Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.hpc.20170823
AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING August 23, 2017 4:30 PM City Council Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISITS A. Please visit 217 S. Galena and 406 S. Mill on your own. II. 4:30 INTRODUCTION A. Roll call B. Draft minutes for August 9th, 2017 C. Public Comments D. Commissioner member comments E. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) F. Project Monitoring 211 E. Hallam 540 E. Main 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. 5:10 NEW BUSINESS A. 5:10 217 S. Galena Street- Minor Review, PUBLIC HEARING B. 6:10 406 S. Mill Street- Minor Review, PUBLIC HEARING V. 7:00 ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 19 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 AUGUST 9, 2017 Chairperson Halferty called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Gretchen Greenwood, Willis Pember, Nora Berko, Bob Blaich, Roger Moyer, Richard Lai, Scott Kendrick Staff Present: Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner Approval of minutes from May 31st, June 14th, June 28th, July 12t and July 26th. Ms. Berko motioned to approve all minutes except for July 12th, Ms. Greenwood seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Blaich motioned to approve July 12th, Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT: Carolyn Bennett visiting from Baton Rouge – Chairman of the historic preservation commission in Baton Rouge announced she is present to watch as a guest and observe. Public comment closed. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer asked if everyone saw the cover of the Aspen Times and said there was a Victorian with a connecting link with a caption saying, “all that’s left is the history” and wanted to know the reaction of the other board members. Ms. Simon said this was an advertisement for the project which they had a major enforcement issue on and she took it to mean that it’s a modern home instead of a restored Victorian. Mr. Moyer also brought a sample of a composite siding. He stated that it was after just one season and said they must be very careful when people want to use composite because it is very damaged. The sample shows water damage from just one season. Mr. Halferty welcomed Scott Kendrick to the board. DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT: Ms. Berko said she must leave for the Bleeker St. project. Ms. Greenwood said she must leave by 8:00 p.m. PROJECT MONITORING: 124 W Hallam Amy Simon Ms. Simon stated that this is a Victorian on the north side of the Yellow Brick school. This project came through HPC a year ago, and has many additions and changes made to it. This project involves pulling that all away and restoring the house. The building has been gutted on the inside and she has been to the site and looked at the framing and knows they are doing a great job with it. It is intact when looking from the inside and it’s fairly old. She’s excited about the project and they are here tonight for one proposed change. Ms. Greenwood is the project monitor and they looked at the changed together and were not willing to approve it without board input. They want to add a skylight to the historic roof’s P1 II.B. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 9, 2017 pitch facing the alley on the backside of the house. HPC doesn’t typically want to introduce this on the historic part of the construction. Applicant Presentation: Bill Guth Mr. Guth said this is his 6th historic renovation in Aspen so far and has a lot of pride and passion about preservation and is not here to pass one over on anyone and appreciates all feedback. He showed the view from Hallam looking north into an interior lot. The skylight is invisible from Hallam St. and we’re having a lot of difficulty with the sloped ceilings and the pitch is so extreme, they would like to bring some natural light in. He doesn’t think it will be visible from the alleyway and has researched the most minimally visible skylight. Ms. Simon stated that to support the concern about light, there was a window that she has asked them to drop. Mr. Guth said that he and Amy have worked really closely together and he’s willing to accommodate to get this historically accurate. Mr. Halferty asked for dimensions of the skylight and said it seems large. Mr. Guth said he thought it was 3x7 ish. Mr. Halferty confirmed that it goes into a master closet. Mr. Pember joined the meeting. Mr. Halferty asked him if he’s read about the skylights in the guidelines and he said yes, but he appreciates the consideration. Ms. Greenwood thinks it’s inappropriate on a restoration and the skylight totally detracts. She’s doesn’t think they should open that door. Mr. Pember asked which direction it’s facing and Ms. Simon answered north. Mr. Guth said he is bringing this completely back to its original condition and Ms. Greenwood said this is an erosion of the guidelines. Ms. Berko said she understands the desire of it, but she concurs with staff and monitor. Mr. Blaich said he’s sympathetic because he noticed that it would be almost impossible to see it. If everyone can agree to have a smaller skylight up there, that might be ok. Mr. Blaich would support with a smaller size and Mr. Pember agreed and said it’s not without utility. Mr. Moyer concurs with staff. Mr. Lai said he is sympathetic with the applicant, but that it’s a slippery slope and might open the door for more of this type of thing and that would diminish the charge of this commission. He said he agrees with staff. Ms. Simon said the motion should be to give Ms. Greenwood and herself direction to allow or not allow this change through the project monitor process. P2 II.B. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 9, 2017 MOTION: Ms. Berko motioned to uphold the staff and monitor decision, Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call: Mr. Pember, no; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Kendrick, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes. 6 yes, 1 no, motion carried. PROJECT MONITORING: 417 W Hallam: Amy Simon This is a west end project monitoring issue on a job that is under construction right now and is not on the historic resource. This is an unusual house that was expanded into a duplex in the 80’s and HPC approval involved demolishing the non-historic construction and restoring the historic resource and making an addition behind it. Tonight’s presentation is regarding changes to the windows on the addition and a proposed dormer facing the alley. Ms. Berko is the project monitor and wasn’t comfortable making the decision on this. Applicant presentation: Kim Raymond Ms. Raymond started by saying that she did not bring the project through originally, she inherited it. She didn’t realize serious waterproofing issue until she got involved. 15 ft further ahead, the glass from the windows leaves no room for waterproofing. They are hoping to bring the frame wall up to match the countertop, which adds some privacy to the master bath. Another option is to keep the glass down to the floor and do glass panels and back paint it to look like reflected glass. It would still have the same appearance from the street. These are the options we’ve come up with to stay in line with what HPC wants, but still waterproof it. Ms. Berko originally thought that when it went through the process, this supported the lightness of the glass. Mr. Pember asked how would you drain the flat roof behind the stone wall and Ms. Raymond said they will be draining to the west and will be sloped to the left. Mr. Pember said that this could be a lot easier to fix and asked if she has explored putting in a trench drain with a hot wire or lowering the roof or pitching it to modify and fix this easily. He also said she could pitch toward the stone wall and drain in the same direction and that there are so many ways of solving this problem and none of it involves a major alteration to what was approved. Ms. Greenwood agreed and said there is a pretty good solution to solving the waterproofing issue. She likes the concept of the building and feels they shouldn’t change the concept. Mr. Pember asked Ms. Raymond if she has a moisture consultant and she said no. He advised her to hire a moisture consultant and stick with the approval. Mr. Halferty asked Kim to address the dormer on the new construction. Mr. Pember asked Ms. Raymond what the purpose of the dormer is and she said it is to make the space feel better on the inside and to make it not seem so short. She said they are trying to make the space better for the people living there and that staff was in support of it. P3 II.B. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 9, 2017 Ms. Berko said that it makes the elevation awkward to her and Ms. Greenwood said it doesn’t relate to the architecture of the building at all. Mr. Pember said that there are other ways to solve the problem and he thinks the back is negatively affected by a dormer and they need to hire a water person. MOTION: Mr. Pember made a motion to stick with the approved version (no dormer) and hire a water consultant, Mr. Halferty seconded. Mr. Blaich asked what the negative impact of the dormer is and Mr. Pember said it interrupts the elevation and it’s ugly. Mr. Lai said he would like to consider the two elements separately and would like them to make a motion for the front elevation and the waterproofing individually. Mr. Halferty reminded Mr. Lai that he can just vote “no” if he doesn’t agree with the motion. Ms. Greenwood suggested that he stop thinking of the building as two dimensions and said they need to consider the building in a 360-degree dimension. Mr. Lai said it’s a valid point and looking at reconsidering the dormer; if it improves the interior in the view point of the client, I think the articulation of that space is a valid architectural point. Mr. Pember said that wasn’t the point of this architecture as it was very pure without articulation. It has pure elegance and simplicity, which lent itself to final approval. Ms. Greenwood said that three times is a lot to be in front of HPC and it took a while to get to this point. Mr. Pember said that fiddling with it at this point, post approval, is very irksome. Ms. Berko pointed out that they spent a lot of time to minimize the impact of the addition and she happens to be an alley walker so to say no one sees it, isn’t true. Ms. Greenwood said that she would like to respect the boards hard work as it’s frustrating, hard and difficult. She suggested they continue on with the motion as stated. Mr. Moyer commented that he wasn’t here when it was approved, but the roof issue is a technical one that can be solved without complication. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Halferty, no; Mr. Pember, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Kendrick, yes, Mr. Blaich, yes. 6 – 1, motion carried. Staff comments: Ms. Simon pointed out an article in the paper regarding a street artist who has arrived in town and has applied some cement paintings to different buildings and has used a construction adhesive and glued them to eight properties downtown without the property owner’s permission, including Hotel Jerome, Prada and the Elks building. The person isn’t trying to be anonymous and he is somewhat recognized as a street artist. The City attorney’s office sent him a letter and told him to stop immediately. We have to find creative ways of removing these without damaging the brick face. It’s not that art isn’t wonderful, we just need to find a less damaging way to do it. Ms. Simon said they will be P4 II.B. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 9, 2017 asking Mr. Moyer for his thoughts on removal and Mr. Moyer said that part of this is education because it’s graffiti and there are techniques to removing graffiti. The last pieces were posted on Sunday and this is not something we’ve dealt with before. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Bryan said she has the notice and all is fine. CALL UP REPORTS: Ms. Simon said Main St. Bakery was sent to city council and was not called up. OLD BUSINESS: 210 W Main Amy Simon She is presenting for Justin Barker and this is the third time in front of HPC so she is hoping to get it approved tonight. This project is a redevelopment of a multi-family apartment complex. The proposal is to demolish and replace and create affordable housing credits so everyone gains. HPC is being asked to approve the demo, which has no historic significance with three detached buildings proposed. There is discussion about open space on the site with a courtyard on site and not visible from the street. Another point of discussion has been the form of the buildings and the green roofs to be energy efficient, which HPC appreciated. Flat roofs don’t really fit in on Main St. so staff has been pressing for some type of sloped roof and porches in a residential character. They are asking for you to allow the building to be slightly taller and have asked for one foot over the 28-foot entitlement. There has been discussion of the onsite parking. Only six spots can be accommodated so a variance is requested here. They will also need variances for the porches and decks. They also project into the side yards only on the basis of a hardship variance, which staff doesn’t support. Applicant Ted Guy and Sara Adams of Bendon Adams Ms. Adams started by saying this building is located on Main St. in the historic district and is a 6000-ft. sq. lot. We would like to get an approval tonight. This was heard on April 26th and at the time, we were told to break up the mass and we heard from different neighbors, so Ted tried to incorporate pieces and parts. The building is now broken up into three modules with differing heights. The interior courtyard was shifted and HPC voted 4 to 2 to continue. Green roofs were discussed and the site plan was redone to relate better to the historic district. We have reduced the mass and scale and there are 8 two bedroom units. There are six parking spots and we cannot fit anymore based on the size of the lot. There is still exterior storage at grade and in the basement and a protected communal courtyard. Mr. Guy still believes that this is a huge amenity to have some protected outdoor space. There are outdoor porches or balconies for all units and we are ready to move this forward. We will go through the four points from the last meeting and we have provided an updated street rendering. We are committed to providing green roofs and feel that it fits in well with the street scape. We have been consistent with providing a slope in a response to a suggestion from the board, but we prefer the flat green roof option. P5 II.B. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 9, 2017 Mr. Guy said that they are keeping heights down and have removed the front porch. The left building is set back 32 inches from the setback. The interior courtyard has gotten much smaller as well. This relates to the turn of the century development pattern and this is what you would find back then for residential. As you’re going towards the commercial core, it’s an important transition, while still being compatible. It is meeting the front yard setback 2 ½ more ft. and we have added front porch in the front. We thought it would be better to have an 18-inch projection instead of cutting into the livable space. Mr. Guy said they have reduced the grilling area and there is no firepit, but during the day Main St. is loud, dusty and dirty so we want protection from that. We have changed the height of the building and pushed them back and have broken them up. We have done vertical siding on the main building and then horizontal siding on the upper two levels. Ms. Simon pointed out the packet page 58 and said it will help HPC come to a conclusion. They’ve laid out seven conditions of approval. We’ve suggested that if you accept flat roofs, they need to have a green roof. Ms. Greenwood brought up the site plan and confirmed that the only thing changed is the sloping roof and the removal of the projecting front porch. Ms. Simon said they had some dialogue with the applicant and that central porch comes into the front yard setback, which could be allowed, but we were concerned it tied the buildings together and added more bulk, but Ms. Greenwood thinks it’s successful. Mr. Moyer reminded the applicant that if they have vertical siding in the alleyways, there is a chance for capillary action because of snow build up and it shouldn’t be brought all the way to the ground. Mr. Guy said he is aware. Mr. Pember asked if they are providing a green roof and Mr. Guy answered yes, it is their preference to have flat green roofs, but we’ve provided a design with a sloped roof and that would not be a green roof, but the other two would be. He is happy to do it either way, whatever HPC decides. He does not have a sample of the green roof as Tesla won’t be producing the roof material until next Spring. Mr. Pember asked if the balconies are truly cantilevered like that and Mr. Guy said yes and they will be concrete and maybe steel with wood frame in between. Mr. Blaich mentioned that an aesthetic change was made and asked why and Mr. Guy said it was to make the building seem not so massive and it now has a niche. Mr. Pember noticed that the plan shows a gated entrance and Mr. Guy said that was part of the porch to get three doors on Main St., so when he took the porch off, he took the door off. Ms. Greenwood clarified that the door under the cantilever is gone and Ms. Adams said yes, but it’s up for discussion absolutely. Ms. Adams also said there are no roof top decks. P6 II.B. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 9, 2017 Mr. Halferty asked how one maintains a green roof and Mr. Guy said it takes a very low growing grass with removable panels so it’s easy to replace and lightweight. The people living on the 3rd floor will be able to see the green roof and it would be dwarf grass that you never have to mow. PUBLIC COMMENT: Carolyn Bennett from Baton Rouge asked how much the units would rent for after they are complete and Mr. Guy said around $1500.00 category 3. Ms. Adams said they are deed restricted category 3 and go up 1 or 2 percent a year and cap at 3%. Public comment closed. Ms. Greenwood said she is really happy to see this in the state it’s in. She thinks it’s ready to be passed tonight and she likes the breakup of the buildings, height and particularly likes the front entry and they match with the balconies. She likes the 18 inches sticking out in terms of detail and said this is one of the improvements of design on this building. She likes that the roofs are all flat, she doesn’t think it needs the sloping roof now. Different proportions to break up the slope isn’t necessary and she thinks they have created this successfully and wouldn’t change anything. Linking the buildings together with cantilevered detail, it feels important for a resident walking into the building that it’s protected and it has meaning to live there. There is really something important about a strong entry and something that adds to the interest on Main Street. There’s some work to do on the materials and details, but she supports variances for the front porch and overhang and feels this project is in a good place. Mr. Lai said he feels it has come a long way since last time it was submitted. He appreciates the scale and agrees with everything that Ms. Greenwood said except the side yard variance, which he does not feel is necessary and would take out of that space. But other than that, it’s come a long way and very much appreciates the scale difference. Ms. Berko agrees with both comments and appreciates using the siding and recycling the material and said it’s so rare. She pointed out the side yard setback for the neighbors, which puts the buildings close together, but likes the 18-inch overhang. Everything else she is ok with and the front yard she is fine with. She mused that the sloping roof is a little gratuitous and said she likes the green roofs on all three. She likes the joining and the entry overhang and said the cantilevered elements tie everything together. Ms. Greenwood said the cantilevered elements are modern and pretty. Mr. Pember said there is some consistency developing between the flat roofs and identifying the volumes. Having more green roofs is better instead of disrupting with the sloped roof. The side yard is really important and started the buildings character. Breaking up with big chunks of balconies is very powerful. Once you put a spanning element on the entrance, he has mixed feelings about having something cantilevered there. He said he is annoyed by little bump on second floor and that it’s really lame and asked if it’s a different material and said he is a little nervous not seeing one concrete demonstration. P7 II.B. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 9, 2017 Mr. Moyer said he concurs with staff. He agreed that they should stick with the flat roofs and is ok with the 18 inches on the side. The project has come a long way and feels they should try and complete it tonight. Mr. Blaich said they now have the oom and still need to get the phh and that could be done in the final and feels they have listened to all the input. He’s with Ms. Greenwood with the proposals. He doesn’t have a problem with siding allowance and is in favor of the flat roof. Mr. Kendrick asked how close they would be to neighboring building. Mr. Guy said 8 ½ ft. Mr. Kendrick finished by saying he likes the design with the flat roofs. Mr. Halferty thinks the proposal has come a long way from first iteration and conforms to guidelines. He thinks the green flat roofs are much better and that the one sloped roof doesn’t have the merit. He said he is in support of balcony variance, which gives occupants a little more room. He is ok with the setback variances and feels the FAR bonus is merited here. The reduction of one parking space is ok and encouraged due to the bike alternatives. The allowable height variance is applicable here. There is still a lot of the detailing that is still in question so be conscious of that, but Mr. Halferty does feel that it meets the criteria and guidelines and is looking for a motion to move forward. MOTION: change from staff’s page 58, that side yard setbacks are allowed, Mr. Blaich seconded. Mr. Pember made an amendment to the motion to remove the bump, it’s lame, Mr. Blaich seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Pember, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Lai, yes, Mr. Halferty, yes, Mr. Blaich, yes. 7-0, motion carried. Ms. Berko exited. 209 E Bleeker Amy Simon This project has been continued for redevelopment and is a Victorian dramatically altered from its original design. The proposal before HPC is to restore the old miner’s cottage in the front, pick up and put onto a new basement and add a second dwelling unit behind it. This will also function as a duplex with the miner’s cottage being one and the new addition the other. HPC did not previously have issues with the massing or relocation, but there was discussion of the extent of the incentives being offered. The miner’s cottage has always been a foot away from the west property line and in this project, it will be 2 feet away from the property line. HPC gave direction at the previous hearing to eliminate setback variations. Staff’s perspective was to focus on floor area. Because this application is asking to be duplex, they already get a 360-square foot bonus bump. They are viewing this as an incentive and request for 500 sq. ft. floor area bonus. The applicant has taken this to heart and have taken their request from 500 to 400 square feet. We don’t want to overwhelm the historic resource and want HPC to take this to heart. It’s going to be very much new construction, but we’re going to have a limited amount of historic P8 II.B. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 9, 2017 material onsite. They will be building back the missing pieces. This isn’t the same as when we have someone loving scrape and re-glaze, etc. They have suggested a few alternatives in the staff memo, one of them being that HPC could grant the full 400 sq. ft. bonus, but require a certain amount to be sold away as TDR, that way the owner still gains some financial incentive. We have suggested that they reduce the amount of floor area bonus granted and require the new unit only to meet the setback requirements while factoring the historic building out of it. She provided them with the previous memo and have suggested conditions of approval on page 107 of the packet. Mr. Moyer asked about the streetscape element and Ms. Simon said there is a streetscape element in the packet and we generally find the project to be successful, but we don’t want to send the message about limitless incentives in terms of square footage that an applicant should expect. Ms. Greenwood said they should have a sliding scale for projects for the amount of restoration for granting. Ms. Simon said they don’t have that level of detail right now and don’t want to invent on the spot. We want to make sure there is a balance and we have a concern with how neighbors are affected. Ms. Simon said page 19 is from the previous discussion and the list is shorter on page 107 with a position on the bonuses. Applicant Seth Hmielowski and Melanie Noonan of Z Group as well as Dan Fromm, owner; Chris Klug, realtor and Brett Byman & Ken Janckila of Janckila Construction. We are asking for a 55-ft. requirement on length and we have taken that off. We did add a setback variance that we should have asked for from the beginning. We did throw that request in as well and this shows what we initially submitted and what has been changed. The cabin has been moved to the very front setback and we want to keep the trees so we are staying away from the roots. We are keeping the setback away from the historic asset and are now asking for 400 sq ft floor area bonus. The elevation went down to 50 feet from 55. Mr. Byman said there is not much historic material left and he feels it’s very admirable to be committed to doing this. The owner is committed to shore, stabilize and lift the building which will increase the cost substantially. Mr. Janckila said it’s a pretty expensive venture, but the family will do it if that’s what HPC wantw. It’s doable, but the fact is, it’s about money. Mr. Klug said he represents the Fromm family for many years since 2007. His experience is that it preserves the historic component, moving it forward, to higher ground to make more prominent. It was attached as a single-family home in the beginning and is now detached and said he knows Mr. Janckila has a lot of experience doing historic renovations. He thinks this is a better project, better plan and is here to advocate the 500 bonus. Dan Fromm is the brother of Andy Fromm and said they have purchased the property together and is excited about the plans. Mr. Fromm also met with the neighbors who think this is a better plan as well. Mr. Hmeilowski said there are eight points to hit to demonstrate the Historic preservation and they hit six of them. 7 and 8 don’t have anything to do with their project and feels they are within the guidelines of what HPC is expecting. Ms. Bryan asked Mr. Halferty to make a motion to extend past 7:00 p.m. P9 II.B. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 9, 2017 MOTION: Mr. Moyer motioned to continue past 7 p.m., Mr. Halferty seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Ms. Greenwood confirmed that this new plan is for 400 bonus square feet and that they are looking at two diff plans and Ms. Simon said there are different illustrations of where they remove 100 sq. ft. Mr. Moyer asked when the former proposal came to HPC and Ms. Simon said 2015 for a SFH not a duplex. 500 was approved, but didn’t receive the 360 on the table now due to it being a duplex. There is 860 in total. Mr. Moyer asked Ms. Simon if she feels this is a better project and she said yes. In the previous, they didn’t have an option but to hook the addition to the historic resource. It’s freestanding this time and that’s better. The site is a little bit of a pond and they will lift higher and regrade so there will be improvements like that. There is a question about this project if it is restoration or reconstruction. Mr. Moyer then clarified that it is really a reconstruction and Ms. Simon said yes. We have only brought this up in a few instances and she is not comfortable with 860 square feet in this circumstance. There is criteria in the packet regarding whether bonuses are appropriate or not. Ms. Greenwood asked what the total square footage is. Mr. Hmielowski said, just based on code it’s 3600. There are two garages, one per unit. 250 sq. ft. garage. PUBLIC COMMENT: Carolyn Bennett from Baton Rouge said it’s so gratifying to see this small historic structure being so cherished. Besides it’s architectural value, it has a great deal of cultural and historical value and a story to tell. She asked if you can use the federal tax credits? Ms. Simon said no. Ms. Simon had two letters to enter for the record. Gigi Whitman of 214 E Bleeker, said she has reviewed the plans and they look fine. John Kelly of 203 E Hallam, said he supports the effort and the corresponding 500 ft. of floor area. Public comment closed. Mr. Moyer supports staff’s comments and agrees. Mr. Lai thinks the plan is really ingenious. When looking at FAR bonuses and setback requirements, as a generality, it’s really gotten out of hand. In NYC, there are buildings that are much higher than anticipated, but here in Aspen, he didn’t realize, Aspen has been going down instead of up and is astounded by the work underground. This is an example of that. Its a given now and he doesn’t think we have a lot of leeway to do anything about the overabundance of basement space. The design is ingenious, but regrets the monstrous amount of space not visible to the public. Mr. Kendrick is concerned that the extra FAR will overwhelm the lot if the bonus is granted since it’s such a small lot. Mr. Lai also added that when he looked at adjacent buildings, they’ve started the precedence and the whole block is overdeveloped. The side lots do not exist and the development on the west corner is a P10 II.B. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 9, 2017 good design and commends the idea of moving the historic structure forward as it mitigates the problem, but it’s still an overcrowded block visually. Mr. Blaich is in favor of the project and is moving it forward, but he’s not sure about granting the 500- square bonus. He went to college with Mary Hayes and knew her well and wants to see this project move forward in her memory. Ms. Greenwood said this is an important lot in aspen because of Mary Hayes. She is very much with staff that in light of addressing staff’s concerns, to stay with 400 sq. ft. bonus. We want that to be a stand- alone building. She likes the front yard and thinks the historic building really does stand out and maintain the story of who lived there. She feels they should grant them the 400 bonus as long as they do a very detailed demo plan and relocation and don’t pull any punches. She thinks they should grant them a bonus, but a little smaller. Regarding the garage setback, she thinks it’s a ridiculous thing, but she can’t say no to it. She feels the rule should be changed. Mr. Pember said he wasn’t here for the first review and they need to speed up where they stand. They need to allow either 500 or 400 and staff’s recommendation was to reduce to 250 or sell 250 as a TDR. Mr. Halferty said this project has come a long way. What is proposed is meeting the guidelines and saving as much of the corpse as possible. It’s an interesting project and is not eroding the back side of the wall, which we do a lot. It’s nice to have square footage down low instead of higher and we can rebuild and use the historic materials on site. He is interested in recreating and agrees with giving them incentives. He agrees with a small reduction of FAR is suggesting the 400 bonus. It’s a strong project and they have worked with a lot of obstacles. MOTION: Ms. Greenwood motioned to approve items 1-6 that staff created and add item 7 in to allow 400 FAR bonus, Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes, Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. Lai, yes; Mr. Pember, yes. 6-0 all in favor, motion carried. Ms. Berko re-entered the meeting. New Business: 415 E Hyman Amy Simon Ms. Simon said this is a minor review affecting a building in the downtown commercial core and a non- historic building. The applicant, Eric, has purchased the 4th floor commercial unit and the interior has been gutted. He would like to add more windows on the east and west sides of the building. Initially staff had considered to approve, but the applicant had more in mind so it was bumped up to HPC. The windows are to be replaced to match and have been proposed on the east and west facades of the structure. These windows are not typical and we don’t support more than one or two. Looking at Prada or the Red Onion, you have street facing double hung windows. Staff recommends to HPC that we can support sidewall windows down the front, which are square shaped and placed equally down the side of P11 II.B. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 9, 2017 the building. Staff feels that we should be sympathetic to patterns we already have downtown. You have received two options, which have different spacing and different shapes. Staff supports the last option. Mr. Moyer asked about the Eagles building and confirmed that the windows on the side were always there and Ms. Simon said, yes, they are historic and match what’s on the front. This isn’t a historic building we would be cutting into and the Elks has windows on the second story façade. We are trying to be consistent with the older buildings. Applicant Chris Bendon and Eric Mengleson, owner. Mr. Bendon stated that this building has some historic-ish characteristics. It’s a 4-story building mashed into a 3 story space so it’s sort of compressed. There’s a two-story element that has the windows facing north and some on the alley. To make space more usable, the window design has been selected because of the sill height window interior. The interior layout has to do with the window patterns for flexibility. Ms. Greenwood asked what size the windows are and Michael Edinger, architect, said they are 48 inches tall and 3 ft. 6 wide for the preferred option 1. Ms. Simon added that these are almost square in shape and the restudied option are a little more vertical matching what it on the front. Mr. Kendrick asked how tall the windows are in option 2 and Mr. Mengleson answered 5 ft. tall. They go below a normal desk height, which means they are not having the sill bottom go below the post furniture. Ms. Greenwood asked Ms. Simon if she is in favor of option 2 and she answered yes, it meets the guidelines and seems like a good compromise. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. Public comment closed. Mr. Mengleson does like the aesthetics in option 2 regarding the views of the exterior as well. He said they would be satisfied with option 2 as a compromise on all accounts, they just don’t want to be delayed. MOTION: Mr. Pember moved to approve option 1 that the applicant wants, Ms. Greenwood seconded. Mr. Lai said h prefers the option presented by staff and likes the rhythm and proportion of option #2. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. Lai, no; Mr. Kendrick, no; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Pember, yes. 5-2, motion carried. Mr. Halferty motioned to adjourn at 8:00 p.m. ____________________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk P12 II.B. 13 P13 II.B. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 211 E. Hallam Street- Project Monitoring DATE: August 23, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: 211 E. Hallam is an AspenModern landmark, currently under construction to create a duplex. HPC member Gretchen Greenwood is the project monitor, along with staff. The property owner has requested an insubstantial amendment to the design involving an adjustment to the location of an approved window in the alley façade of the historic structure. Staff determined that the proposal required the input of the full board as to whether the following guidelines are met. Staff’s concern is that the proposed adjustment results in a new window and a historic window opening (the original window unit has been replaced) butting against each other, changing the character and proportion of the historic opening. 3.2 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. Enclosing a historic window opening in a key character-defining facade is inappropriate, as is adding a new window opening. This is especially important on primary facades where the historic ratio of solid-to-void is a character-defining feature. Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear walls. Do not reduce an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or door or increase it to receive a larger window on primary facades. 3.6 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. Reducing an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or increasing it to receive a larger window is inappropriate. Consider reopening and restoring an original window opening where altered. A determination by HPC is requested. Exhibit A: Applicant request. P14 II.F. MEMO August 15, 2017 To: City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission From: Philp Jeffreys and Mirte Mallory 215 E. Hallam Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Berko Studio – Kitchen Window on Rear Garden/Southern Façade We hope that you have stopped by the Berko AspenModern historic renovation. The Berko Studio’s public-facing façade is now showcased on Hallam Street, windows installed, and siding is being affixed to the new construction. Upon placement of the windows, it became apparent that the new, non-historic kitchen window on the rear, garden façade of the Studio does not achieve the historically-respectful placement as desired. We believe this design shortcoming can be remediated with a fenestration adjustment. Due to construction schedules, the change must be decided-upon immediately or will no longer be achievable. Our request of the Historic Preservation Commission is to approve a modification to the size of the kitchen window on the rear, garden façade of the Berko Studio. Original Condition The octagonal window on the right side of the structure is an historically-defining element of the garden façade. This portion of the Studio was dedicated to Berko’s portraiture photography and hence natural light was designed to filter into the space from above only. The diagonal siding accentuates the rhombus shaped structure and in and of itself embodies a beautiful geometric pattern. P15 II.F. Approved Design With a change in use of the Berko Studio to a residential structure, and the space below the octagonal window into a kitchen, it was important to bring in both light and ventilation. As adding a window into the historic façade is a significant modification, much design study was put into the placement of the kitchen window. The following design considerations informed the proposed, and approved, position of the window: P16 II.F. Existing Condition To our great disappointment, the installed-window did not achieve the aesthetic objectives as depicted in the elevation. We realize that this is because the garden façade cannot be seen from the straight-on elevation view. Instead, the façade is always seen from an angle thereby creating an illusion that the diagonal siding does not line up but is rather off-set. Whereas the separation between the historic window and the new window was intentional, it now looks like a mistake. The separation and the perceived misalignment calls attention to the rectangular window which has become the focal point of the façade thereby detracting from the beauty and prominence of the historic octagonal window. P17 II.F. Proposed Remediation In an effort to save the aesthetic of this garden façade, we propose changing the proportions of the approved and installed fenestration to the below design which involves making the window 6 inches taller. While we recognize that this window cuts into more of the historic siding and creates adjacency to the historic window, we submit that by eliminating the visual tension of the separation we are restoring the visual prominence and beauty of the octagonal window. By abutting the new window to the historic window, the octagonal window will once again have the perception of floating and the diagonal siding will not be fragmented. P18 II.F. As a family, it is with a great sense of responsibility for the integrity of the historic Studio that we have voluntarily undertaken the stewardship of this project. We see this adjustment as a critical realization that has the opportunity to enhance the final outcome of this renovation. Our goal is remediate this unexpected design tension while we still have the opportunity to do so. We thank you for your consideration. Best regards, Mirte Mallory and Philip Jeffreys Nora Berko and Howie Mallory P19 II.F. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 540 E. Main Street- Project Monitoring DATE: August 23, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: 540 E. Main Street is the new Aspen Police Department site. The Police Station is under construction and the affordable housing project behind it is in building permit review. HPC member Jeff Halferty is the project monitor, along with staff. The City Asset Management Department has requested an insubstantial amendment to the design to allow vinyl windows instead of clad in the housing building. Staff determined that the proposal required the input of the full board as to whether the following guidelines are met. Vinyl has not been discussed by the board in previous projects. 6.59 High quality, durable materials should be employed. • The palette of materials proposed for all development should b e specified and approved as part of the general and detailed development approvals process, including samples of materials as required. 6.60 Building materials should have these features: • Convey the quality and range of materials seen historically • Reduce the scale and enhance visual interest • Convey human scale • Have proven durability and weathering characteristics within this climate A determination by HPC is requested. Exhibit A: Applicant request. P20 II.F. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Jack Wheeler, Capital Asset Manager RE: 540 E. Main Street (Aspen Police Station); Use of Vinyl Windows at Employee Housing DATE: August 23, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: During the design process, the project team explored the use of vinyl windows in lieu of aluminum clad. Vinyl windows are being proposed as an energy and cost (~$75K) efficient alternative to metal clad while maintaining the same architectural look and character. From an aesthetic standpoint, the profile of the vinyl frame is minimal. Instead of dark gray window frames as originally proposed, the white frames will provide a subtle playful accent at the building elevations. Gray will still be utilized at railings, roofs and trim. Pella, the proposed product, is a quality vinyl window and low maintenance is anticipated over the life of the project. APPLICANT: The City of Aspen, represented by Jack Wheeler ADDRESS: 540 E. Main PARCEL ID: 2737-073-24-003 ZONING: Public Zone (PUB). LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting HPC approve the use of vinyl windows based on the following criteria: 6.59 High quality, durable materials should be employed. • The palette of materials proposed for all development should be specified and approved as part of the general and detailed development approvals process, including samples of materials as required. 6.60 Building materials should have these features: • Convey the quality and range of materials seen historically • Reduce the scale and enhance visual interest • Convey human scale • Have proven durability and weathering characteristics within this climate 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. P21 II.F. 2 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 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 the structure is being constructed in the redevelopment of the site. ASSET MANAGEMENT REQUEST: Asset Staff requests HPC approve the use of vinyl in lieu of aluminum clad windows at the employee housing. As the outcome of this review, the HPC may: • approve the use of vinyl windows, • require the project to use aluminum clad, or • continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision in issuing a recommendation. EXHIBITS: A. Pella window product data B. Vinyl window specifications P22 II.F. B Want to learn more about Pella® windows and doors? Call us at 866-209-4260 or visit pella.com PELLA® 350 Series VINYL WINDOWS AND PATIO DOORS WITH A DISTINCTIVE LOOK AND EXCEPTIONAL PERFORMANCE Exhibit A P23 II.F. 2 vinyl. Premium Get more ideas and inspiration: PELLA.COM/PELLA-350 -SERIES Exhibit A P24 II.F. 3 Exceptional performance. Pella 350 Series windows and patio doors are stronger and more durable than ordinary vinyl windows. And they’re exceptionally energy-efficient. Pella® 350 Series windows and patio doors are purposefully designed to give you more of everything you love about vinyl. Advanced technology makes them stronger and more durable than ordinary vinyl. Distinctive detailing adds beauty and style. And with an exclusive energy-saving system, Pella 350 Series windows and patio doors include Pella’s most energy-efficient vinyl products. A distinctive look. Premium features include virtually invisible interior welded corners and robust frame profiles with beveled edges. Choose from a wide range of options, including patio doors with blinds- or shades-between-the-glass, several grille patterns and styles, today’s most popular hardware finishes and more. Exhibit A P25 II.F. 4 Premium vinyl. Advanced Low-E triple-pane InsulShield® glass with argon provides exceptional protection from extreme temperatures and blocks 86% of the sun’s fading UV rays. Our vinyl frame has up to 18 insulating air chambers inside — significantly more than ordinary vinyl has — to help keep your home warmer in the winter and cooler in the summer. Exclusive energy-saving system. Pella 350 Series windows with triple-pane glass are 54% – 83% more energy-efficient than single-pane windows.2 Pella® 350 Series products offer the energy- efficient options that will meet or exceed ENERGY STAR® certification in all 50 states.1 Premium frame design.Pella 350 Series window and patio door frames are 83% stronger than ordinary vinyl.3 And our precision corner welding process helps resist warping or twisting over time.Pella exclusive SmoothSeam® interior welded corners are virtually invisible, yet strong and durable. A typical competitor’s corner welds are visible. Robust frame profile features a beveled edge like wood windows and patio doors. A Typical Competitor’s Interior Welded Corner Pella’s SmoothSeam Interior Welded Corner Optional foam insulation increases energy performance. Exhibit A P26 II.F. 5 Backed by one of the best warranties in the business. The Pella Limited Lifetime Warranty is nonprorated, meaning the coverages within the defined warranty periods do not decrease over time. See written warranty for complete details, including specific labor and component warranty periods, at pella.com/warranty. 1 Some Pella products may not meet ENERGY STAR® certification in Canada. For more information, contact your local Pella sales representative or go to nrcan.gc.ca/energy/products/categories/fenestration/13739. 2 Improved window energy efficiency calculated in a computer simulation using RESFEN 5.0 default parameters for a 2,000-square-foot existing single-story home when comparing a Pella 350 Series vinyl window with InsulShield® Advanced Low-E triple-pane glass with argon to a single-pane wood or vinyl window. For more details, see pella.com/methodology. 3 Based on the force required to bend the window frame profile. 4 Pella’s impact-resistant glass in HurricaneShield products is made up of a sheet of standard or tempered glass combined with a sheet of laminated glass. For best performance, the laminated glass may be in the interior or exterior pane of insulating glass, depending on the product. 5 For more information about performance ratings, visit pella.com/PG-ratings. Protect what you value most. Pella® 350 Series HurricaneShield® windows and patio doors with impact-resistant glass 4 offer strong protection from flying debris — while increasing the safety, security, ultraviolet protection, noise control and energy efficiency of your home. Performance Grade (PG) 50 – 80 is available.5 With Pella’s impact-resistant glass. Without impact-resistant glass. Exhibit A P27 II.F. 6 A vinyl product that’s just right for you. WINDOWS Combination, Fixed and Special Shape Windows Double- and Single-Hung Windows Casement and Awning Windows Curves and angles. Combine Special Shape windows with other Pella® 350 Series products to create a custom look at a standard price. A quality, seamless look. Grille options are available to match other Pella 350 Series products. More ways to express your style. Factory-assembled window combinations allow you to create a stunning focal point in your home. Easy operation. Our TrueGlide Plus balance system helps ensure that your window will open and close easily for years to come. Strong protection against the weather. Pella’s cam-action locks pull the sashes tight against the weatherstripping. Easier cleaning. Opening sash tilts in — making it easy to clean the exterior glass from inside your home. Smooth openings and closings. Stainless steel operating arms and hinges resist rust and corrosion. Simple to operate. SureLock® System secures the window in two places with one easy-to-reach handle. More convenient handle design. Fold-away handle won’t get in the way of roomside window treatments. Easier cleaning. Easy-clean wash feature makes it simple to clean the exterior glass from inside your home. Easy operation. Tandem nylon rollers are extra- durable and help ensure smooth openings and closings. A tight seal against the elements. Pella’s cam-action locks pull the sashes tight against the weatherstripping. Simple to clean. Sliding sash can be removed to clean exterior glass from inside your home. Sliding Windows Exhibit A P28 II.F. 7 * WARNING: Screen will not stop child or pet from falling out of window or door. Keep child or pet away from open window or door. just right for you. PATIO DOORS Sliding Patio Doors Design flexibility. Shades, blinds or grilles are permanently sealed between panes of Low-E insulating glass so they stay protected from dust and damage. Extra security. Substantial hardware features a multipoint lock that secures the door in two places. A screen that disappears. Optional Rolscreen® retractable patio door screen* rolls out of sight when you’re not using it, so the screen stays protected. Combination, Fixed and Special Shape Windows CHOOSEPELLA.COM/OFFERING For more information on Pella’s window and patio door offering, see your local Pella sales representative or visit: Exhibit A P29 II.F. 8 Pella® products offer exceptional energy- efficient performance wherever you live.Weather out. Comfort in. 1 Glass options can be upgraded to offer the benefits of our InsulShield Low-E Glass Collection. Glass options may vary per product. See specific product information for availability. 2 Optional high-altitude Low-E insulating glass does not contain argon in most products. Please see your local Pella sales representative for more information. 3 Some Pella products may not meet ENERGY STAR® certification in Canada. For more information, contact your local Pella sales representative or go to nrcan.gc.ca/energy/products/categories/fenestration/13739. 4 Ranges are based on the average savings among homes in modeled cities. Actual savings will vary based on local climate conditions, utility rates and individual home characteristics. For more information on the benefits of ENERGY STAR certified windows and doors, go to energystar.gov/products/building_products/residential_windows_doors_and_skylights/benefits. Glass at a glance. Pella’s InsulShield® Low-E Glass Collection1 features our most innovative and energy-saving choices, designed for your specific needs. For many U.S. climates. GLASS TYPE: Advanced Low-E Insulating Glass with Argon2 Unique Low-E technology delivers balanced insulation for cold winters and hot summers. Hawaii For very hot, sunny climates. GLASS TYPE: SunDefense™ Low-E Insulating Glass with Argon2 Allows in visible light and provides a clear view, while helping to block the heat of the sun. Exhibit A P30 II.F. 9 For a typical home, when replacing single-pane windows with ENERGY STAR certified windows, you can save on average: And 1,006 – 6,205 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2), which is equivalent to 51 to 317 gallons of gasoline a year.4 $101 to CHOOSEPELLA.COM/GLASS For more information on glass, see your local Pella sales representative or visit: Helping you save on heating and cooling costs. Installing ENERGY STAR® certified windows and doors can lower energy costs.3 With more efficient windows, you can also use less energy, which reduces greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. $583 per year More panes, more gains. Many older homes have single- pane windows, which can lead to higher heating and cooling costs and drafty interiors. Multiple panes of glass create an air chamber that can dramatically increase energy efficiency and comfort. Available on Pella® 350 Series products. panes 32 panes For cold climates — like northern U.S. and Canada. GLASS TYPE: NaturalSun Low-E Insulating Glass with Argon2 Allows the sun’s heat to flow in and warm your home, while providing excellent insulation from the cold. Glass for a wide range of needs. In addition to exceptional energy efficiency, you’ll find great glass options that help with privacy, glare and noise control. Exhibit A P31 II.F. 10 FRAME COLORS Optional dual-color frame lets you complement your home inside and out. White Almond Dual-Color Frames White Interior with Brown Exterior Features and options. HARDWARE STYLES Find beauty and function in Pella’s innovative, easy-to-operate hardware styles. Double-Hung, Single-Hung and Sliding Window AutoLock5 (optional) Double- and Single-Hung Window Surface-Mounted Sash Lift (optional) Casement and Awning Window Crank Double-Hung, Single-Hung and Sliding Window Cam-Action Sash Lock (standard) Double- and Single-Hung Window Integrated Sash Lift (standard) Sliding Patio Door Handle with Multipoint Locking System (standard) HARDWARE FINISHES White BrownAlmond Color-Matched Finishes Oil-Rubbed BronzeSatin NickelBright Brass Additional Finishes6 Choose from today’s most popular decorative finishes to coordinate with other finishes in your home. SCREENS1 Improve your view and let in more light and fresh air with your choice of innovative screens from Pella. Rolscreen® retractable screens roll out of sight when not in use.2 Conventional Screen InView™ Screen InView™ high-transparency screens let in 14% more light and are 8% more open for improved airflow.3, 4 GRILLES 7/8" Contour Color-Matched Simulated-Divided-Light4, 7 1" Contour Color-Matched Grilles-Between-the-Glass8 3/4" Contour 1 WARNING: Screen will not stop child or pet from falling out of window or door. Keep child or pet away from open window or door. 2 Available on sliding patio doors only. 3 Improved airflow is based on calculated screen cloth openness. Screen cloth transmittance was measured using an integrated sphere spectrophotometer. 4 Available on windows only. 5 When using AutoLock hardware, simply close the sash and confirm it latches. 6 Available on interior only. 7 Not available with triple-pane glass. 8 Appearance of exterior grille color may vary depending on the Low-E insulating glass selection. 9 Grille patterns offered may vary per product. See specific product information for availability. 10 Not available on HurricaneShield® products. Exhibit A P32 II.F. 11 DESIGN GUIDE DOUBLE-HUNG WINDOWSSINGLE-HUNG WINDOWSCASEMENT WINDOWSAWNING WINDOWSSLIDING WINDOWSSPECIAL SHAPE WINDOWSFIXED WINDOWSSLIDING PATIO DOORSGLASS INSULSHIELD® LOW-E GLASS COLLECTION1 Advanced Low-E insulating glass with argon2, 3 S S S S S S S O NaturalSun Low-E insulating glass with argon2, 3 O O O O O O O O SunDefense™ Low-E insulating glass with argon2, 3 O O O O O O O O ADDITIONAL GLASS1 Advanced Low-E insulating glass O O O O O O O S Obscure Low-E insulating glass3 O O O O O O O O Bronze-tinted Advanced Low-E insulating glass with argon2 O O O O O O O O HurricaneShield® products with impact-resistant glass O O O O O O Laminated glass (non-impact-resistant)O O O O O Low-E insulating glass with blinds- or shades-between-the-glass O Sound control (3mm/5mm combination glass)O O O O O O O O Gray Low-E insulating glass with argon2 O O O O O O O O Tempered glass O O O O O O O S Tempered glass in bottom sash only O O 1 See glass information on pages 8 – 9 for details. 2 Optional high-altitude Low-E insulating glass available with or without argon on most products. 3 Available with triple-pane glass. FRAME COLORS (INTERIOR/EXTERIOR) White S S S S S S S S Almond O O O O O O O O Dual-color (White interior with Brown exterior)O O O O O O O O HARDWARE1 FINISHES1 White, Almond, or Brown2 (color-matched to frame, interior or exterior) S S S S S S Bright Brass3, Satin Nickel3 or Oil-Rubbed Bronze3 O O O O O O 1 See hardware finish colors and styles on page 10. 2 Available on exterior sliding patio doors only. 3 Available on the interior only. GRILLES 7/8" Simulated-Divided-Light O O O O O O O 3/4" or 1" Contour aluminum grilles-between-the-glass* O O O O O O O O * Appearance of exterior grille color may vary depending on the Low-E insulating glass selection. GRILLE PATTERNS* 6-Lite Prairie O O O O 9-Lite Prairie O O O O O O O O Traditional O O O O O O O O Top Row O O O O O O O Top Sash Only (9-Lite Prairie or Traditional)O O Starburst, Sunburst or Perimeter O Custom (equally divided)O O O O O O O O * Grille patterns offered may vary per product. See specific product information for availability. SCREENS* (COLOR-MATCHED FRAMES) Half screen O S S Full screen S S S InView™ screen O O O O O Heavy-duty sliding screen (color-matched to exterior frames)S Rolscreen® retractable screen O * WARNING: Screen will not stop child or pet from falling out of window or door. Keep child or pet away from open window or door. BLINDS- OR SHADES-BETWEEN-THE-GLASS* Cordless White blinds O Cordless Linen-colored shades O * Availability varies by size. See a Pella professional for details. WARRANTY Limited Lifetime Warranty*S S S S S S S S * See written warranty for complete details at pella.com/warranty. ( S) Standard (O) Optional See a Pella professional for specific details and additional options available. Some features are part of our standard offering; not all options are available on all product styles. vinyl window and patio door A variety of grille patterns for the traditional look of divided light. Custom patterns are also available. GRILLE PATTERNS9 Top RowTraditional Top Sash Only 9-Lite Prairie6-Lite Prairie 9-Lite Prairie Top Sash Only Traditional Custom (equally divided) Sunburst Starburst Linen-Colored Interior with White Exterior Fabric Shades2, 10 White Blinds2, 10 PATIO DOOR FASHIONS Dress your sliding patio doors with blinds- or shades-between-the-glass. Exhibit A P33 II.F. A Want to learn more about Pella® windows and doors? Call us at 866-209-4260 or visit pella.com © 2016 PELLA CORPORATION • 102 MAIN STREET • PELLA, IOWA 50219 • 866-209-4260 • PELLA.COM • PVL1016 Always read the Pella limited warranties before purchasing or installing Pella products. See written warranties for complete details at pella.com/warranty. Pella Corporation is a proud volunteer partner in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy’s ENERGY STAR® program to promote the use of high-efficiency products. ® Connect with Pella: Exhibit A P34 II.F. 540 Employee Housing Construction Documents VINYL WINDOWS Project #1506 07/07/2017 08 53 13 - 1 SECTION 08 53 13 VINYL WINDOWS PART 1 GENERAL 1.1 SECTION INCLUDES A. Vinyl casement windows. B. Vinyl fixed windows. C. Vinyl sliding windows. 1.2 RELATED REQUIREMENTS A. Section 07 27 00 – Air Barriers: Water-resistant barrier. B. Section 07 92 00 – Joint Sealants: Sealants. 1.3 REFERENCE STANDARDS A. American Architectural Manufacturers Association (AAMA): 1. AAMA 303 - Voluntary Specification for Poly (Vinyl Chloride) (PVC) Exterior Profile Extrusions; American Architectural Manufacturers Association. 2. AAMA 502 – Voluntary Specification for Field Testing of Newly Installed Fenestration Products. 3. AAMA 614 – Voluntary Specification, Performance Requirements and Test Procedures for High Performance Organic Coatings on Plastic Profiles. B. ASTM International (ASTM): 1. ASTM C 1036 – Standard Specification for Flat Glass. 2. ASTM C 1048 – Standard Specification for Heat-Treated Flat Glass—Kind HS, Kind FT Coated and Uncoated Glass. 3. ASTM D 1929 – Standard Test Method for Determining Ignition Temperature of Plastics. 4. ASTM D 3656 – Insect Screening and Louver Cloth Woven from Vinyl-Coated Glass Yarns. 5. ASTM E 330 – Standard Test Method for Structural Performance of Exterior Windows, Doors, Skylights and Curtain Walls by Uniform Static Air Pressure Difference. 6. ASTM F 588 – Standard Test Methods for Measuring the Forced Entry Resistance of Window Assemblies, Excluding Glazing Impact. C. Screen Manufacturers Association (SMA): 1. SMA 1201 – Specifications for Insect Screens for Windows, Sliding Doors and Swinging Doors. D. Window and Door Manufacturers Association (WDMA): 1. AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/A440 – North American Fenestration Standard/Specification for Windows, Doors, and Skylights. Exhibit B P35 II.F. 540 Employee Housing Construction Documents VINYL WINDOWS Project #1506 07/07/2017 08 53 13 - 2 1.4 SUBMITTALS A. Comply with Section 01 33 00 – Submittal Procedures. B. Product Data: Submit manufacturer's product data, including installation instructions. C. Shop Drawings: Submit manufacturer's shop drawings, indicating dimensions, construction, component connections and locations, anchorage methods and locations, hardware locations, and installation details. D. Samples: Submit full-size or partial full-size sample of vinyl windows illustrating glazing system, quality of construction, and color of finish. E. Manufacturer’s Certification: Submit manufacturer’s certification that materials comply with specified requirements and are suitable for intended application. F. Cleaning and Maintenance Instructions: Submit manufacturer’s cleaning and maintenance instructions. G. Warranty Documentation: Submit manufacturer’s standard warranty. 1.5 QUALITY ASSURANCE A. Installer's Qualifications: 1. Installer regularly engaged, for past 5 years, in installation of vinyl windows of similar type to that specified. 2. Employ persons trained for installation of vinyl windows. B. Mock-ups: 1. Provide sample installation for field testing window performance requirements and to determine acceptability of window installation methods. 2. Approved mock-ups shall represent minimum quality required for the Work. 3. Approved mock-ups shall remain in place within the Work. 1.6 DELIVERY, STORAGE, AND HANDLING A. Delivery: 1. Deliver windows to site undamaged in manufacturer's or sales branch's original, unopened containers and packaging, with labels clearly identifying manufacturer and product name. 2. Include installation instructions. B. Storage and Handling: 1. Store and handle windows in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. 2. Store windows off ground and under cover. 3. Provide full support under framework when storing, handling, and installing windows. 4. Allow sufficient spacing between windows during storage for ventilation. 5. Do not lift windows by head member only. 6. Protect windows from weather, direct sunlight, and construction activities. 7. Protect windows and finish during handling and installation to prevent damage. Exhibit B P36 II.F. 540 Employee Housing Construction Documents VINYL WINDOWS Project #1506 07/07/2017 08 53 13 - 3 PART 2 PRODUCTS 2.1 MANUFACTURER A. Pella Corporation, 102 Main Street, Pella, Iowa 50219. Toll Free 800-54-PELLA. Phone 641- 621-1000. Website www.pella.com. 2.2 PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS A. Standard Performance: 1. Meets or exceeds AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/A440 Ratings: LC-PG40, WDMA Hallmark Certified. 2. Unit assembly shall withstand both positive and negative uniform static air pressure difference without damage when tested according to ASTM E 330. 3. Air Infiltration, 1.57 psf wind pressure: 0.05 cfm/ft2 of frame. 4. Design Pressure: 40 psf. 5. Water Penetration Resistance: 6.06 psf. B. Maximum Operating Force: 1. Initiate Motion: 15 lbs. 2. Maintain Motion: 6 lbs. C. Meets U.S. ENERGY STAR guidelines. 2.3 VINYL WINDOWS A. Vinyl Windows: Pella 350 Series. B. Frame: 1. Interior and Exterior Frame Surfaces: Extruded, rigid, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) complying with AAMA 303, having minimum ignition temperature 824 degrees F. when tested in accordance with ASTM D 1929. 2. Overall Frame Depth: 4-1/2 inches. 3. Frame Members: Mitered and heat fused to provide fully welded corner assembly with “SmoothSeam” virtually invisible interior corner welds. 4. Frame Type: a. Block Frame: For 5-1/2-inch wall depth. C. Sash: 1. Sash Members: Extruded, rigid, PVC with foam insulation complying with AAMA 303, having minimum ignition temperature 824 degrees F. when tested in accordance with ASTM D 1929. 2. Sash Members: Mitered and heat fused to provide fully welded corner assembly with “SmoothSeam” virtually invisible interior corner welds. 3. Contains sealed insulating glass. 4. Wet glazed with polyurethane-reactive hotmelt. D. Glazing: 1. Float Glass: ASTM C 1036. a. Glass Type: Tempered safety glass, ASTM C 1048. 2. Exterior face-glazed sealed insulating glass. 3. Dual-Pane Insulating Glass: a. Total Thickness: 11/16 inch. b. “SunDefense” Low-E coated, with argon. E. Weatherstripping: Exhibit B P37 II.F. 540 Employee Housing Construction Documents VINYL WINDOWS Project #1506 07/07/2017 08 53 13 - 4 1. Vent: Weatherstripped around sash and frame perimeter with TPE bulb weatherstrip in 2 locations and foam-filled Santoprene rainstrip in 1 location 2.4 HARDWARE A. Lock: Factory-installed, single-handle, zinc-die-cast, multipoint unison lock. B. Roto Operator: 1. Dual Arm: DYAD. 2. Fold-down crank on sill. C. Fasteners: Corrosion-resistant, PVC-compatible material. D. Hardware Finish: Match window interior. 2.5 SCREENS A. Screens: Standard 1. Compliance: a. ASTM D 3656. b. SMA 1201 2. Screen Cloth: Black, vinyl-coated, 18/14 mesh, fiberglass screen cloth. 3. Set in extruded aluminum frame and fitted to interior of windows. 4. Screen Frame Finish: Baked enamel. a. Color: Match window interior. 2.6 TOLERANCES A. Windows shall accommodate the following opening tolerances: 1. Horizontal Dimensions Between High and Low Points: Plus 1/4 inch, minus 0 inch. 2. Width Dimensions: Plus 1/4 inch, minus 0 inch. 3. Building Columns or Masonry Openings: Plus or minus 1/4 inch from plumb. 2.7 FINISH A. Exposed PVC Surfaces: Smooth, glossy, and uniform in appearance. B. Frame Colors: 1. Exterior/Interior: a. White: Integral color extruded throughout profiles. 2.8 INSTALLATION ACCESSORIES A. Flashing/Sealant Tape: Pella “SmartFlash”. 1. Aluminum-foil-backed butyl window and door flashing tape. 2. Maximum Total Thickness: 0.013 inch. 3. UV resistant. 4. Verify sealant compatibility with sealant manufacturer. B. Interior Insulating-Foam Sealant: Low-expansion, low-pressure polyurethane insulating window and door foam sealant. Exhibit B P38 II.F. 540 Employee Housing Construction Documents VINYL WINDOWS Project #1506 07/07/2017 08 53 13 - 5 C. Exterior Perimeter Sealant: “Pella Window and Door Installation Sealant” or equivalent high quality, multi-purpose sealant as specified in the joints sealant section. PART 3 EXECUTION 3.1 EXAMINATION A. Examine rough opening to receive vinyl windows. 1. Verify rough opening is plumb, level, square, and of proper dimensions. 2. Verify a minimum of 1-1/2 inches of solid wood blocking is installed around perimeter of rough opening. B. Notify Architect of conditions that would adversely affect installation or subsequent use. C. Do not proceed with installation until unsatisfactory conditions are corrected. 3.2 INSTALLATION A. Install vinyl windows in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. B. Install windows plumb, level, square, and without distortion. C. Maintain alignment with adjacent work. D. Install windows to be weather tight. E. Install windows to be freely operating. F. Verify proper operation of operating hardware. G. Integrate window installation with exterior weather-resistant barrier using flashing/sealant tape. 1. Apply and integrate flashing/sealant tape with weather-resistant barrier using watershed principles in accordance with window manufacturer's instructions. H. Seal windows to exterior wall cladding with sealant and related backing materials at perimeter of assembly. I. Place interior seal around vinyl window perimeter to maintain continuity of building thermal and air barrier using [backer rod and sealant] [insulating-foam sealant]. J. Leave windows closed and locked. 3.3 FIELD QUALITY CONTROL A. Field Testing: Field test vinyl windows in accordance with AAMA 502. 3.4 CLEANING A. Clean vinyl windows in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. B. Do not use harsh cleaning materials or methods that could damage finish, vinyl, or glass. C. Remove labels and visible markings. D. Keep window tracks clear of dirt and debris. E. Keep weep holes open and clear of obstructions. Exhibit B P39 II.F. 540 Employee Housing Construction Documents VINYL WINDOWS Project #1506 07/07/2017 08 53 13 - 6 3.5 PROTECTION A. Protect installed vinyl windows to ensure that, except for normal weathering, windows will be without damage or deterioration at time of substantial completion. END OF SECTION Exhibit B P40 II.F. Exhibit B P41 II.F. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 217 S. Galena Street - Minor Development, Public Hearing DATE: August 23, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: 217 S. Galena was built in 1891 to house the Abbey Saloon. The building has experienced a few alterations, including replacement of the storefront, the addition of a stair along the alley, the addition of a pediment, and painting of the exterior brick and sandstone. The property is currently being remodeled to be occupied by Kemosabe. The interior remodel did not require land use review. A few months ago, the architect for the remodel approached staff with plans for exterior improvements including new awnings and signage. These are Administrative approvals that will be reviewed and approved by staff when permits are submitted. The proposal also included repainting the exterior. Staff indicated that this work can proceed related to wood features, but that continued painting of the historic masonry is considered to be detrimental to the preservation of the structure. The Municipal Code identifies certain work on historic properties that is exempt from review. Painting surfaces that are already painted is typically exempt. However, the code allows the Community Development Director to determine instances when review is needed. The intent of the preservation program is to ensure the longevity of designated properties. The Community Development Director has reviewed the language below and identified this proposal as Minor Review requiring HPC approval in order to proceed. P42 IV.A. 2 The applicant has objected to this determination, however HPC does not have the authority to address the matter. The applicant may file a “Request for Intrepretation” of the Code. A formal statement would be issued by the Community Development Director, with appeal to City Council if desired. The applicant is interested in completing the re-painting before Kemosabe moves in next month and decided to make the application to HPC as the first step. Staff finds that there is inadequate information provided for HPC to judge the appropriateness of re-painting the building at this time. Painting historic brick and stone is considered to be damaging and is not a recommended practice on historic structures. There is clear guidance from the National Park Service, the primary source for technical guidance on historic preservation in the U.S., in this regard. HPC may deny the request to re-paint, however this will likely leave maintenance concerns unresolved. While HPC cannot require the paint to be stripped, this would likely be needed eventually if the existing surface continues to deteriorate. Staff recommends that HPC deny re-painting at this time. A continuation of the application would be appropriate for the purpose of completing test patches to determine whether paint removal is appropriate. These test patches and analysis would need to be completed under the supervision of a professional with expertise on historic masonry. If the analysis indicates that re-painting is the best preservation option, then HPC could make an informed decision. If it is determined that re-painting is damaging to the building, then staff would recommend denial of the request and encourage the applicant to consider options for paint removal. APPLICANT: Wheeler Block Building, LLC, represented by part-owner Mark Haldeman. ADDRESS: 217 S. Galena Street, the northerly 25’ of Lots R and S, Block 88, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. PARCEL ID: 2737-073-39-012. ZONING: CC, Commercial Core. MINOR DEVELOPMENT The procedure for a Minor Development Review is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project’s conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall issue a Development Order. The HPC decision shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a P43 IV.A. 3 landowner within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316. Staff Response: HPC may approve the proposed re-painting of 217 S. Galena if the work is found to meet the relevant City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Numerous historic records, such as the photos below, suggest that this building has been painted for decades, at least since the 1950’s. Multiple layers of paint have built up. The earliest layers likely contain lead paint. Successive layers have created a fairly impermeable coating that prevents moisture in the masonry, or moisture that may get trapped between the masonry and the paint, from evaporating. It is no longer possible to fully assess the stability of the brick, stone or the mortar. It is staff’s concern that this condition may unintentionally be allowing “demolition by neglect,” which is not to occur on landmarked properties. There are methods and products that have been used successfully in Aspen and beyond to remove paint from masonry safely. Typically a gel is applied to the surface, allowed to remain in place for some period and then peeled away, encapsulating any lead paint in the process. Staff finds that there are three Historic Preservation Design Guidelines applicable to the applicant’s request, none of which are met. P44 IV.A. 4 This is a complicated issue that should not be decided without analysis of the structure. It is understood that paint was sometimes initially applied with the intent of protecting the brick surface, however there may be an opposite effect occurring now. ______________________________________________________________________________ DECISION MAKING OPTIONS: 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 that HPC deny re-painting at this time or continue the application to give the applicant time to complete test patches to determine whether paint removal is appropriate. The findings should be brought back to HPC for additional discussion. If the applicant does not accept a continuation, staff has provided HPC with a resolution denying the work. Exhibits: Resolution #__, Series of 2017 A. Application P45 IV.A. A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DENYING MINOR DEVELOPMENT FOR 217 S. GALENA STREET, THE NORTHERLY 25’ OF LOTS R AND S, BLOCK 88, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2017 PARCEL ID: 2737-073-39-012 WHEREAS, the applicant, Wheeler Block Building, LLC, represented by Mark Haldeman, submitted an application requesting Minor Development approval to re-paint the historic exterior masonry on the property located at 217 S. Galena Street, the northerly 25’ of Lots R and S, Block 88, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for compliance with the applicable review standards and recommended continuance of the application for further study, or denial of the proposed work; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, has reviewed and considered the recommendation from Community Development, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on August 23, 2017; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission finds that re-painting the historic exterior masonry on this designated building does not meet the applicable review criteria; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission denies the request by a vote of __ to __. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC denies Minor Development approval to repaint the historic exterior masonry at the property located at 217 S. Galena Street. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 23rd day of August, 2017. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: _________________________________ ____________________________________ Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Jeffrey Halferty, Chair Attest: _________________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk P46 IV.A. P47 IV.A. P48 IV.A. P49 IV.A. P50 IV.A. P51 IV.A. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 406 S. Mill Street - Minor Development and View plane exemption, Public Hearing DATE: August 23, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: 406 S. Mill Street was built in 1956 by the Aspen Skiing Company and appears to have been used as offices. There is limited information in the building permit file and staff does not know who designed the building. The property was sold to McDonald’s Corporation in 1983 and McDonald’s sold to the current owner in 2016. The building is currently being converted from a restaurant to a fitness/retail use through a significant interior remodel that did not require land use review. Some replacement of exterior doors and windows has been accommodated through an administrative design review approval. HPC is asked to conduct Minor Development review concerning changes to exterior materials. Staff found that an Administrative approval was not appropriate for this work. HPC is also asked to acknowledge an exemptions from the Wagner and Wheeler View Planes for this project, since it does not alter the form of the subject building. APPLICANT: Rubey Park LLC, 400 E. Main Street, Aspen, CO 81611, represented by Zone 4 Architects. ADDRESS: 406 S. Mill Street, Park Place Units: 103, 203, 305 and 306, Aspen, CO, 81611. PARCEL ID: 2737-182-23-305. ZONING: CC, Commercial Core. MINOR DEVELOPMENT Because this property is located in a historic district, HPC design review is required, and since the use of the property is commercial, Commercial Design Review is also needed. The design guidelines for these processes are one and the same, and the scope of work involved in this application is limited, so the process has been identified to be Minor Development review. The procedure for a Minor Development Review is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project’s conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will P52 IV.B. 2 review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall issue a Development Order. The HPC decision shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316. Staff Response: 406 S. Mill is a non-historic structure located in the Commercial Core Historic District. Given the construction date of the building, it may be considered eligible AspenModern designation, but was not identified as such in previous surveys. The applicant requests approval to replace existing areas of stucco on the upper level of the west and south facades of the building with painted metal siding. The same replacement is proposed for wood siding at projecting bay windows on both floors. The applicant also wishes to paint the unpainted brick on the lower level of the west and south facades. HPC needs to consider the relevant design guidelines found in the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Standards and Guidelines, specifically 1.7, 1.22, 1.23, 1.35 and 2.14 shown below. Please note that 1.22 and 1.23 are standards requiring compliance. The design book page on which each standard or guideline is found are attached in exhibit A so that HPC can review the related text. P53 IV.B. 3 P54 IV.B. 4 Regarding the replacement of stucco and wood with metal siding, staff has some concern with the elimination of natural materials, particularly the wood siding. Wood materials will remain at the ground floor at the covered entry, which is heavy timber construction. All of the existing wood is painted. Arguably the painted metal siding will be difficult to distinguish from painted wood siding. Staff finds there may be some loss of “texture” as mentioned in guideline 2.14. Metal, in the form of storefronts and cornices, is an exterior material found historically in the district. Staff supports allowing the work to proceed. Regarding painting the unpainted masonry, staff finds that this conflicts with 1.7 in that painting the masonry erases the pattern of the masonry units and grout lines and reduces visual interest along the alley façade. The proposal is similarly not consistent with standard 1.23 or guideline 2.14 in that masonry was historically not painted in downtown Aspen and doing so negatively impacts the relationship of the building to the surrounding context by eliminating the qualities of texture, the relationship to the coloring of natural surroundings, and the human scale that the natural masonry units provide. Staff recommends the request to paint the brick be denied. Regarding view plane, City Council has recently adopted code amendments affecting how development is regulated. There are seven designated view planes in the City. The location and extent of the view planes have not changed at all, but now development within the view planes is treated differently depending on whether the subject site falls within a defined “foreground,” “midground,” or “background,” relative to where the view plane originates. This project falls in the foreground of the Wagner View Plane and the midground of the Wheeler View Plane. The amended Municipal Code states that “any addition or remodel of an existing structure that does not change or decreases a building’s height at any point or visible mass from the view plane reference point,” may proceed directly to zoning compliance check or building permit review. ______________________________________________________________________________ DECISION MAKING OPTIONS: 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 allow the installation of metal siding as proposed but deny painting the unpainted brick. Exhibits: Resolution #__, Series of 2017 A. Design Guidelines B. Application P55 IV.B. A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING MINOR DEVELOPMENT AND VIEW PLANE EXEMPTION FOR 406 S. MILL STREET, PARK PLACE UNITS: 103, 203, 305 AND 306, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2017 PARCEL ID: 2737-182-23-305 WHEREAS, the applicant, Rubey Park LLC, represented by Zone 4 Architects, submitted an application requesting Minor Development review and View Plane Exemption for the property located at 406 S. Mill Street, Park Place Units: 103, 203, 305 and 306, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for compliance with the applicable review standards and recommended approval of some of the proposed work; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on August 23, 2017; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission finds that installation of metal siding in certain locations of the building exterior meets the applicable review criteria, while painting unpainted exterior brick does not; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission approves the metal siding as submitted, by a vote of __ to __. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC grants Minor Development and View Plane Exemption approval for the property located at 406 S. Mill Street, allowing the installation of metal siding as proposed but denying the request to paint unpainted brick. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 23rd day of August, 2017. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: _________________________________ ____________________________________ Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Jeffrey Halferty, Chair Attest: _________________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk P56 IV.B. Alleyways Alleys are an important feature of most of the Character Areas. Traditionally, Aspen alleyways were unpaved, supported a range of building materials, and often had small buildings located along them. They continue to function as a utilitarian location for back of house operations, deliveries, required utilities, and mechanical areas. Staying true to traditional development, alleys are an appropriate area for simple building forms and materials. It is important to design an alley facade with special attention to reduce perceived building mass. Wherever possible, pedestrian access and appealing alleyscapes should be achieved in the design. Improved access to alleyways creates opportunities for small commercial space. The following guidelines only apply to properties that are adjacent to an alley. 1.7 Develop alley facades to create visual interest. •Use varied building setbacks and/or changes in material to reduce perceived scale. 1.8 Consider small alley commercial spaces, especially on corner lots or lots with midblock access from the street (See Pedestrian Amenity Section PA4). •Maximize visibility and access to alley commercial spaces with large windows and setbacks. •Minimize adverse impacts of adjacent service and parking areas through materials, setbacks, and/or landscaping. Alleys are often used for utilities, back of house access, and parking. Develop alley facades with special attention to material selection and building form. Alleys can be developed to help reduce perceived building mass and provide pedestrian scale. General Guidelines Page 13 P57 IV.B. Materials and Details In the 19th Century, Aspen had a limited range of architectural materials: red brick, painted wood, glass, and locally sourced sandstone. In the mid- century the palette expanded to include natural wood, stucco, river rock and moss rock, metal, concrete block, and bricks of other tones. It is important to maintain a relationship to the existing material palette evident in the general vicinity while allowing some new materials and material technology to be used. The color palette of natural materials throughout the commercial and lodging neighborhoods represents Aspen’s environment, with browns and reds being the predominant colors. High quality materials that relate to the context of the neighborhood and the building type are important. Carefully consider existing color schemes and textures within a neighborhood before selecting materials. Paint color is variable and is not subject to review. Introducing a new material may require other aspects of the architecture to show restraint. Materials must have a proven performance in Aspen’s extreme climate. 1.22 Complete and accurate identification of materials is required. •Provide drawings that identify the palette of materials, specifications for the materials, and location on the proposed building as part of the application. •Physical material samples shall be presented to the review body. An onsite mock-up prior to installation may be required. 1.23 Building materials shall have these features: •Convey the quality and range of materials found in the current block context or seen historically in the Character Area. •Convey pedestrian scale. •Enhance visual interest through texture, application, and/or dimension. •Be non-reflective. Shiny or glossy materials are not appropriate as a primary material. •Have proven durability and weathering characteristics within Aspen’s climate. •A material with an integral color shall be a neutral color. Some variation is allowed for secondary materials. 1.24 Introducing a new material, material application, or material finish to the existing streetscape may be approved by HPC or P&Z if the following criteria are met: •Innovative building design. •Creative material application that positively contributes to the streetscape. •Environmentally sustainable building practice. •Proven durability. 1.25 Architecture that reflects corporate branding of the tenant is not permitted. Materials are required to convey the range and quality found in the Character Area. Sustainable design is encouraged through materials, energy efficiency, fenestration, site planning, and thoughtful open space. AACP Policy I.1 Achieve sustainable growth practices to ensure the long term viability and stability of our community and diverse visitor based economy. Page 20 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P58 IV.B. Remodel Upgrading an existing building through a remodel can improve energy efficiency, building function and appearance, and meet community goals to reduce construction waste. Altering specific features of a building, such as replacing exterior materials or constructing an addition to an existing building, is considered a remodel project. A project that reaches the demolition threshold as defined in the Land Use Code is not considered a remodel. It is important to carefully plan a remodel to meet the design guidelines and neighborhood character where feasible. Gradually bringing remodel projects into conformance with design guidelines reinforces neighborhood character. These guidelines apply to projects that are proposing changes to an existing building but do not reach the demolition threshold. 1.33 All remodel projects shall meet Standards 1.22 and 1.23. 1.34 Consider updating windows, doors, and/ or primary entrances to better relate to the Character Area and pedestrian experience. 1.35 Design alterations to relate to the existing building style and form that may remain. 1.36 Incorporate elements that define the property line in accordance with Guideline 1.6. 1.37 Creative solutions that incorporate ADA compliance into the architecture are encouraged. •Minimize the appearance of ramps by exploring other on-site options such as altering interior floor levels or exterior grade. Replacing features such as balconies is considered a remodel. Alterations should relate to the existing building style. Exterior grade altered for an accessible entrance. Page 22 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P59 IV.B. Details and Materials As 19th-century commercial construction evolved, the amount of ornamentation and high style influences evolved as well. Cornice and mid-belt moldings became more prominent, more elaborate window and door openings were used and much of the facade was covered with varying degrees of applied ornamentation. Architectural details and material selection for new buildings or remodels are paramount to a successful and contextual building within the Commercial Core Historic District. While it is inappropriate to mimic historic details because it creates a false sense of history, subtle reference to 19th-century commercial details may be appropriate. Materials should reflect those found within the Commercial Core Historic District: unpainted brick, textured large pieces of locally sourced sandstone, and painted wood. Painted metal details are found on some historic landmarks. 2.14 Architectural details should reinforce historic context and meet at least two of the following qualities. •Color or finish traditionally found downtown. •Texture to create visual interest, especially for larger buildings. •Traditional material: Brick, stone, metal and wood. •Traditional application: for example, a running bond for masonry. Unpainted brick is an appropriate building material. Cornice and mid-belt moldings were a prominent detail in 19th- century design. Historic buildings create a unique context for visitors to Aspen. Page 52 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P60 IV.B. ATTACHMENT 2 - Historic Preservation Land Use Application PROJECT: Name: Location: (Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)___________________________________________________________ APPLICANT: Name: Address: Phone #: _______________________Fax#:___________________E-mail:_____________________ REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Address: Phone #: _______________________Fax#:___________________E-mail:______________________ TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): Historic Designation Certificate of No Negative Effect Certificate of Appropriateness -Minor Historic Development -Major Historic Development -Conceptual Historic Development -Final Historic Development -Substantial Amendment Relocation (temporary, on or off-site) Demolition (total demolition) Historic Landmark Lot Split EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: May 29, 2007 P61 IV.B. Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: May 29, 2007 General Information Please check the appropriate boxes below and submit this page along with your application. This information will help us review your plans and, if necessary, coordinate with other agencies that may be involved. YES NO Does the work you are planning include exterior work; including additions, demolitions, new construction, remodeling, rehabilitation or restoration? Does the work you are planning include interior work; including remodeling, rehabilitation, or restoration? Do you plan other future changes or improvements that could be reviewed at this time? In addition to City of Aspen approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness or No Negative Effect and a building permit, are you seeking to meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation or restoration of a National Register of Historic Places property in order to qualify for state or federal tax credits? If yes, are you seeking federal rehabilitation investment tax credits in conjunction with this project? (Only income producing properties listed on the National Register are eligible. Owner-occupied residential properties are not.) If yes, are you seeking the Colorado State Income Tax Credit for Historical Preservation? Please check all City of Aspen Historic Preservation Benefits which you plan to use: Rehabilitation Loan Fund Conservation Easement Program Dimensional Variances Increased Density Historic Landmark Lot Split Waiver of Park Dedication Fees Conditional Uses Exemption from Growth Management Quota System Tax Credits P62 IV.B. $___________ deposit for _______ hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325 per hour. 1,300 4 P63 IV.B. Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: May 29, 2007 ATTACHMENT 3 - Dimensional Requirements Form (Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.) Project: Applicant: Project Location: Zone District: Lot Size: Lot Area: (For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing:__________Proposed:___________________ Number of residential units: Existing:__________Proposed:___________________ Number of bedrooms: Existing:__________Proposed:___________________ Proposed % of demolition:__________ DIMENSIONS: (write n/a where no requirement exists in the zone district) Floor Area: Height Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ Principal Bldg.: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ Accessory Bldg.: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ On-Site parking: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ % Site coverage: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ % Open Space: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Front Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Rear Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Combined Front/Rear: Indicate N, S, E, W Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Combined Sides: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Distance between buildings: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued: ____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ Variations requested (identify the exact variances needed): ______________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ P64 IV.B. CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION SUMMARY PLANNER:Amy Simon, 429-2758 DATE: 06.26.17 PROJECT: 406 S. Mill, Minor HPC Review REPRESENTATIVE:Zone 4 Architects DESCRIPTION: 406 S. Mill is a non-historic structure located in the Commercial Core Historic District. The building is being converted from a restaurant to a fitness/retail use through a significant interior remodel. Some replacement of exterior doors and windows has been accommodated through an administrative design review approval. The owner would like to paint the natural brick exterior, which requires review by the Historic Preservation Commission. HPC must find that the relevant review criteria in Section 26.415 of the Municipal Code and the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines are met for the work to proceed. In particular, review pages 20 (Standard 1.23) and 52 (Guideline 2.14) of the document. Relevant Land Use Code Section(s): 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.415.070.C Minor Development Below are links to the Land Use Application form and Land Use Code for your convenience: Land Use Code: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Title-26- Land-Use-Code/ Land Use Application: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/Apps%20and%20Fees/2011%20Historic%20 Land%20Use%20App%20Form.pdf Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines: https://app.box.com/s/3a0vvpgpwtdzsomb9aa9rjsfq3qx2o1b Review by: Staff for complete application and recommendation, HPC for decision Public Hearing: Yes, at HPC (posting of notice only) Planning Fees: $1,300 for up to 4 billable hours. Lesser/additional hours will be refunded or billed at a rate of $325 per hour. Referral Fees: None Total Deposit: $1,300 P65 IV.B. 2 To apply, submit 1 copy of the following information: Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement. Pre-application Conference Summary (this document). Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current (not 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. A site improvement survey (not older than a year from submittal) including topography and vegetation showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor by licensed in the State of Colorado. (This requirement will be waived given the scope of the project.) HOA Compliance form (Attached) A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application and relevant land use approvals associated with the property. Written responses to all review criteria. An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. Once the application is determined to be complete, submit: A digital copy of the application emailed to amy.simon@cityofaspen.com. Please provide text and graphics as separate files. 12 copies of the project graphics. Total deposit for review of the application. 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. P66 IV.B. P67 IV.B. P68 IV.B. P69 IV.B. P70 IV.B. P71 IV.B. P72 IV.B. P73IV.B. August 4, 2017 HAND DELIVERY Ms. Amy Simon City of Aspen Historic Preservation Officer 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 406 South Mill Street | O2 Remodel Dear Amy: On behalf of the Owner of the Property located at 406 South Mill Street, Zone 4 Architects would like to submit a Minor Development application for Commercial Design Review to the Historic Preservation Commission pursuant to the sections contained in the City of Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.412. This Application proposes making two exterior revisions to the color and material of the existing structure which are described in more detail below. Although these changes occur to a non-historic building within the Commercial Core Zone district, Section 26.412.030.B requires a review to be conducted by the Historic Preservation Commission. An interior remodel is currently being performed under Building Permit #0065.2016.ACBK. The Property designated as 406 South Mill Street is adjacent to the RFTA bus station, parallel to the Mill Street pedestrian mall, and across from Wagner Park. 406 South Mill Street is known to locals and tourists alike as the McDonald’s Building given the restaurant’s location there for several decades. The new occupant of the building will be the O2 Aspen yoga studio, and is obviously a radical departure in use for that space. As such, the project team believes that, in order to help remove the stigma of the McDonald’s branding, it would be helpful to update the exterior look of the building to make the interior change of occupancy more recognizable to the casual passerby. The exterior changes which are being proposed in this application are to shift the overall color scheme for this building to white, and remove the stucco and wood siding material and replace those areas with metal. The other materials which make up the building facade (brick and heavy timbers) are also proposed to be painted white, but they will remain as they are currently configured. Sections 1.22, 1.23, 1.24, and 2.14 of the Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines speak to Materials and Detailing of building facades, however the only mention of color is in section 2.14. White Color transition (Materials not being changed) Although it is more common to see brick buildings expressed as the natural color of the reddish-brown bricks, there are numerous examples of buildings which are currently in the Commercial Core and the surrounding zones, in which the brick material has been painted with a neutral color (which white is) to help differentiate that portion of the mass from adjacent buildings. Recent examples are the building containing the Tesla space, the building P74 IV.B. containing the Aether store, and the building that use to be home to Harmony Scott Jewelry. There are numerous other buildings around town that have brick and block which have been painted as the attached diagram and imagery illustrates. As has been previously mentioned, the ability to transform the recognition of this building from a former fast food restaurant to a yoga studio will be greatly enhanced by modifying the color of the building to something which represents a cleaner aesthetic. Making the building more vibrant will also help to distinguish the building and the beginning of the pedestrian mall from the southern approach, which must fight to be seen through the bus access of Ruby Park. Metal Siding (Replaces stucco and wood siding) As stated in the Commercial Design Standards, metal has been part of the general building material palette since the mid-century along with stucco. The metal is a secondary material on the ground floor (brick being the primary) and is used more extensively on the upper floor. Again, the decision to change the material is to update the detailing and texture of these parts of the building to help differentiate the new use from the old. Zone 4 also feels that this material will be more in keeping with the updated design and will thus also serve to beautify the pedestrian environment. This material is also more durable and maintenance free than the stucco, which over time has a tendency to deteriorate in the elements and accumulate dirt. We feel that these proposed revisions are minor as they relate to the overall architectural appearance of the building considering that they are all modifications to exterior finishes (not massing), thus having no detrimental effect to its overall historical presence. The Owners of the business also own the building, and both of them grew up in the Roaring Fork Valley. They are in the process of building a house so that their family can relocate back to the area (where their parents live full time) and raise their young family. They (and their business) are heavily invested in the community, and wish to create a vibrant and wonderful rehabilitation of a dubiously iconic space in the downtown fabric with this project and keep a locally supporting business thriving. Thank you for your consideration, Bill Pollock, Principal Zone 4 Architects, LLC Cc: File Applicant P75 IV.B. [ 4 0 6 S . M I L L S T R E E T R E M O D E L ] 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 1 7 HPC - MINOR REVIEW APPLICATION EL.: +7926.2' EAST COOPER AVENUE[R-O-W] PLANTER TREE ALLEY [R-O-W] EAST COOPER AVENUE[R-O-W] STORM GRATE UNITS 103, 203, 305 & 306 TWO STORY WOOD FRAME BUILDING WITH BASEMENT 406 SOUTH MILL ST. MAIN LEVEL COVERED CONCRETE AREA SOUTH MILL STREET [R-O-W]LOT C, BLOCK 90LOT D, BLOCK 90LOT B, BLOCK 90LOT C, BLOCK 90LOT A, BLOCK 90LOT B, BLOCK 90[NEIGHBORING] PARCEL 2PER CONDO DECLARATION 59.50' SEWER EASEMENT PER BK 692 PG 51& BK 692 PG 105 5' DRAINAGE EASEMENT PER BK 207 PG 185 OUTLINE OF ROOF OVERHANG TRASH UTILITY EASEMENT PER BK 309 PG 224 HVAC EASEMENT PER BK 692 PG 51 & BK 692 PG 105 PROPERTY BOUNDARY, RE: SURVEY 7'X10' WITH 14' VERTICAL CLEARANCE MULTI PURPOSE UTILITY EASEMENT PER BK 426 PG 974 POCHED AREA REPRESENTS EXTENT OF EXISTING BUILDING BASED ON RECORDED PLATS [ARCH: 100'-0"] EXISTING 6" DIAMETER DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY LOCATED WITHIN NORTH MECHANICAL ROOM [GENERAL COMMON ELEMENT] / ADJACENT TO GORSUCH LOWER LEVEL SPACE [UNIT 101]. (LOCATION IS GRAPHIC ONLY. REFER TO PLAT BOOK 15 PAGE 39 FOR EXACT LOCATION OF NORTH MECHANCIAL SPACE.) LINE TO BE TAPPED AND SUPPLY O2 REMODEL [UNITS 103, 203, 305, + 306] WITH DOMESTIC WATER (INCLUDING NEW FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM). NEW DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY ENTERING O2 REMODEL AT LOWER LEVEL [UNIT 103] NEW 2"-3" DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY (SIZE T.B.D. BY FIRE SUPPRESSION DESIGN) ROUTED THROUGH UNITS 101 + 102. (ROUTE DEPICTION IS GRAPHIC ONLY AND MAY NOT ILLUSTRATE EXACT COURSE OF PIPING WTIHIN THE UNITS.) EXISTING 3/4" DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY LINE FROM SOUTH MILL STREET R-O-W ENTERING UNIT 103. THIS LINE IS TO BE ABANDONED AT THE MAIN WATER LINE CORPORATE VALVE. EXISTING 6" DIAMETER DOMESTIC WATER LINE FROM SOUTH MILL STREET R-O-W SUPPLYING PARK PLACE CONDOMINIUM UNITS. NEW MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, RE: A703 N SITE PLAN | 1/8" = 1' - 0"P76IV.B. [ 4 0 6 S . M I L L S T R E E T R E M O D E L ] 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 1 7 HPC - MINOR REVIEW APPLICATION 1 WEST [OVERALL] FACADE 3 SOUTH [OVERALL] FACADE 2 WEST FACADE - ENTRY 4 SOUTH FACADE - ENLARGED EXISTING BRICK FACADE PHOTOGRAPHS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS | N.T.S. 406 SOUTH MILL STREET DISCLAIMER: ZONE 4 ARCHITECTS, LLC DOES NOT CLAIM OWNERSHIP OF THIS PHOTO. IT WAS OBTAINED FROM A GOOGLE IMAGE SEARCH. EXISTING BRICK TO BE PAINTED EXISTING BRICK TO BE PAINTED EXISTING BRICK TO BE PAINTED 406 SOUTH MILL STREET P77IV.B. [ 4 0 6 S . M I L L S T R E E T R E M O D E L ] 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 1 7 HPC - MINOR REVIEW APPLICATION 406 S. MILL ST. [O2 ASPEN] PARK PLACE CONDOMINIUMS 401 E. COOPER AVE. [CHOCOLATE FACTORY] 401 E. COOPER AVE. [CHOCOLATE FACTORY]406 S. MILL ST. [O2 ASPEN] PARK PLACE CONDOMINIUMS WEST ELEVATION | 1/4" = 1' - 0" [PROPOSED] [EXISTING] 1 2 EXISTING BRICK PAINTED WHITE NEW METAL SIDING 1 1 2 2 2 P78IV.B. [ 4 0 6 S . M I L L S T R E E T R E M O D E L ] 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 1 7 HPC - MINOR REVIEW APPLICATION 406 S. MILL ST. [O2 ASPEN] PARK PLACE CONDOMINIUMS NEIGHBORING BUSINESSES + RESIDENTIAL CONDOS PARK PLACE CONDOMINIUMS 406 S. MILL ST. [O2 ASPEN] PARK PLACE CONDOMINIUMS 406 S. MILL ST. [O2 ASPEN] PARK PLACE CONDOMINIUMS SOUTH ELEVATION | 1/4" = 1' - 0" [PROPOSED] [EXISTING] 1 2 EXISTING BRICK PAINTED WHITE NEW METAL SIDING 1 1 1 2 2 P79IV.B. [ 4 0 6 S . M I L L S T R E E T R E M O D E L ] 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 1 7 HPC - MINOR REVIEW APPLICATION PROPOSED PERSPECTIVE OF O2 ASPEN FROM THE SOUTHWEST | N.T.S.P80IV.B. [ 4 0 6 S . M I L L S T R E E T R E M O D E L ] 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 1 7 HPC - MINOR REVIEW APPLICATION BRICK PAINTED WHITE * REFER TO THE FOLLOWING SHEET FOR PHOTOS OF WHITE BRICK FACADES. PAINTED BRICK [OTHER THAN WHITE] PARTIAL MAP OF DOWNTOWN ASPEN MAP IS COPYRIGHTED BY GOOGLE 2017 (F) 602 E. HYMAN [PAINTED CMU] JAMES PERSE [PAINTED BRICK AT PLANTERS] FIRST BANK WHEELER BLOCK ASPEN BLOCK (E) ASPEN ART GALLERY (D) GREY LADY (C) OLD HARMONY SCOTT (A) AETHER (B) TESLA RED ONION ONLY NATURAL PET O2 ASPEN [PROPOSED]LIL' BOOGIES MAP OF PAINTED BRICK WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN AREA OF ASPEN | N.T.S.P81IV.B. [ 4 0 6 S . M I L L S T R E E T R E M O D E L ] 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 1 7 HPC - MINOR REVIEW APPLICATION WHITE BRICK | EXAMPLE - A WHITE BRICK | EXAMPLE - CWHITE BRICK | EXAMPLE - B WHITE [CMU] | EXAMPLE - FWHITE BRICK | EXAMPLE - EWHITE BRICK | EXAMPLE - D EXAMPLES OF WHITE BRICK FACADES CURRENTLY FOUND WITHIN ASPEN [APPROVED TO BE PAINTED WHITE]P82IV.B. sa 1 ry EXHIBIT -D AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 406 S. Mill Street Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 23, 2017 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, Zone 4 Architects, LLC (by Jeff McCollum)(name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (G) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: _N/A Puhlication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least 'fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. X Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the 23`1 day of August, 2017, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. _N/A Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fi fteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the ou,ner•s and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. _N/A Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of. the neighborhood outreach sunmrary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that n,as presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) _N/A Mineral Estate Owner Arotice. By the certified mailing of' notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin Comity. At a minimum, Subdivisions, pDs that create more than one lot, and new Planned Developments are subject to this notice requirement. N/A Rezoning or Lexi amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of all accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. I-Iowever, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signat 'c The laregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 110day oP u5 20 11 , by Te�f-r2� f1 c LO j l u rr1 WITNESS MY HAND AND OH'XIAL SEAL EIRABEM MBIUGHAY NOTARYPueuC My commission expires: 1 (3 2-1 2020 STATE OF COlAM00 NOTARY 10 2W6W12X nttcoMM�siortDwwEsocroeEnstr,aoo 1� Notary NIN' ATTACI3MENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPY OF THEPUBLICA TION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED B Y MAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 v/ PUBLIC NO ICE >�Y\ \/\✓\/ Rubey Park,LLC,4E.Main :RjaCe:130 S.Galena St.,City HPC will consider an n0• Street,A pen CO 81.611 affecting_ this property_jhe apjilic�nt requests ap \ UUP Y> J\ .with metal siding,and by_pwintinqjhe \%\ \ � J/ D 758 ;K �•�• -{ t -f^�' `J •37+x'' 'T:h.T. �yt+.u'+'Y�'��rt �c ' :. T, sr,