, as amended by UCC Financing Statement Amendment recorded June 17,
2014 as Reception No. 611163.
7. Assignment of Deed of Trust, Assignment of Leases and Rents and Security
Agreement dated as of August 28, 2014 between Jefferies Loancore LLC as Assignor and JLC
Warehouse V LLC as Assignee recorded August 24, 2015 as Reception No. 622635.
8. Assignment of Leases and Rents dated as of August 28, 2014 between Jefferies
Loancore LLC as Assignor and JLC Warehouse V LLC as Assignee recorded August 24, 2015
as Reception No. 622636.
9. Assignment of Deed of Trust, Assignment of Leases and Rents and Security
Agreement dated as of July 22, 2015 between JLC Warehouse V LLC as Assignor and
DIVCORE CLO 2013-LTD. as Assignee recorded August 24, 2015 as Reception No. 622680.
10. Assignment of Leases and Rents dated as of July 22, 2015 between JLC Warehouse
V LLC as Assignor and DIVCORE CLO 2013-LTD. as Assignee recorded August 24, 2015 as
Reception No. 622681.
11. Easement reserved by Modern Method Corporation as grantor in the Deed to Virginia
M. Metcalf recorded May 12, 1960 in Book 190 at Page 487 as Reception No. 109667.
12. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Multipurpose Easement
Agreement Electric and Communication Utilities between William R. Shaw Estate and Mountain
States Telephone and Telegraph Company and Micro Cable Communications Inc. recorded June
15, 1976 in Book 313 at Page 277 as Reception No. 184652.
13. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Resolution of The Aspen
Historic Preservation Commission Approving an application for Minor Development Located at
312 E. Hyman Avenue recorded June 3, 1999 as Reception No. 431812.
14. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Agreement for Easement
and Access recorded July 25, 2001 as Reception No. 456846
P34
IV.A.
3
Active/43775075.1
15. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in the Crystal Palace
Subdivision Plat recorded September 7, 2016 in Plat Book 115 at Page 58, and as Reception No.
631971.
Sincerely,
Curtis B. Sanders
P35
IV.A.
Exhibit 7P36IV.A.
DATE:
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS:
APPLICANT CONTACT
INFORMATION:
NAME, COMPANY,
ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL
Peak Hour Max Trips Generated MMLOS TDM Total Trips Mitigated
AM -16.3 5 -1.76 3.24 0.00
Sara Adams
BendonAdams
300 So. Spring St., #202
970-925-2855 sara@bendonadams.com
Summary and Narrative:
Narrative:
1/26/2017
300 East Hyman Avenue
300 East Hyman Avenue
Trip Generation
SUMMARY
Trip Mitigation NET TRIPS TO BE
MITIGATED
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.
Project Description
In the space below provide a description of the proposed project.
A 20 room hotel with restaurant and café on the ground level is proposed. The project incorporates a historic landmark (aka Crystal Palace)
into the overall hotel proposal.
MMLOS
Include any additional information that pertains to the MMLOS plan in the space provided below.
Sidewalks will be upgraded to meet Engineering Standards.
TDM
The project proposes onsite amenities. Describe the combination of amenities below. Providing a combination of creative onsite
amenities reduces the need for SOV trips throughout the day. Services within the development that will reduce the need for auto trips
include grocery, restaurant, recreation rental, dry cleaning, child care, bicycle repair stations, etc. A combination of amenities is required.
A restaurant and café are part of the proposed project. Dry cleaning services will be available through the hotel.
Exhibit 8
P37
IV.A.
Explain the proposed trip reduction marketing/incentive program in the space provided. A trip reduction marketing programs should
include a number of the following strategies: orientation to trip reduction programs and benefits; orientation to specific alternative
transportation modes such as bus service information, bike/walk route maps, etc.; publishing of web or traditional informational
materials; events and contests such as commuter fairs, new employee orientations, bike to work days, etc.; educational opportunities
such bicycle commute/repair classes; web or traditional materials aimed at guests/customers such as bike/walk maps, free transit day
passes, etc.; incentive programs such as prizes, rewards or discounts for alternative commuting.
The operator of the hotel will provide transportation information in the employee orientation and in employee break rooms.
Include any additional information that pertains to the TDM plan in the space provided below.
Enter Text Here
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.
Slopes Between Back of Curb and Sidewalk
2% Slope at Pedestrian Driveway Crossings
Pedestrian Directness Factor (See callout number 9 on the MMLOS sheet for an example)
Enforcement and Financing
Provide an overview of the Enforcement and Financing plan for the proposed transportation mitigation measures.
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 MMLOS measures are a requirement of building permit certificate of occupancy. The TDM measures will be the responsibility of
individual tenants of the building. The owner or tenant will make a good faith effort to assess compliance and effectiveness of the
implemented mesures and submit information to the City.
Requirements of the TIA will be included in the lease agreements with the tenant(s).
Scheduling and Implementation Responsibility of Mitigation Measures
Provide an overview of the scheduling and implementation responsibility for the proposed transportation mitigation measures.
The MMLOS measures are a requirement of building permit certificate of occupancy. The TDM measures will be the responsibility of
individual tenants of the building.
Monitoring and Reporting
P38
IV.A.
= input
= calculation
DATE:
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS:
APPLICANT CONTACT
INFORMATION:
NAME, COMPANY,
ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL
Minor
Entering Exiting Total Entering Exiting Total
Commercial (sf)-9394.0 sf -14.71 -6.61 -21.32 -15.56 -23.33 -38.89
Free-Market Housing (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Affordable Housing (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Lodging (Units)20 Units 2.85 2.15 5.00 3.22 2.98 6.20
Essential Public Facility (sf)0.0 sf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
-11.86 -4.46 -16.32 -12.33 -20.36 -32.69
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.
Sara Adams
BendonAdams
300 So. Spring St., #202
970-925-2855 sara@bendonadams.com
Trip Generation
1/26/2017
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?
300 East Hyman Avenue
300 East Hyman Avenue
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
P39
IV.A.
= input
= calculation
5
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?
No 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?Yes 5
5
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?No 0
0
7 Are slopes between back of curb and sidewalk equal to or less than
5%?Yes 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.
No 0
10 Does the project propose an improved crosswalk? This measure must
get City approval before receiving credit. No 0
0
11 Are existing driveways removed from the street?No 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.
No 0
15 Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian or bicyclist
interaction with vehicles at driveway areas?No 0
0
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?* No 0
19 Are traffic calming features proposed that are part of an approved
plan (speed humps, rapid flash)?*No 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
5Pedestrian Total*
MMLOS Input Page
Subtotal
SubtotalSidewalk Condition on Adjacent BlocksSidewalk Condition on Project FrontageSubtotal
Instructions: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable to each measure under the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections.
Subtotal
Subtotal
PedestriansSubtotalAdditional Proposed ImprovementsTOTAL NUMBER OF TRIPS MITIGATED:Pedestrian RoutesTraffic Calming and Pedestrian NetworkDriveways, Parking, and Access ConsiderationsP40
IV.A.
Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points
22 Is a new bicycle path being implemented with City approved design?No 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
Bicycle Parking27 Is the project providing bicycle parking?No 0
0
0
Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points
28 Is seating/bench proposed?No 0
29 Is a trash receptacle proposed?No 0
30 Is transit system information (signage) proposed?No 0
31 Is shelter/shade proposed?No 0
32 Is enhanced pedestrian-scale lighting proposed?No 0
33 Is real-time transit information proposed?No 0
34 Is bicycle parking/storage proposed specifically for bus stop use?No 0
35 Are ADA improvements proposed?No 0
0
36 Is a bus pull-out proposed at an existing stop?No 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
Bicycles Total*
Transit Total*BicyclesModifications to Existing Bicycle PathsTransitBasic AmenitiesSubtotal
Subtotal
Enhanced AmenitiesSubtotal
Subtotal
P41
IV.A.
Category Measure
Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT
Reductions
Will an onsite ammenities strategy be implemented?Yes
Which onsite ammenities will be implemented?Hotel with Retail Servicing
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%
10.00%
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?No
What is the degree of implementation?
What is the employer size?
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?No
What is the employer size?
What number of parking spots are available for the program?
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?Yes
What percentage of employees/guests are eligible?100%
0.87%
10.00%
10.78%
1. 22% work trips represents a mixed-used site (SF Bay Area Travel Survey). See Assumptions Tab for more detail.
Maximum Reduction Allowed in CategoryTransit System Improvements Strategies1
2
4
5
6
8
9
10
4.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category
Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Bikeshare Program
0.00%
TDM Input Page
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%Commute Trip Reduction Programs StrategiesOnsite Servicing
Shared Shuttle Service
Neighborhood/Site Enhancements Strategies10.00%
0.00%
Network Expansion
Service Frequency/Speed
Transit Access Improvement
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
11
12
13
14
15
21
16
17
18
19
20
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.
Exhibit 3
P42
IV.A.
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: 273707338009 on 01/24/2017
Instructions:
Disclaimer:
http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com
Exhibit 9
P43
IV.A.
305-7 MILL STREET LLC
CHICAGO, IL 60614
2001 NORTH HALSTED #304
CITY OF ASPEN
ASPEN, CO 81611
130 S GALENA ST
HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP INC
PHOENIX, AZ 85016
2710 E CAMELBACK RD STE 200
FREDRICK LARRY D
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH ST #G101
ROBERTS JANET A
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH ST #G101
MOJO ASPEN LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH #G102
CLARKS ASPEN LLC
BLANDING , UT 84511
818 SOUTH MAIN ST
GRAND SLAM HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH ST #101
ORR ROBERT L
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
2700 G ROAD #12A
CLARK FAMILY TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 362
BRINING ROBERT D
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH #203
PCU-5 LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
418 E COOPER AVE #201
HART GEORGE DAVID & SARAH
SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615
PO BOX 5491
BERNSTEIN JEREMY M PROFIT SHARING PLAN
ASPEN, CO 81611
610 NORTH ST
KELLY GARY
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 12356
DAVIDSON DONALD W
ASPEN, CO 81611
864 CEMETERY LN
1000 EAST HOPKINS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH #104
BRINING ROBERT
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH ST #203
DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH #104
GOODING NANCY A
ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111
4800 S HOLLY ST
TRUE JAMES R
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 2864
JOHNSON PETER C & SANDRA K
ASPEN, CO 81611-1008
51 OVERLOOK DR
PARK CENTRAL CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH ST STE 203
WENDELIN ASSOC
PITTSFORD , NY 14534
1173 PITTSFORD VICTOR RD #250
FOOTLOOSE MOCCASIN MAKERS INC
CANON CITY , CO 812129484
44 SILVERADO CT
400 EAST HYMAN LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
400 E HYMAN AVE # A202
MTN ENTERPRISES 80B
EAGLE, CO 816315739
PO BOX 5739
DOLE MARGARET M
ASPEN, CO 816111989
400 E HYMAN AVE #302
KANTZER TAYLOR FAM TRST #1
MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266
216 SEVENTEENTH ST
400 HYMAN LLC
BOCA RATON, FL 33496
6829 QUEENFERRY CIR
P44
IV.A.
400 HYMAN LLC
RIFLE, CO 816500351
PO BOX 351
304 E HOPKINS HOLDINGS LLC
CHICAGO, IL 60614
2001 N HOLSTED #304
PROSPECTOR FRACTIONAL OWNERS ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
301 E HYMAN AVE #108
ELLIOTT ELYSE A TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
610 NORTH ST
COLLINS BLOCK LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
205 S GALENA ST
GUNION JOHN F
DAVIS, CA 95616
1004 MARINA CIR
MOUNTAIN FORGE LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 3807
WELLS FARGO BANK
CARLSBAD, CA 92018
PO BOX 2609
MILL STREET PLAZA ASSOC LLC
ASPEN , CO 81611
602 E COOPER #202
WHEELER SQUARE - CASPER FAMILY LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
315 E HYMAN
KAUFMAN GIDEON I
ASPEN, CO 81611
315 E HYMAN AVE #305
VANOVER STEFANIE
ASPEN, CO 81611
533 E HOPKINS AVE
407 HYMAN LLC
GLENWOOD SPRINGS , CO 81601
51027 HWY 6 & 24 STE 100
RIVOLI INVESTMENTS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
533 E HOPKINS AVE 3RD FLR
LARRABEE DONALD C JR
COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80909
1417 POTTER DR STE 105
SHAW ROBERT
FORT WORTH, TX 76107
5408 BIRCHMAN AVE
DESOTO LINDA JANE LIVING TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
155 LONE PINE RD #9
GORDON BRIAN S
FRANKLIN, MI 48025
26985 CRESTWOOD
MORRONGIELLO LYDIA LIVING TRUST
BOULDER , CO 80301
8109 WILLOW BEND CT
FEDER HAROLD L & ZETTA F
BOULDER, CO 80302-7550
985 CASCADE AVE
DAVIDSON ARIAIL SCOTT
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 5141
BOND ANN
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85255
8602 E VISTA DEL LAGO
PLACE PENNY L REV TRUST
LITTLETON, CO 80121
5701 S COLORADO BLVD
PLACE BRADLEY E JR REV TRUST
LITTLETON, CO 80121
5701 S COLORADO BLVD
BROWN SHANE & KRISTINE
MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266
222 N DIANTHUS ST
YOUNG BARBARA A
ASPEN, CO 81611
210 E HYMAN #9
WHITMAN WENDALIN
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 472
WHITMAN WENDALIN
ASPEN, CO 81611
210 E HYMAN AVE #101
IFTNFS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
0115 GLEN EAGLES DR
BUSH ALAN DAVID
ASPEN, CO 81611-3342
0046 HEATHER LN
P45
IV.A.
JMS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
0115 GLEN EAGLES DR
GUTNER KENNETH H REV TRUST
HIGHLAND PARK, IL 60035
260 N DEERE PARK DRIVE
201 EH INVESTMENTS LLC
LOS ANGELES, CA 90024
10880 WILSHIRE BLVD #2222
COLLINS BLOCK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
204 S MILL ST
KATIE REED PLAZA CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
301 E HOPKINS AVE
SEGUIN BUILDING CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
304 E HYMAN AVE
PARK CENTRAL WEST CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
210 E HYMAN AVE
JPS NEVADA TRUST
HENDERSON, NV 89074
1701 N GREEN VALLEY PKWY #9C
SHVACHKO NATALIA
NEW YORK, NY 10022
35 SUTTON PL #19B
SEDOY MICHAEL
NEW YORK, NY 10022
35 SUTTON PL #19B
308 EAST HOPKINS CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
308 E HOPKINS AVE
FIERCELY LOCAL
ASPEN, CO 81611
328 E HYMAN AVE
314 HEXAGON LLC
OLATHE, KS 66061
25880 W 104 TERR
COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS MEDIA CO
CARSON CITY, NV 89701
580 MALLORY WY
314-200 HEXAGON LLC
OLATHE, KS 66061
25880 W 104 TERR
MOTHER LODE CONDO ASSOC INC
OLATHE, KS 66061
25880 W 104 TER
314-PH HEXAGON LLC
OLATHE, KS 66061
25880 W 104 TERR
MOTHER LODE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
314 E HYMAN AVE
CLAUSEN FAMILY TRUST #1
MORRIS, IL 60450
900 W US ROUTE 6
JACOBSON FAMILY TRUST
FALLBROOK, CA 92028
2168 SANTA MARGARITA DR
AJAX JMG INVESTMENTS LLC
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 902122974
9401 WILSHIRE BLVD 9TH FL
LORING PETER & ELIZABETH S
BOSTON, MA 02110
230 CONGRESS ST
FYRWALD JON ERIK & GUDRUN
HINSDALE , IL 60521
126 EAST HICKORY ST
JAFFE JONATHAN & KAREN
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
88 EMERALD BAY
DCBD2 LLC
DALLAS, TX 75201
1601 ELM ST 8TH FL
NEWMAN KERRY J & RICKI R
NEWBURGH, IN 47630
617 PRINCE DR
BOGIN ROBERT M
EVERGREEN, CO 80439
4280 S MEADOW BROOK LN
PRODINGER IRMA
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 1245
HOSKIN REEDE
BASALT, CO 81621-2478
PO BOX 2478
KAUFMAN GIDEON I
ASPEN, CO 81611
315 E HYMAN AVE STE 305
P46
IV.A.
KEBER VINCENT M III
DENVER, CO 80204
1301 WAZEE #2E
KATIE REED BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
407 S HUNTER ST #3
RACZAK JOSEPH S & JANET L
SNOWMASS, CO 81654
0234 LIGHT HILL RD
CARRIGAN RICHARD A JR
WARRENVILLE, IL 60555
2S526 WILLIAMS RD
G & K LAND CO LLC
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
0167 WILLOW LN
LEATHERMAN ROBERT D
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 11930
PITNER N KATHRYN
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 11930
HOFFMAN JOHN L & SHARON R TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
214 E HOPKINS AVE
210 COOPER CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
210 E COOPER AVE
THOR 228 S MILL ST LLC
NEW YORK, NY 10018
25 W 39TH ST
SHENNAN MELISSA A
CHICAGO, IL 60610
1242 N LAKE SHORE DR #4S
SCULL JAMES E
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 2051
LINDNER PROPERTIES LLC
BELLEVUE, WA 98008
17017 SE 26TH ST
STETSON WILLIS JR & SALLY
NEWTOWN SQUARE, PA 19073
23 SLEEPY HOLLOW DR
LEE FRANCIS A
MOORESVILLE, NC 28117
706 NORMANDY
WHEELER SQUARE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
315 E HYMAN AVE #305
ASPEN COMMERCIAL CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
307 S MILL ST
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 1248
LIMELIGHT SUB/PUD
ASPEN, CO 81611
E HYMAN AVE
TOM THUMB BUILDING CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
400 E HYMAN AVE
P47
IV.A.
ScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY02.13.17RAGMQS REVIEWmodif.modif.2/13/2017 3:32:30 PMCS−113−440041.23.17COVER SHEET300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, COASPEN, COLOCAL JURISDICTION:THE CITY OF ASPEN130 S. GALENA STREETASPEN, CO 81611TEL (970) 429-2761CONTACT: BY DEPARTMENTARCHITECT:MODIF. ARCHITECTURE, LLC.1200 W. LAKE ST. SUITE 200CHICAGO, IL 60607TEL (312) 884-9583CONTACTS: STEPHEN COUGHLIN, RA OR ROB AVILA, RA, LEED APLANDLORD:300-312 EAST HYMAN ASPEN, LLC.2001 N. HALSTED ST., SUITE 304CHICAGO, IL 60614TEL (312) 850-1680CONTACT: JEFF RICHMANLAND PLANNER:BENDONADAMS, LLC300 S. SPRING ST. #202ASPEN, CO 81611TEL 970-925-2855CONTACT: SARA ADAMS, AICPVICINITY MAPDRAWING LISTSHEET NUMBER SHEET NAMECS-1 COVER SHEET- IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLATEC-1 EXISTING CONDITION FLOOR PLANSEC-2 EXISTING CONDITION FLOOR PLANSEC-3 EXISTING CONDITION FLOOR PLANSPA-1 EXISTING PUBLIC AMENITYPA-2 PROPOSED PUBLIC AMENITYA-010 SITE PLANA-110 FLOOR PLANA-111 FLOOR PLANSA-112 FLOOR PLANSA-113 PROPOSED ROOF PLANFAR-1 FAR CALCULATIONSFAR-2 FAR CALCUALTIONSFAR-3 FAR CALCULATIONSNL-1 NET LEASABLE PLANSNL-2 NET LEASABLE PLANSNL-3 NET LEASABLE PLANSA-200 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA-210 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA-270 PROPOSED EXTERIOR LIGHTINGTIA TIA SITE PLANNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONExhibit 10P48
IV.A.
P49IV.A.
P50IV.A.
NET LEASABLE AREA: 1794 SFTOTAL COMMON AREA: 678 SFNET LEASABLE AREA 1794 SFCOMMON - 678 SFScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY02.13.17RAGMQS REVIEWmodif.modif. 1/8" = 1’−0"2/13/2017 3:32:36 PMEC−113−440041.23.17EXISTING CONDITION FLOOR PLANS300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CONO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP51
IV.A.
NET LEASABLE AREA: 7382 SFNET LEASABLE AREA - 7382 SFScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY02.13.17RAGMQS REVIEWmodif.modif. 1/8" = 1’−0"2/13/2017 3:32:44 PMEC−213−440041.23.17EXISTING CONDITION FLOOR PLANS300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CONO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP52
IV.A.
NET LEASABLE AREA: 3729 SFPATIO AREA: 540SFTOTAL NET LEASABLE: 3729 SFCOMMON AREA: 744 SFNET LEASABLE -2530 SFNET LEASABLE -1199 SFCOMMON - 755 SFScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY02.13.17RAGMQS REVIEWmodif.modif. 1/8" = 1’−0"2/13/2017 3:32:50 PMEC−313−440041.23.17EXISTING CONDITION FLOOR PLANS300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CONO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP53
IV.A.
16.33 S.F. TREE GRATE16.33 S.F. TREE GRATE16.33 S.F. TREE GRATE16.33 S.F. TREE GRATE16.33 S.F. TREE GRATE16.33 S.F. TREE GRATE16.33 S.F. TREE GRATE19.95 S.F. TREE GRATE257.62 S.F. LANDSCAPING183.48 S.F. LANDSCAPING156.73 S.F. LANDSCAPINGEXISTING PUBLIC AMENITY SPACE = 0 SFScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY02.13.17RAGMQS REVIEWmodif.modif. 3/32" = 1’−0"2/13/2017 3:33:10 PMPA−113−440041.23.17EXISTING PUBLIC AMENITY300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 3/32" = 1'-0"1EXISTING PUBLIC AMENITYCALCULATIONNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP54
IV.A.
ADJACENT BUILDINGHYMAN AVENUEMONARCH STREETONE-WAY ALLEYEXIST. STREET PARKING300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.THREE STORYLODGEEXIST. STREET PARKINGOPEN TO SKY16' - 2"OPEN TO SKY10' - 0"TCOVERED TRASHAREA20' - 6"53' - 4"15' - 6"90' - 0"100' - 0"12' - 2"16' - 2"0' - 8"ALLEY DRAINAGE ISSUESWILL BE ADDRESSEDIN ENGINEERING PLANS BENCH WILL BEPROVIDED AT HUNTERCREEK BUS STOP -15' - 0"PROPOSED PUBLICAMENITY2,832 S.F.(RIGHT OF WAYIMPROVEMENTS)PROPOSED PLANTER, TYP.EXIST. TREETO REMAIN, TYP.OF 7 ALONGGALENA AVE.PROPOSED DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE, TYP.BENCH WILL BEPROVIDED AT HUNTERCREEK BUS STOP -PROPOSED TREE, TYP. OF 3(SILVACELL NOT REQ'D.)PROPOSED PAVERS INLANDSCAPE AREA, TYP.PROPOSED TREE GRATEPROPOSED LANDSCAPEPLANTER, TYP.EXIST. BRICKPAVERSPROPOSED CONC.WALKPROPOSED LANDSCAPEPLANTER, TYP.ScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY02.13.17RAGMQS REVIEWmodif.modif. 1/8" = 1’−0"2/13/2017 3:33:12 PMPA−213−440041.23.17PROPOSED PUBLIC AMENITY300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CON 1/8" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED PUBLIC AMENITY PLANNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP55
IV.A.
ADJACENT BUILDINGHYMAN AVENUEMONARCH STREETONE-WAY ALLEYEXIST. STREET PARKINGPROPOSED PLANTER, TYP.EXIST. TREETO REMAIN, TYP.OF 7 ALONGGALENA AVE.300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.THREE STORYLODGEEXIST. STREET PARKINGPROPOSED DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE, TYP.OPEN TO SKY16' - 2"OPEN TO SKY10' - 0"T300 SFCOVERED TRASHAREA73' - 10"15' - 6"90' - 0"100' - 0"12' - 2"16' - 2"ALLEY DRAINAGE ISSUESWILL BE ADDRESSEDIN ENGINEERING PLANS BENCH WILL BEPROVIDED AT HUNTERCREEK BUS STOP -8' - 0"PROPOSED TREE, TYP. OF 3(SILVACELL NOT REQ'D.)3' - 9"PROPOSED PAVERS INLANDSCAPE AREA, TYP.8' - 2"8' - 0"PROPOSED TREE GRATEPROPOSED LANDSCAPEPLANTER, TYP.EXIST. BRICKPAVERSPROPOSED CONC.WALKPROPOSED LANDSCAPEPLANTER, TYP.8"4"O"2' - 10 1/2"3' - 4 1/2"ScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY02.13.17RAGMQS REVIEWmodif.modif. 1/8" = 1’−0"2/13/2017 3:32:21 PMA−01013−440041.23.17SITE PLAN300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 1/8" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED SITE PLANNAWNING ABOVE, TYP.NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP56
IV.A.
UPUPSTAIR #1L201STAIR #2L202ELEV.L203FRT. ELEV.L20490' - 0"100' - 0"783 SFMECHANICAL RM.L205776 SFMECHANICAL RM.L2066' - 0"4' - 0"6' - 0"16' - 6"533 SFPOOLMECHANICALL20786 SFEGRESSCORRIDORL20714' - 11"14' - 9 1/2"11' - 0"11' - 0"16' - 6"52' - 6 1/2"27' - 11 1/2"CORRIDORL200UNEXCAVATED AREAUNEXCAVATED AREAUNEXCAVATED AREAUNEXCAVATED AREAScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY02.13.17RAGMQS REVIEWmodif.modif. 1/8" = 1’−0"2/13/2017 3:34:41 PMA−11013−440041.23.17FLOOR PLAN300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CON 1/8" = 1'-0"1LOWER LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLANNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP57
IV.A.
UPUPUPDNUPDNDNUP90' - 0"100' - 0"23' - 5"FITNESSL100191 SFGUEST ROOM 18L101SPAL102WOMEN'SLOCKERL103RECEPTIONL104SHOWERL105SHOWERL106POOLL107SHOWERL108SHOWERL109RECEPTIONL110MEN'S LOCKERL111192 SFGUEST ROOM 20L112CORRIDORL114STAIR #1L117STAIR #2L118FRT. ELEV.L119ELEV.L12027' - 9 1/2"19' - 4"5' - 0"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"15' - 9 1/2"15' - 9 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"13' - 3 1/2"5' - 0"19' - 4"27' - 9 1/2"10' - 2"5' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"10' - 10 1/2"14' - 11"10' - 10 1/2"5' - 0"9' - 3"23' - 4"14' - 11"17' - 3"21' - 6 1/2"43' - 11 1/2"21' - 6 1/2"14' - 11"5' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"14' - 11"10' - 6"10' - 2"8' - 0"5' - 6"4' - 6"5' - 6"5' - 0"10' - 6"9' - 3"23' - 4"EGRESSCORRIDORL116JACUZZITUB10' - 1 1/2"8' - 0"18' - 11"34' - 2 1/2"192 SFGUEST ROOM 19121RESTAURANT110ELEV.119ELEV.118300 SFTRASH ANDUTILITY AREA103KITCHEN101STAIR #2113VESTIBLE108LOUNGE109ELEVATORLOBBY117DISPLAYKITCHEN100SHAREDWOMEN'SRESTROOM106SHARED MEN'SRESTROOM116CAFE107JAN.120EGRESSCORRIDOR111STAIR #1112OPEN TO BELOW100' - 0"90' - 0"26' - 5 1/2"17' - 7"5' - 0"19' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"16' - 2 1/2"10' - 0"5' - 0"30' - 0"28' - 9"11' - 4"16' - 1"13' - 0"21' - 8 1/2"9' - 7"5' - 0"19' - 0"15' - 10"15' - 8 1/2"11' - 0"11' - 3"9' - 6 1/2"8' - 1"8' - 1 1/2"24' - 0 1/2"4' - 6"RAMP DN.8"4"1' - 10"12' - 3"1' - 10"12' - 3"1' - 10"30' - 0"30' - 0"23' - 2"7' - 0"31' - 10 1/2"85' - 6"14' - 11"8' - 10 1/2"6' - 6"8' - 10 1/2"8' - 10 1/2"RAMP DN.208 SFGUEST ROOM 15105208 SFGUEST ROOM 16114208 SFGUEST ROOM 17115CORRIDOR10223' - 6 1/2"STORAGE104INOPERABLE DOORINOPERABLE DOORINOPERABLE DOORScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY02.13.17RAGMQS REVIEWmodif.modif. 1/8" = 1’−0"2/13/2017 3:32:23 PMA−11113−440041.23.17FLOOR PLANS300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CONN 1/8" = 1'-0"1LOWER LEVEL 1/8" = 1'-0"2GROUND FLOORAWNING ABOVE, TYP.NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP58
IV.A.
DNUPDNUPPOOL67' - 5"FOLDINGDOORS12' - 7"23' - 7"BUILT IN LOUNGE SEATINGRAILING SETBACK3' - 6"ROOF ACCESSRAILINGPLANTING AREA , TYP.RAILINGRAILING623 SFSUITE 11300708 SFSUITE 14306878 SFSUITE 12303691 SFSUITE 13304CORRIDOR305ELEV.313ELEV.31479 SFEGRESSCORRIDOR310STAIR #1311STAIR #231214' - 11 1/2"19' - 8"26' - 5 1/2"26' - 4"35' - 0"30' - 5 1/2"6' - 4"5' - 10"38' - 0"FOLDINGDOORSOUTDOORCABANAOUTDOORCABANA14' - 7 1/2"30' - 1"7' - 11"28' - 1"26' - 7"2' - 4"24' - 11 1/2"31' - 3 1/2"791 SFSUITE 10213352 SFSUITE 52065' - 9"4' - 6"9' - 0"5' - 0"30' - 0"19' - 11"18' - 4"18' - 3"29' - 9"26' - 11"1001 SFSUITE 9212609 SFSUITE 8211562 SFSUITE 7210593 SFSUITE 6209424 SFSUITE 2203787 SFSUITE 1214CORRIDOR215EGRESSCORRIDOR216STAIR #2218STAIR #1217ELEV.219ELEV.2204' - 11 1/2"5' - 0"ROOF AREAGREEN ROOF AREA(664 S.F.)5' - 0"28' - 1"27' - 7"5' - 0"29' - 7"15' - 4 1/2"15' - 5"13' - 0"30' - 10 1/2"31' - 7"425 SFSUITE 3L212352 SFSUITE 4L21713' - 0"ScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY02.13.17RAGMQS REVIEWmodif.modif. 1/8" = 1’−0"2/13/2017 3:32:26 PMA−11213−440041.23.17FLOOR PLANS300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CONN 1/8" = 1'-0"33RD FLOOR 1/8" = 1'-0"12ND FLOORNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP59
IV.A.
GREEN ROOF AREAMECHANICAL SCREENINGMECHANICAL SCREENINGMECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AREAGREEN ROOF AREA(2,378 S.F.)3RD FLOORPOOL AND DECK BELOWROOFACCESSEXIST.CORNICECABANA BELOWCABANA BELOW26' - 10 1/2"31' - 6"42' - 0 1/2"15' - 0 1/2"TOP OF ELEVATORSHAFTSGREEN ROOF AREA(94 S.F.)SCUPPER,TYP.ScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY02.13.17RAGMQS REVIEWmodif.modif. 1/8" = 1’−0"2/13/2017 3:32:27 PMA−11313−440041.23.17PROPOSED ROOF PLAN300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 1/8" = 1'-0"1ROOF PLANN 1/8" = 1'-0"2UPPER ROOF PLANNNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP60
IV.A.
UPUPSTAIR #1L201STAIR #2L202ELEV.L203FRT. ELEV.L204MECHANICAL RM.L205MECHANICAL RM.L206POOLMECHANICALL207EGRESSCORRIDORL207NON- UNIT COMMON AREA LODGE 3,332 SF NON-UNIT COMMON AREA447 SF(EXEMPT)CORRIDORL200ScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY02.13.17RAGMQS REVIEWmodif.modif. 1/8" = 1’−0"2/13/2017 3:32:52 PMFAR−113−440041.23.17FAR CALCULATIONS300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CON 1/8" = 1'-0"1LOWER LEVEL 2 - FAR CALCULATIONSNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP61
IV.A.
UPDNUPCOMMERCIAL AREA4,185 SFTRASH ANDUTILITY AREA103RESTAURANT110ELEV.118ELEV.119NON-UNIT COMMONAREA 2,544 SFLODGE AREA 1,589 SFSTAIR #2113KITCHEN101VESTIBLE108LOUNGE109ELEVATORLOBBY117DISPLAYKITCHEN100CORRIDOR102SHAREDWOMEN'SRESTROOM106SHARED MEN'SRESTROOM116CAFE107JAN.120EGRESSCORRIDOR111STAIR #1112GUEST ROOM 15105GUEST ROOM 16114GUEST ROOM 17115STORAGE104LODGE AREA682 SFLODGE AREA7,198 SF(EXEMPT)NON-UNIT COMMON AREA1,779 SF(EXEMPT)FITNESSL100GUEST ROOM 18L101SPAL102WOMEN'SLOCKERL103RECEPTIONL104SHOWERL105SHOWERL106POOLL107SHOWERL108SHOWERL109RECEPTIONL110MEN'S LOCKERL111GUEST ROOM 20L112CORRIDORL114STAIR #1L117STAIR #2L118FRT. ELEV.L119ELEV.L120EGRESSCORRIDORL116203 SFMEN'SRESTROOML122WOMEN'SRESTROOML123GUEST ROOM 19121GROUND FLOOR0' - 0"2ND FLOOR13' - 4 1/2"LOWER LEVEL-14' - 8"14' - 8"73 SF OF EXPOSED WALLBELOW GRADENORTH GRADE-2' - 9"B/O POOL22' - 7"ScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY02.13.17RAGMQS REVIEWmodif.modif. 1/8" = 1’−0"2/13/2017 3:32:56 PMFAR−213−440041.23.17FAR CALCUALTIONS300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 1/8" = 1'-0"2MAIN FLOOR - FAR CALCULATIONS 1/8" = 1'-0"1LOWER LEVEL - FAR CALCULATIONS 1/8" = 1'-0"3WEST ELEVATION - FAR WALL AREANNNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP62
IV.A.
DNDNNON-UNIT COMMONAREA 546 SFLODGE AREA7,499 SF ELEV.219ELEV.220SUITE 5206SUITE 10213ROOF AREAROOF AREA664 SF(EXEMPT)STAIR #1217SUITE 9212SUITE 8211SUITE 7210SUITE 6209SUITE 1214SUITE 2203CORRIDOR215EGRESSCORRIDOR216STAIR #2218SUITE 3L212SUITE 4L217LODGE AREA3,944 SF OUTDOORTERRACE2,998 SFPOOLSUITE 11300SUITE 14306SUITE 12303SUITE 13304CORRIDOR305ELEV.313ELEV.314EGRESSCORRIDOR310STAIR #1311STAIR #2312NON-UNIT COMMONAREA 546 SFScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY02.13.17RAGMQS REVIEWmodif.modif. 1/8" = 1’−0"2/13/2017 3:32:58 PMFAR−313−440041.23.17FAR CALCULATIONS300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 1/8" = 1'-0"1SECOND FLOOR - FAR CALCULATIONS 1/8" = 1'-0"2THIRD FLOOR - FAR CALCULATIONSNNNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP63
IV.A.
UPUPSTAIR #1L201STAIR #2L202ELEV.L203FRT. ELEV.L204783 SFMECHANICAL RM.L205776 SFMECHANICAL RM.L206533 SFPOOLMECHANICALL207617 SFCORRIDORL200EXEMPT - NON-UNIT SPACEScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY02.13.17RAGMQS REVIEWmodif.modif. 1/8" = 1’−0"2/14/2017 11:00:00 AMNL−113−440041.23.17NET LEASABLE PLANS300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 1/8" = 1'-0"1LOWER LEVEL 2 - NET LEASABLENNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP64
IV.A.
UPDNDNUPUPUPUPADJACENT BUILDING3,511 SFNET LEASABLE SPACETRASH ANDUTILITY AREA103RESTAURANT110ELEV.119ELEV.118STAIR #2113KITCHEN101VESTIBLE108LOUNGE109ELEVATORLOBBY117DISPLAYKITCHEN100CORRIDOR102SHAREDWOMEN'SRESTROOM106SHARED MEN'SRESTROOM116CAFE107JAN.120EGRESSCORRIDOR111STAIR #1112GUEST ROOM 15105GUEST ROOM 16114GUEST ROOM 17115STORAGE104LODGE AREA624 SFFITNESSL100GUEST ROOM 18L101SPAL102WOMEN'SLOCKERL103RECEPTIONL104SHOWERL105SHOWERL106POOLL107SHOWERL108SHOWERL109RECEPTIONL110MEN'S LOCKERL111GUEST ROOM 20L112CORRIDORL114STAIR #1L117STAIR #2L118FRT. ELEV.L119ELEV.L120EGRESSCORRIDORL116MEN'SRESTROOML122WOMEN'SRESTROOML123GUEST ROOM 19121LODGE AREA575 SFScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY02.13.17RAGMQS REVIEWmodif.modif. 1/8" = 1’−0"2/14/2017 11:00:03 AMNL−213−440041.23.17NET LEASABLE PLANS300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 1/8" = 1'-0"2MAIN FLOOR - NET LEASABLEN 1/8" = 1'-0"1LOWER LEVEL - NET LEASABLENNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP65
IV.A.
DNUPDNLODGE AREA5,896 SFELEV.219SUITE 10213SUITE 5206ELEV.220GREEN ROOFAREASTAIR #1217SUITE 9212SUITE 8211SUITE 7210SUITE 6209SUITE 1214SUITE 2203CORRIDOR215EGRESSCORRIDOR216STAIR #2218SUITE 3L212SUITE 4L217LODGE AREA2,900 SFOUTDOOR TERRACESUITE 11300SUITE 14306SUITE 12303SUITE 13304CORRIDOR305ELEV.313ELEV.314EGRESSCORRIDOR310STAIR #1311STAIR #2312ScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY02.13.17RAGMQS REVIEWmodif.modif. 1/8" = 1’−0"2/14/2017 11:00:04 AMNL−313−440041.23.17NET LEASABLE PLANS300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 1/8" = 1'-0"1SECOND FLOOR - NET LEASABLEN 1/8" = 1'-0"2THIRD FLOOR - NET LEASABLENNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP66
IV.A.
300 East Hyman AvenueFloor Area and Net Livable/ Leasable Area Calculations2/14/2017 Floor level Gross FAR Non Unit Lodge Commercial FAR non unit FAR lodge FAR commercialLL2 3,779 3,779 ‐ ‐ 0 0 0LL1 8,977 1,779 7,198 ‐ 34 137 01 9,000 2,544 2,271 4,185 2,544 2,271 4,185 2 8,045 546 7,499 ‐ 546 7,499 03 4,490 546 3,944 ‐ 0 3,944 034,291 9,194 20,912 4,185 3124 13,851 4,185 Allocation of Non Unit:Total Lodge and Commercial:25,097 percent lodge 83%percent commercial 17%Lodge non‐unit 2,603 Commercial non‐unit 521RatioTotal LODGE FAR 16,454 1.82Total COMMERCIAL FAR 4,706 0.52Lot Size 9,047 Total FAR for Lot21,160 2.34Floor level Net Livable Net LeasableLL2 ‐ ‐ LL1 575 ‐ 1 624 3,511 2 5,896 ‐ 3 2,900 ‐ Total: 9,995 3,511 Avg. Lodge size: 499.75 Net Leasable/Net Livable CalculationFloor Area CalculationsP67
IV.A.
GROUND FLOOR0' - 0"2ND FLOOR13' - 4 1/2"T/O EXIST.PARAPET29' - 5"3RD FLOOR26' - 7"PARAPET37' - 3"ELEVATOROVERRUN41' - 4"GLASS RAILING, TYP.EXPOSED STEEL DETAILING, TYP.METAL PANELFACADE, TYP.FLAT PLATE AWNING, TYP.INSULATED STOREFRONTSYSTEM, TYP.T/O GLASSRAILING30' - 1"METAL PANELFACADE, TYP.MECHANICAL SCREENINGFLOOR PLATE13' - 2 1/2"FLOOR PLATE13' - 4 1/2"HIGHEST GRADEELEVATIONELEVATOROVERRUNT/O PROPOSEDPARAPET28' - 0"FUTURE SIGNAGE AREA, TYP.WINDOW MULLION, TYP.ENTRY DOOR 'A'METAL AND GLASS ENTRY DOORSMODULAR BRICK FACADEGROUND FLOOR0' - 0"2ND FLOOR13' - 4 1/2"T/O EXIST.PARAPET29' - 5"3RD FLOOR26' - 7"PARAPET37' - 3"ELEVATOROVERRUN41' - 4"NORTH GRADE-2' - 9"WINDOW HEAD24' - 9"INSULATED WINDOW SYSTEM, TYP.FLAT PLATE AWNING, TYP.EXPOSED STEEL DETAILING, TYP.METAL PANEL FACADE, TYP.GLASS RAILING, TYP.38' HEIGHT LIMIT, INCREASED TO 40' THROUGH COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW39' - 11 1/2"T/O GLASSRAILING30' - 1"MECHANICAL SCREENINGFLOOR PLATE13' - 2 1/2"HIGHEST GRADEELEVATIONLOWEST GRADEELEVATIONELEVATOROVERRUNT/O PROPOSEDPARAPET28' - 0"RAILING3' - 6"WINDOW MULLION, TYP.ENTRY DOOR 'A'ScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY02.13.17RAGMQS REVIEWmodif.modif.As indicated2/13/2017 3:30:38 PMA−20013−440046.29.16EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 3/16" = 1'-0"1SOUTH ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"2WEST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"3ENTRY DOOR INSPIRATION IMAGEREFERENCE THE PRESERVATIONPLAN FOR DETAILS ON PRESERVATION/RESTORATION OF THE BUILDINGREFERENCE THE PRESERVATIONPLAN FOR DETAILS ON PRESERVATION/RESTORATION OF THE BUILDINGALTERNATENO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP68
IV.A.
GROUND FLOOR0' - 0"2ND FLOOR13' - 4 1/2"T/O EXIST.PARAPET29' - 5"3RD FLOOR26' - 7"PARAPET37' - 3"ELEVATOROVERRUN41' - 4"NORTH GRADE-2' - 9"INSULATED WINDOW SYSTEM, TYP.INSULATED METAL DOORPAINTED UNIT MASONRYTRANSFORMERMETAL PANELFACADE, TYP.SECTIONAL OVERHEAD DOORS FOR TRASH ACCESSMECHANICAL SCREENINGCLEAR INSULATED GLAZING, TYP.FLOOR PLATE13' - 4 1/2"FLOOR PLATE13' - 2 1/2"EAST GRADE-1' - 6"PAINTED UNIT MASONRYHIGHEST GRADEELEVATIONLOWEST GRADE ELEVATIONMETAL PANELJOINT, TYP.10' - 0"GROUND FLOOR0' - 0"2ND FLOOR13' - 4 1/2"3RD FLOOR26' - 7"PARAPET37' - 3"METAL PANEL FACADE, TYP.ADJACENT BUILDING (N.I.C.)FLAT PLATE AWNING BEYONDFLAT PLATE AWNING BEYONDHISTORIC FACADE BEYONDMECHANICAL SCREENINGEXPOSED STEEL DETAILING, TYP.GLASS RAILINGT/O GLASSRAILING30' - 1"RAILING3' - 6"FLOOR PLATE13' - 2 1/2"FLOOR PLATE13' - 4 1/2"EAST GRADE-1' - 6"PAINTED UNIT MASONRY, TYP.T/O PROPOSEDPARAPET28' - 0"DECORATIVE LIGHTFIXTURES BEYONDScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY02.13.17RAGMQS REVIEWmodif.modif. 3/16" = 1’−0"2/13/2017 3:30:49 PMA−21013−440046.29.16EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 3/16" = 1'-0"1NORTH ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"2EAST ELEVATIONEXPOSED STEEL DETAILING, TYP.REFERENCE THE PRESERVATIONPLAN FOR DETAILS ON PRESERVATION/RESTORATION OF THE BUILDINGNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP69
IV.A.
LIGHT FIXTURE 'A',TYP.LIGHT FIXTURE 'B',TYP.ScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY02.13.17RAGMQS REVIEWmodif.modif. 3/16" = 1’−0"2/13/2017 3:35:50 PMA−27013−440041.23.17PROPOSED EXTERIOR LIGHTING300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 3/16" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLANNLIGHT FIXTURE 'A'LIGHT FIXTURE 'B'NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP70
IV.A.
ADJACENT BUILDINGHYMAN AVENUEMONARCH STREETONE-WAY ALLEYEXIST. STREET PARKINGPLANTER, TYP.EXIST. TREEGRATE, TYP.300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.THREE STORYLODGEEXIST. STREET PARKINGDETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE, TYP.OPEN TO SKY16' - 2"OPEN TO SKY10' - 0"T90' - 0"100' - 0"12' - 2"16' - 2"PROPERTYLINEALLEY DRAINAGE ISSUESWILL BE ADDRESSEDIN ENGINEERING PLANS BENCH WILL BEPROVIDED AT HUNTERCREEK BUS STOP NEW PEDESTRIANENTRY DOOR:DISTANCE 53'-2"NEW PEDESTRIANENTRY DOOR:DISTANCE 16'-7"ROUTEDISTANCE: 15'-0"ROUTEDISTANCE: 49'- 8"ROUTEDISTANCE: 36'-5"ScalePROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY02.13.17RAGMQS REVIEWmodif.modif. 1/8" = 1’−0"2/13/2017 3:33:14 PMTIA13−440041.23.17TIA SITE PLAN300-312 E. HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 1/8" = 1'-0"1TIA SITE PLANNNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONP71
IV.A.
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 540 E. Main Street (Aspen Police Station); Rescinding Designation on the Aspen
Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures – Public Hearing
DATE: March 22, 2017
______________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY:
As the previous location for three historic structures, this property is currently included in the Aspen
Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. The approved redevelopment of this property
and the completed relocation of the historic resources to the Holden/Marolt Ranching/Mining Museum
property significantly alters the conditions under which designation to the Inventory was originally
established. This review requests a rescinding of this property’s designation to the Inventory because
the historic structures have been relocated.
The Historic Preservation Commission is required to provide a recommendation, issued through
Resolution, to City Council. The First Reading of an ordinance on this topic was heard at a City
Council meeting on March 6, 2017. Second Reading is scheduled for March 27, 2017.
APPLICANT: The City of Aspen, represented by Alan Richman.
ADDRESS: 540 E. Main
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-24-003
ZONING: Public Zone (PUB).
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approval:
· Rescinding Designation (26.415.050) To rescind the designation of this property on the Aspen
Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. The rescinding of this designation utilizes
the same review procedures (26.415.030.B.1.a-b) as establishing a designation. City Council is
the final review authority who may determine that the property no longer meets the criteria for
designation.
PROJECT HISTORY:
Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1992, established 540 E. Main St. (previously known as 600 E. Bleeker
St.) as a contributing property on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. The
designation was established in recognition of the home and shed (circa 1885), and barn (circa 1938)
that were located at the south end of the property. The site eventually became home to the City of
Aspen Parking Department.
Ordinance 11, Series of 2016 gave final approval to a Planned Development for the property that
approved demolition of non-historic buildings, relocation of the historic resources to the
P72
IV.B.
2
Holden/Marolt Museum site, and the development of the new Aspen Police Station and associated
affordable housing units. The relocation of the historic resources, most importantly the Victorian-era
home, was a topic of significant discussion during review of the project. Due to the unique
characteristics of the resources (the interior of the house maintains an unusual degree of integrity) and
the improved preservation and interpretation opportunities offered by the Holden/Marolt Museum Site,
relocation, rather than retaining the resources on-site was approved by the Historic Preservation
Commission and City Council.
To date, the historic home, shed, and barn have been relocated, the non-historic buildings have been
demolished, and excavation and other initial construction activity has begun in the redevelopment of
the site.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Per section 26.415.030 of the Aspen Land Use Code, a rescinding of designation to the Aspen
Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures requires the same submission requirements and
review procedures as for designation – with one addition. An explanation must be provided as to why
the property no longer meets the criteria for designation.
In this case, the designation of the property was entirely related to the three historic structures that were
previously on the site. With the relocation of these resources, this site no longer meets the criteria for
designation. Please refer to Exhibit A for review criteria and Staff findings.
Staff recommends that the property at 540 E. Main Street, the site of the future Aspen Police Station,
have its designation to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures rescinded.
A recommendation (issued through resolution) from the Historic Preservation Commission regarding
the proposed ordinance is required and will be provided to City Council at Second Reading.
______________________________________________________________________________
As the outcome of this review, the HPC may:
· approve the draft resolution in support of rescinding designation,
· amend and approve the draft resolution, or
· issue a resolution that does not offer support for rescinding designation, or
· continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision in issuing a recommendation.
EXHIBITS:
A. Review Criteria and Staff Findings
B. Draft Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2017
C. Application
P73
IV.B.
RESOLUTION # XX,
SERIES OF 2017
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING COUNCIL RESCIND DESIGNATION OF 540 EAST MAIN STREET ON
THE ASPEN INVENTORY OF HISTORIC LANDMARK SITES AND
STRUCTURES.
Parcel ID: 2737-073-24-003
WHEREAS, 540 E. Main Street, previously known as 600 E. Bleeker Street, was included on the
Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, pursuant to Ordinance 34, Series of 1992, after
being rated as a "contributing" historic resource; and,
WHEREAS, The property recently received HPC and Council approval for development of the
new Aspen Police Station. As part of the evaluation of the project it was determined by HPC that the
best preservation of the historic resources on the site, which featured intact, original interior features
no longer in existence in any Victorian structure in Aspen, would be achieved through relocation of the
structures to the Holden/Marolt Mining and Ranching Museum for public interpretation; and,
WHEREAS, The City of Aspen, owners of the property, requested rescinding of designation to
the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures; based on the removal of the historic
structures from the property; and,
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.030 of the Land Use Code authorizes the Historic Preservation
Commission to evaluate properties listed on the Inventory regarding their current architectural
integrity, historic significance, and community and neighborhood influence according to the
procedures and criteria of said section and upon a recommendation by the Community Development
Director; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director evaluated the property and recommended the
property have its designation to Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures rescinded;
and,
WHEREAS, at a regular meeting on March 22, 2017, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, presentation by the property
owners, and comments made by members of the general public, and approved this Resolution by a vote
of X to X (X to X), finding that the criteria for designation to the Inventory are no longer met by the
property at 540 E. Main Street and recommends rescinding the designation on the Inventory.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMISSION:
That the standards for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures,
established in Section 26.415.030 of the Land Use Code, are no longer met by 540 E. Main Street and
that a recommendation from the Historic Preservation Commission to rescind designation shall be
issued to the Aspen City Council for final decision in Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2017.
.
P74
IV.B.
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 22nd day of March, 2017.
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
______________________________ _________________________________
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Jeffery Halferty, Chair
Attest:
______________________________
Nicole Henning, Deputy Clerk
P75
IV.B.
1
Exhibit A
Staff Findings
26.415.050. Rescinding designation.
(requires the same criteria as designation – 26.415.030)
26.415.030 Designation of historic properties
B. Aspen Victorian
1. Criteria. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites
and Structures as an example of Aspen Victorian, an individual building, site, structure or
object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated
quality of significance. The quality of significance of properties shall be evaluated
according to the criteria described below. When designating a historic district, the majority
of the contributing resources in the district shall meet the criteria described below:
a) The property or district is deemed significant for its antiquity, in that it contains
structures which can be documented as built during the 19th century, and
Staff Response: The property was formerly home to three historic resources, a house and
shed dating to 1885, and a barn from 1938. As part of the proposed redevelopment of
the subject site for the new Aspen Police Station, HPC and City Council approved the
relocation of the three structures (ultimately in Ordinance 11, Series of 2016) to the
Holden/Marolt Mining and Ranching Museum, which is Lot 1 of the Marolt Ranch
property. Originally the project proposed retaining the resources on-site and utilizing the
Victorian era home as a renovated affordable housing unit. Because of the unique
characteristics of the home and the preservation and interpretation opportunities offered
by the Holden/Marolt site, relocation became the preferred option for the historic
resources. With the relocation of the historic resources complete, the subject property
no longer contains any structures that can be documented as built during the 19th
century. Staff finds this criterion to be no longer relevant.
b) The property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location, setting,
design, materials, workmanship and association, given its age. The City Council shall
adopt and make available to the public score sheets and other devices which shall be
used by the Council and Historic Preservation Commission to apply this criterion.
Staff Response: The subject property no longer possesses any structure that would be
deemed historic and warrant preservation based on location, setting, design materials,
workmanship and association related to its age. Staff finds this criterion to be no longer
relevant.
P76
IV.B.
DRAFT
Ordinance #7, Series of 2017
540 E. Main St. – Rescinding Designation
Page 1 of 4
ORDINANCE #7
(Series of 2017)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESCINDING DESIGNATION ON THE ASPEN INVENTORY OF HISTORIC
LANDMARK SITES AND STRUCTURES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 540 E.
MAIN STREET, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO
Parcel ID: 2737-073-24-003
WHEREAS, the applicant, City of Aspen, represented by Alan Richman Planning Services,
submitted an application pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.030 requesting
approval to rescind the historic landmark designation on the subject property; and
WHEREAS, Municipal Code Section 26.415.050 states that an application for the removal of a
property from the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures shall follow the
same submission requirements and review procedures as for designation except that an explanation
shall be provided describing why the property no longer meets the criteria for designation; and
WHEREAS, the subject site was the former home of three historic properties: a Victorian era
housing and shed dating back to 1885, and a circa 1938 barn; and
WHEREAS, during a public hearing at their regular meeting on May 23, 2016, City Council, in
Ordinance 11, Series of 2016, approved a Planned Development that included the relocation of
the three historic structures to the Holden/Marolt Mining and Ranching Museum, also known as
Lot 1 of the Marolt Ranch property; and
WHEREAS, during their regular meeting on July 13, 2016, Historic Preservation Commission
granted Final approval for a Major Development in Resolution 21, Series of 2016; and
WHEREAS, the three structures were physically removed from the site and relocated on the
Holden/Marolt Mining and Ranching Museum site on December 9, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department performed an analysis of the application
for Rescinding Designation and found that the review standards are met; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development
standards and that the approval of the development proposal is consistent with the goals and elements
of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion
of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS:
P77
IV.B.
DRAFT
Ordinance #7, Series of 2017
540 E. Main St. – Rescinding Designation
Page 2 of 4
Section 1: Rescinding designation
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Aspen City Council hereby rescinds the Historic Designation for the property at 540 E. Main Street,
finding the subject site no longer contains structures that can be documented as significant for its
antiquity. The property is thereby removed from the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites
and Structures
Section 2: Material Representations
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 Historic Preservation Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan
development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless
amended by an authorized entity.
Section 3: Litigation
This ordinance 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 4: Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance 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.
The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in
the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 6: Public Hearing
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 27th day of March, 2017 in the City Council
Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice
of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the 6th day of March, 2017.
Attest:
__________________________ ____________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
P78
IV.B.
DRAFT
Ordinance #7, Series of 2017
540 E. Main St. – Rescinding Designation
Page 3 of 4
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of ____, 2017.
Attest:
__________________________ ___________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
Approved as to form:
__________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
Exhibit A – Legal description of the property
P79
IV.B.
DRAFT
Ordinance #7, Series of 2017
540 E. Main St. – Rescinding Designation
Page 4 of 4
Exhibit A
Legal Description
Project Location:
540 E. Main St., legally described as: A PARCEL OF LAND IN THE EAST ASPEN ADDITIONAL
TOWNSITE ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED AS DOCUMENT NO.
108453, DITCH BOOK 2A AT PAGE 252 OF THE REAL ESTATE RECORDS OF PITKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO, BEING A PORTION OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED BY
MAYOR'S DEED RECORDED AS RECEPTION NO. 109112 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE FOR EAST MAIN
STREET BEING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCK 20 EAST ASPEN ADDITIONAL
TOWNSITE, ALSO BEING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE CONCEPT 600
CONDOMINIUMS AS SHOWN IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 383 AND PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 442;
THENCE N 75°09'11" W A DISTANCE OF 97.60 FEET ALONG THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF
WAY LINE FOR EAST MAIN STREET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS S75°09'11E A
DISTANCE OF 7.5 FEET FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 10, BLOCK 19, EAST
ASPEN ADDITIONAL TOWNSITE; THENCE N 14°50'49" E A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET
ALONG A LINE 7.5 FEET EAST AND PARALLEL TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT
10, TO THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 10, BLOCK 19, EAST ASPEN ADDITIONAL TOWNSITE;
THENCE N 75°09'11" W A DISTANCE OF 7.5 FEET ALONG SAID LINE TO THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 10, BLOCK 19, EAST ASPEN ADDITIONAL
TOWNSITE; THENCE N14°50'57”E A DISTANCE OF 20.39 FEET TO A POINT ON THE
SOUTH LINE OF LOT 9, BLOCK 19, EAST ASPEN ADDITIONAL TOWNSITE; THENCE N
75°09'11" A DISTANCE OF W 10.10 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 9 TO AN
ANGLE POINT OF LOT 1, FIRST AMENDED PITKIN COUNTY CENTER SUBDIVISION AS
SHOWN IN PLAT BOOK 93, PAGE 57; THENCE N14°50'49"E A DISTANCE OF 188.06 FEET
ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1, FIRST AMENDED PITKIN COUNTY
SUBDIVISION TO AN ANGLE POINT IN SAID LOT 1, ALSO BEING AN ANGLE POINT IN
THE BOUNDARY OF OBERMEYER PLACE CONDOMINIUMS AS SHOWN IN PLAT BOOK
80, PAGE 57; THENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES
S 57°25'00" E A DISTANCE OF 24.94 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN SAID OBERMEYER
CONDOMINIUMS BOUNDARY; THENCE S 19°49'00” E A DISTANCE OF 138.72 FEET TO
AN ANGLE POINT IN SAID OBERMEYER CONDOMINIUMS BOUNDARY; THENCE S
04°08'00” W A DISTANCE OF 67.55 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN SAID OBERMEYER
CONDOMINIUMS BOUNDARY, ALSO BEING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1,
BLOCK 20, EAST ASPEN ADDITIONAL TOWNSITE, ALSO BEING THE NORTH WEST
CORNER OF SAID CONCEPT 600 CONDOMINIUMS ; THENCE S 14°50'49" W A DISTANCE
OF 120.39 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID CONCEPT 600 CONDOMINIUMS TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID PARCEL CONTAINING 0.607 ACRES MORE OR LESS;
COMMONLY KNOWN AS 540 E. MAIN ST.
P80
IV.B.
Exhibit C
Application
P81
IV.B.
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.
P91
IV.B.
P92
IV.B.
P93
IV.B.
P94
IV.B.
P95
IV.B.
P96
IV.B.
P97
IV.B.
P98
IV.B.
P99
IV.B.
P100
IV.B.
P101
IV.B.
P102
IV.B.
P103
IV.B.
P104
IV.B.
P105
IV.B.
P106
IV.B.
P107
IV.B.
P108
IV.B.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 110 E. Hallam Street, 215 N. Garmisch Street, 630 W. Main Street, 1101 E.
Cooper Avenue and Aspen Pedestrian Mall - Designation of Historic Property,
PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: March 22, 2017
________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY: In 2012, when the AspenModern program inviting voluntary historic designation
for mid-century era properties was created, City Council, at the recommendation of a citizen task
force, agreed to lead by example and evaluate the merits of landmark status for several
municipally owned properties. Other work program priorities delayed further discussion, but in
December 2015, the Historic Preservation Commission made a unanimous motion asking
Council to take action in 2016.
On January 26, 2016, Community Development Staff held a worksession with Council to discuss
implementing the AACP and reconciling the content of that document with the Land Use Code;
one of Council’s 2015 “Top Ten Goals.” Amongst several topics discussed at that meeting, staff
asked for direction on the initiation of historic designation review for City-owned properties that
are eligible for the AspenModern program. The properties originally discussed in 2012 were 110
E. Hallam Street (The Red Brick), 215 N. Garmisch Street (The Yellow Brick), 630 W. Main
Street (Mountain Rescue) and 1101 E. Cooper Avenue (Anderson Park). Council directed that
the assessment of these properties should begin and indicated that the Pedestrian Malls should be
added to the list because recent conversations about the need to address deterioration issues with
the Pedestrian Malls call for a determination of their historic significance.
An RFP was released for consultant services to study the properties in early August 2016.
Representatives from the City Manager’s office, Asset Management, Planning, Parks and Open
Space and Kids First, occupants/managers of the affected sites, participated in the selection of
the historic preservation consultant and the review of first drafts of the work products. It was the
unanimous decision of the committee to select Tatanka Historical Associates based on their
superior qualifications and approach to the deliverables.
A short summary of the consultant’s qualifications follows.
Ron Sladek of Tatanka Historical Associates authored the Architectural Inventory
Forms and Integrity Scoring that is being provided for each property. The forms are the
standard used to analyze historic significance in the State of Colorado as directed by the
Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Mr. Sladek has worked in the
preservation field for 30 years, has completed similar studies of several thousand
P109
IV.C.
HISTORIC DESIGNATION
properties in fifteen states, is the Chair of the Ft. Collins Landmark Commission and is a
Governor appointed member of the Colorado State Historic Preservation Review Board,
currently serving alongside Councilwoman Ann Mullins. Mr. Sladek has consulted for
the City of Aspen previously, most notably producing significant research and
documentation of Ute Cemetery and Aspen Grove Cemetery.
Tatanka Historical Associates has determined that all five properties meet the City’s criteria for
designation, as well as the somewhat higher standards suggested by the criteria for listing on the
State or National Registers of Historic Places. It should be noted that City staff initially
identified these properties as important to the community’s history reaching as far back as 2000.
Since that time, even in light of additional research, intensified criteria, scoring and other tools
developed to determine local significance, the properties continued to rise above other local
examples, in staff’s opinion. That said, Tatanka Historical Associates performed their study and
reached their conclusions independently, with nothing other than fact checking by staff. The full
reports are attached as Exhibits C-G.
HPC is asked to make a recommendation on historic designation of some or all of these
properties. City Council will hold a public hearing to consider a designation ordinance on April
24th.
APPLICANT: The City of Aspen.
ADDRESSES AND PARCEL IDS: 110 E. HALLAM STREET, Red Brick, #2737-
073-13-801; 215 N. GARMISCH STREET, Yellow Brick, #2735-124-36-850; 630 W.
MAIN STREET, former Mountain Rescue, #2735-124-44-855; 1101 E. COOPER
AVENUE, Anderson Park, #2737-181-39-801; ASPEN PEDESTRIAN MALL.
AspenModern Criteria.
To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures
as an example of AspenModern, an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of
buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. The
quality of significance of properties shall be evaluated according to criteria described below.
When designating a historic district, the majority of the contributing resources in the district
must meet at least two of the criteria a-d, and criterion e described below:
a. The property is related to an event, pattern, or trend that has made a contribution to
local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific
event, pattern or trend is identified and documented in an adopted context paper;
b. The property is related to people who have made a contribution to local, state,
regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific people are
identified and documented in an adopted context paper;
P110
IV.C.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION BENEFITS
c. The property represents a physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics
of a type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical or aesthetic
achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman, or design philosophy that is
deemed important and the specific physical design, designer, or philosophy is
documented in an adopted context paper;
d. The property possesses such singular significance to the City, as documented by the
opinions of persons educated or experienced in the fields of history, architecture,
landscape architecture, archaeology or a related field, that the property’s potential
demolition or major alteration would substantially diminish the character and sense of
place in the city as perceived by members of the community, and
e. The property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location,
setting, design, materials, workmanship and association, given its age. The City
Council shall adopt and make available to the public score sheets and other devices
which shall be used by the Council and Historic Preservation Commission to apply
this criterion.
Staff Response: Summaries of the Criteria Findings for each property are attached to this memo
as Exhibit A. Staff finds that all five properties are eligible for AspenModern designation and
are all excellent examples of Aspen’s mid-century history, worthy of preserving for the benefit
of future generations. Though age is not a designation criterion per se, for reference, 110 E.
Hallam is 76 years old, 215 N. Garmisch is 57 years old, 630 W. Main is 52 years old, 1101 E.
Cooper is 68 years old and the Pedestrian Mall is 41 years old.
Historic designation of AspenModern era resources is voluntary and allows the property owner
to request site specific incentives as described at Section 26.415.025.C.1.d of the Municipal
Code. City Council may, at its sole discretion, approve any land use entitlement or fee waiver
permitted by the Municipal Code and may award any approval that is assigned to another Board
or Commission, including variations; and
Based on input from the Aspen City Manager’s office, Asset Management Department, Kids First
and the Parks Department, incentives in the form of limitations to the HPC’s future purview over
the properties are proposed to be included in the City Council Ordinance. The draft language reads:
110 E. Hallam Street- If an application for an addition to the building sited on the north
side of the property where a parking lot is currently located, is submitted, HPC may not
deny it on the basis of location. Other applicable review criteria and design guidelines
must be met, including those related to footprint and height, but a request to place new
construction in this area must be accommodated. HPC shall allow an addition in this
location to be connected to the historic resource, but the design of the connector must
meet all applicable review criteria and design guidelines.
P111
IV.C.
Section 26.415 of the Municipal Code does not provide the HPC with purview over
interior alterations to a historic landmark. Regardless of any changes to the Municipal
Code in the future, HPC shall not gain purview over the interior of this property.
215 N. Garmisch Street- If an application for an addition sited at the southeast corner of
the property, where a basketball court is currently located, is submitted, HPC may not
deny it on the basis of location. Other applicable review criteria and design standards
must be met, including those related to footprint and height, but a request to place new
construction in this area must be accommodated. HPC shall allow an addition in this
location to be connected to the historic resource, but the design of the connector must
meet all applicable review criteria and design guidelines.
Section 26.415 of the Municipal Code does not provide the HPC with purview over
interior alterations to a historic landmark. Regardless of any changes to the Municipal
Code in the future, HPC shall not gain purview over the interior of this property.
630 W. Main Street- Section 26.415 of the Municipal Code does not provide the HPC
with purview over interior alterations to a historic landmark. Regardless of any changes
to the Municipal Code in the future, HPC shall not gain purview over the interior of this
property.
1101 E. Cooper Avenue- The City of Aspen shall be permitted to relocate three small
19th century structures that were moved to this property at an unknown date, to another
location on the property. HPC shall review and approve the new location, the
orientation of the buildings, their relationship to grade, the method for relocation, the
design of the new foundations, and any repairs or alterations to the structures, but may
not make a finding that the act of on-site relocation is inappropriate. These structures
will be considered contributing historic resources, like the 1949 log cabin which is the
primary historic resource on the site.
The City of Aspen shall be permitted to construct a basement below the log cabin if
desired. All applicable standards for Relocation established in Section 26.415 of the
Municipal Code shall apply, however HPC shall not make a finding that the act of
excavating a basement below the cabin is inappropriate.
Section 26.415 of the Municipal Code does not provide the HPC with purview over
interior alterations to a historic landmark. Regardless of any changes to the Municipal
Code in the future, HPC shall not gain purview over the interior of this property.
Aspen Pedestrian Mall- Until such time as a Master Plan for future repairs and
improvements to the mall is adopted and provides updated direction, HPC’s purview
shall be limited as follows. All permanent alterations to the mall that are not addressed
below shall be reviewed and approved by HPC according to applicable review criteria
and design standards for historic landscapes:
P112
IV.C.
HPC shall not have purview over the routine removal and/or replacement of trees
undertaken to maintain the health of the forest, or routine repairs to mall materials or
features including replacement of brick with stockpiled material, or repair or
replacement of infrastructure or ditches where the mall surface will be restored to the
previous condition.
Where trees are to be replaced, the City of Aspen Parks Department may plant
trees of the following types without review by HPC: aspen, spruce, cottonwood
and crabapple. Any other tree species proposed to be planted shall require
historic preservation staff or HPC review and approval.
HPC has purview over the location of public art, but not the selection of public
art.
HPC shall have a recommending role over the selection of any City installed
street furniture.
HPC shall not have purview over temporary, fully removable physical
improvements related to Special Events or mall leases.
HPC shall not have purview over any moveable objects placed on the mall by the
City or placed by a business owner as part of a mall lease for outdoor dining.
Up until 2011, no historic designations in Aspen required owner consent. City Council could
designate any property that was found to meet landmark criteria. Lengthy debates about the
appropriate approach to use for non-Victorian era architecture resulted in voluntary program that
relies on the negotiation of individualized incentives that address the unique conditions of each
property. This concept has led to some remarkably successful historic preservation projects over
the last few years and resulted in the recent naming of the Aspen HPC as “Commission of the
Year” by the National Alliance of Historic Preservation Commissions and recognition by History
Colorado.
The City has no immediate plans to redevelop any of the sites being discussed for designation,
however, the opportunity to make necessary improvements in the future is an important
responsibility that needs to be addressed. Preservation in Aspen requires a “give and take” and a
degree of fairness in terms of development rights for all affected property owners. Only about
15% of the total lots in town are designated and those owners, which include the City and private
property owners, are responsible for maintaining Aspen’s identity as a historic community.
Staff recommends HPC support the terms requested by the property users. Preservation of these
structures helps to achieve all of the stated purposes of the City’s preservation program, which
are:
A. Recognize, protect and promote the retention and continued utility of the historic
buildings and districts in the City;
B. Promote awareness and appreciation of Aspen's unique heritage;
P113
IV.C.
C. Ensure the preservation of Aspen's character as an historic mining town, early ski
resort and cultural center;
D. Retain the historic, architectural and cultural resource attractions that support tourism
and the economic welfare of the community; and
E. Encourage sustainable reuse of historic structures.
F. Encourage voluntary efforts to increase public information, interaction or access to
historic building interiors.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC recommend Council approve
historic designation of 110 E. Hallam, 215 N. Garmisch, 630 W. Main, 1101 E. Cooper and the
Aspen Pedestrian Mall.
Exhibits:
Resolution #__, Series of 2017
Exhibit A: Criteria Findings
Exhibit B: Application
Exhibit C: 110 E. Hallam Historic Assessment and Integrity Scoring
Exhibit D: 215 N. Garmisch Historic Assessment and Integrity Scoring
Exhibit E: 630 W. Main Historic Assessment and Integrity Scoring
Exhibit F: 1101 E. Cooper Historic Assessment and Integrity Scoring
Exhibit G: Aspen Pedestrian Mall Historic Assessment and Integrity Scoring
P114
IV.C.
RESOLUTION #__
SERIES OF 2017
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE ASPENMODERN HISTORIC
DESIGNATION FOR 110 E. HALLAM STREET, 215 N. GARMISCH STREET, 630 W.
MAIN STREET, 1101 E. COOPER AVENUE AND THE ASPEN PEDESTRIAN MALL
PARCEL IDs
110 E. Hallam Street: #2737-073-13-801
215 N. Garmisch Street: #2735-124-36-850
630 W. Main Street: #2735-124-44-855
1101 E. Cooper Avenue: #2737-181-39-801
Aspen Pedestrian Mall: n/a
WHEREAS, in the fall of 2016, the City of Aspen hired a consultant to provide an independent
study of the eligibility of five City owned properties constructed in the mid-20th Century for
historic designation through the AspenModern program described at Section 26.415.025 and
Section 26.415.030 of the Municipal Code. The properties were originally identified as
potentially eligible for designation by the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Officer and City
Council later received recommendations to pursue designation from a Historic Preservation Task
Force. The Aspen Historic Preservation Commission passed a motion, 6 to 0, on December 2,
2015, encouraging Council to take action; and
WHEREAS, City Council was provided with the consultant findings on February 21, 2017. The
consultant found all five properties to meet the City’s historic designation criteria. Council then
directed staff to initiate a land use application for voluntary designation; and
WHEREAS, an application for Historic Designation must be reviewed by HPC, who makes a
recommendation to City Council; and
WHEREAS, Amy Simon, in her staff report to HPC dated March 22, 2017, performed an
analysis of the application based on the standards. The staff recommendation was that the
properties all qualify as “Best” examples of AspenModern historic resources. Staff
recommended in favor of historic designation of all five properties; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on April 8, 2015, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application during a duly noticed public hearing, including the staff
recommendation and public comments, and found all five properties to meet the criteria for
historic designation, by a vote of __ to __; and
WHEREAS, historic designation of AspenModern era resources is voluntary and allows the
property owner to request site specific incentives as described at Section 26.415.025.C.1.d of the
Municipal Code. City Council may, at its sole discretion, approve any land use entitlement or
fee waiver permitted by the Municipal Code and may award any approval that is assigned to
P115
IV.C.
another Board or Commission, including variations. HPC reviewed and accepts the proposed
limitations to their future purview of each of the properties requested by the City of Aspen. The
limitations are proposed to be included in the Council Ordinance #9, Series of 2017, regarding
designations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
HPC recommends City Council approve historic designation of 110 E. Hallam, 215 N. Garmisch,
630 W. Main, 1101 E. Cooper and the Aspen Pedestrian Mall.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 22nd of March, 2017.
________________________________
Jeffrey Halferty, Chair
Approved as to Form:
___________________________________
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
___________________________
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
P116
IV.C.