Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20171213 AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING December 13, 2017 4:30 PM City Council Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. 12:00 SITE VISIT A. Please meet at 300 W. Main. II. 4:30 INTRODUCTION A. Roll call B. Approval of draft minutes November 8th & 15th C. Public Comments D. Commissioner member comments E. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) F. Project Monitoring G. Staff comments H. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued I. Submit public notice for agenda items J. Call-up reports K. HPC typical proceedings III. OLD BUSINESS A. None. IV. 4:40 NEW BUSINESS A. 300 W. Main Street- Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Demolition, Relocation, Special Review and Variations, PUBLIC HEARING V. 7:00 ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 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 NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Chairperson Halferty called the meeting to order at 4:33 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Gretchen Greenwood, Willis Pember, Nora Berko, Bob Blaich, Roger Moyer, Richard Lai. Absent was Scott Kendrick. Staff present: Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Amy Simon, Senior Planner Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 11th, 2017 Mr. Blaich moved to approve, Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Berko asked about taking a tour of St. Mary’s after the current renovation. Ms. Simon said yes, they have gutted the interior so it would be good for everyone to see. Mr. Halferty welcomed Sarah Yoon as the new Historic Preservation Planner. DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT: None. PROJECT MONITORING: None. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon noted that she had a couple of reminders for the board. There is a special meeting next week at 4:30 for HPC because the next regularly scheduled meeting is cancelled for Thanksgiving. There is only one meeting in December due to Christmas. She emailed everyone yesterday about the public open house tomorrow for the mall study, which is in the library meeting room and the board can also attend the November 14th council discussion. There will be three variations of the mall renovation presented and it will be narrowed down and there will be a presentation to HPC in the new year. Mr. Pember entered the meeting. CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Simon issued one for the White House Tavern restaurant to replace the stairs that enter into the kitchen from the west side of property. She has allowed them to replace the steps with stone. Mr. Halferty asked Ms. Bryan if she has the appropriate public notices for the agenda items and Ms. Bryan answered yes. CALL UP REPORTS: Ms. Simon said that staff appeared at city council to report HPC’s decision on 122 W. Main St., which was the remodel introducing some lodge units and council chose not to call up the approval for further discussion. P1 II.B. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8, 2017 OLD BUSINESS: None. NEW BUSINESS: 201 E. Hyman Amy Simon This is a project that is nearing completion and HPC approved a renovation of this building into a larger single-family house, restoring a miner’s cottage and they have made an addition on the east side. There were preliminary indications of where the mechanical equipment would be placed on the inside and outside of the building. Some of the condenser units need to be a different selection as originally anticipated. They would sit in the east side yard setback between the addition and the Limelight building. It will be no more than 30 inches above and below grade. The equipment being spoken about tonight is not too tall, but being hung on the side of the building and violates the height variation. It is appropriately sized and meets the max decibel levels, but it does require a variation. Staff supports HPC granting this variation request and does not appear to have an impact on anyone else. The review criteria is on page 9 of the packet and we recommend approval. We received two public comment emails that are also attached in the packet. Ms. Berko asked if the Limelight has a five-foot setback and Ms. Simon said no. Applicant Presentation: Derek Skalko of 1 Friday Design along with Carl Schindler of Brikor, Brendan Guerin of Guerin Glass Architects, Steven Meyer of Brikor and Eric Aanonsen of Brikor. Mr. Skalko said this is a fairly self-explanatory ask. As you are all aware, 201 E Hyman is the old Hartman House, which sits at the intersection of E Hyman Ave and S. Aspen St. adjacent to the Limelight Lodge. Between the Limelight and 201 E. Hyman, is where we are proposing to put the mechanical equipment. The Limelight Lodge is 1 foot 8 inches off the property line and we are at our 5-ft. limit so there is about 6 feet eight inches between the two buildings. The packet explains what they are asking for and what the equipment is. We will ensure that the equipment is well-hidden and obscured, but also whisper quiet for the community. Ms. Berko clarified that the condensers weren’t where they were originally proposed to be and Mr. Skalko pointed out that Ms. Berko was the only original member on the board in 2012 who approved this project and the discussion at that time, really left it open ended. What we intended initially, it was to be on the cul-de-sac and an alley locate, so we held off and wanted to figure it out and be fair to surrounding neighbors. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. MOTION: Mr. Moyer moved to approve and grant the variance, Mr. Blaich seconded. Mr. Pember asked who the project monitor is and Ms. Simon said it was John Whipple. Mr. Halferty volunteered to be the new project monitor. P2 II.B. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Roll call vote: Mr. Pember, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Lai, yes. 6-0, motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: 533 W. Hallam St. Sarah Yoon This is a landmark Victorian that has been reviewed for conceptual twice previously before it was continued. Today’s application is brought to you by a new architect and owner, but will be judged under the old design guidelines. This is a 6000-sq. ft. lot within the R6 zone district. The lot allows a single- family home or two detached houses and the applicant is proposing a single-family home. HPC should review the following actions: to demolish all existing non-historic additions and relocate the historic building in a forward direction of 9 ft. 4 inches toward Hallam St. on top of a new basement addition. The garden shed will be relocated towards the alley and restoration work is proposed for the Victorian. New additions are proposed both above and below grade and the basement addition extends beyond the footprint of the Victorian. The addition will be connected with an above grade connecting element and the applicant will be requesting a 500-sq. ft. floor area bonus along with setback variations for the basement, the garden shed and the front bay window. The restoration work will focus primarily on the front porches of the historic Victorian. Much of the historic rear wall has been lost over the years with the various additions. The proposed rear wall does not represent the full extent of the historic footprint. The applicant proposes to restore both front porches and reestablish the entrance on the east side and they plan to bring the roof back to its original design. Staff supports this project. The site is in an area with mature trees and they have been identified as significant by the Parks Department. The Parks Department was consulted with this issue and offered recommendations on how to proceed with the basement excavation. Staff is concerned that relocation of the historic resource forward, will put the historic resource at risk by placing it closer to the tree and will take the resource out of historic alignment with the neighbor to the east. On that note, public comment has been submitted by a neighbor. Moving forward, staff is concerned with how the storm water will be handled with a full basement addition. This has been resolved in the past with man holes placed in front of the resource and we would like to avoid this moving forward. The new addition above grade has a connector and is important that it reads as a subordinate element between two resources and subordinate to the historic roofline. The current design has a height and a footprint that challenges this idea. For the setback variances being requested, there is a 5-ft. rear setback variation for the basement and a rear and east side yard setback variation for relocating the garden shed onto the lot line against the alley. Staff supports these setback variations with the condition that the garden shed be pulled slightly in towards the lot line. They are also requesting a front yard setback variation regarding the front bay window, but it needs additional study. The overall roof design is in conformance with the historic structure; however, the second story flat roof on the west side is overpowering in scale and massing. (Ms. Greenwood has joined the meeting.) Staff is not in favor of roof design option B for this reason. Staff does not support the full award of the 500-sq. ft. bonus because of these issues and suspect that the additional floor area has created the dominant massing above grade. Staff recommends continuation to December 13th. P3 II.B. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Ms. Bryan announced Ms. Greenwood’s arrival and asked if she read the packet and is comfortable voting on this project and Ms. Greenwood said yes. Mr. Halferty asked Ms. Yoon to revisit the shed on the alley. She said the applicant wants to place the shed on the lot lines and staff wants to pull it inside of the lot lines slightly. Applicant Presentation: Sarah Adams of Bendon Adams along with the owners; Carlos (Charles) and Leslie Duncan and Andy Wisnoski of Poss Architecture as well as William and McKenzie of Poss. Mr. Duncan started out by saying he appreciates everyone being here. He stated that they are from Houston and plan to make this their family home and they aren’t building it to sell. He grew up here and his children have grown up here and they’ve seen a lot of redone houses in the west end. He would like to keep the old Victorian vibe alive and they have renovated old homes before and have been working with this team for the past seven months to present this application to the board. Ms. Adams mentioned the site visit that took place earlier today and said they met with Kristen Henry yesterday who is the neighbor on the east side and have recently met with the Parks department to establish the excavation parameters. They are presenting two different massing options in the packet. They have had site visits with an arborist and staff trying to respond to concerns that staff has raised at the end of last week. This property is on the corner of Hallam Street and 5th Street. After meeting with Kristen, they are really trying to be sensitive to her views and her sunlight, etc. Ms. Adams has checked with the Historical Society for pictures of the rear of the building and was unable to come up with anything unfortunately, but she did find pictures of the front porch so this will help in replicating and restoring this area. The historic resource is a little over 9 ft. of a move forward, shifted towards Hallam St. The bay window extends over the 10-foot setback line and the zoning code typically allows for an 18- inch projection for bay windows. We are actually asking for 7 inches on this and by being able to move this landmark forward, we are achieving more prominence since it is buried in the trees currently and this will allow it to be more visible. We currently have a large cottonwood on site as well as spruce trees. The Parks Department is protective of the cottonwood, so we pushed everything towards Ms. Henry’s home while respecting her five-foot setback. Parks is supportive of shifting the house forward as it’s a good preservation method and they will just have to limb up the trees no matter what. Ms. Adams mentioned that they went out and did an analysis of the existing setbacks on the block and there is a range in this neighborhood. Next door, Ms. Henry is at 15 ft. and at this point a year ago, planning was ok with moving it forward. One of their strategies was to push as much massing into the basement as possible and they are asking for a 5-foot setback along the rear below grade. They had received direction from Ms. Simon to restudy the flat roof so they looked at a more traditional gable and provide an alternate option, but they prefer the flat roof. It’s simple and keeps the height down and adds some interest to that corner. She summed up why they feel they meet the review criteria for the 500-square foot bonus. P4 II.B. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Ms. Berko asked if they are planning to bring the connector down 10 ft. and tuck it under. Mr. Wisnoski said they haven’t proposed any changes to what they are currently doing at this point and it is within 10 inches of what they are talking about. Mr. Pember asked Ms. Yoon what the objection was to staff regarding the flue treatment (chimney) on the historic resource. Ms. Yoon said there was not historical documentation of the flues so they wanted them to do a restudy because the placement because it seemed a bit odd in the renderings. Ms. Adams said she felt it was best addressed during demolition, but they are happy to comply. Ms. Greenwood asked what the difference is in height between the existing Victorian and the tallest proposed gable towards the alley. Mr. Wisnoski said it is 10 ft. 6 inches. Ms. Adams noted that the height slopes toward Hallam St. Ms. Greenwood asked what the floor area is of the finished Victorian versus the addition on the back. Ms. Adams said the landmark is 686 sq. ft. of what is being restored. The addition is 1404 sq. ft. and the garage is 567.5 sq. ft. Mr. Blaich asked what the comparative square footage is between the existing structure and the new proposal. Ms. Adams said the existing floor area is 2,427 and what is proposed is 3,740. Mr. Lai mentioned reading the letter from the neighbor which was included and asked Ms. Yoon to elaborate on the setback from Hallam. Ms. Yoon said that if you want to move a historic resource, you want to make sure it will survive and that it’s in the best interest of resource. To staff, putting it into the trees was not in favor of the resource. They suggested doing some studies to move over to the east just for the Victorian in terms of the public comment. Mr. Lai said that another consideration should be as to how it relates to the existing street. Ms. Yoon said it is brought up in the memo, that it is still sitting on the historic site and moving that is going to bring it out of historic alignment with its neighbor so they are not in favor of moving forward. Mr. Wisnoski noted that the conversation with the neighbor was about the cabin too and she was not in favor of moving it to the east. It wasn’t an all or nothing kind of move for the whole house. He pointed out to her that they were bringing the house into alignment with the house on the west so she recognized the pattern they were creating of alignment along the street so she softened her position. Mr. Pember asked what the ceiling height is on the west view of the connector. Ms. Adams said it is 9 ft. 6 inches. Then he asked what the ceiling height is in the historic resource and she said it is vaulted ceilings. Mr. Wisnoski guessed that it is around 10 feet. Mr. Pember explained that he asked that question due to the 9-foot band that wraps around the addition and ties it all together and establishes the height of the porch on the west side and said it’s a very important dimension to the addition. Ms. Simon said it results in the connector sort of climbing on top of the roof. Mr. Lai asked for the staff recommendations to be put back on the screen. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. Ms. Adams said she would last like to point out the storm water design. She said the first they heard about this was on Wednesday of last week and that they didn’t know that was going to be something P5 II.B. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8, 2017 planning would ask for at this point. Under the code the previous owner submitted under, it was not required, so it was a surprise to them and are asking for some flexibility. She said they are happy to show HPC the design at final. Mr. Halferty summarized what HPC needed to discuss. Ms. Greenwood said that her take on the project presented, is that the reason to move it forward is not for historic preservation, but because the rear of the property is being obliterated by the addition. She said it is being moved forward to create more buildable area on the site. She doesn’t feel that is an A+ solution to historic preservation. She likes the concept of the building moving forward because getting it away from the trees is a good solution for that façade, but allowing this to occur, means that there should be a benefit from that. You’re obliterating one entire side and the connector should be as minimal as possible so the four major facades of the historic structure should be prominent on this property and it falls short of that in terms of the massing. The footprint is three times the size. While she supports moving the resource forward, she doesn’t support the attachment and the fact that more than half of the back side of the building will no longer be visible. For her, this goes back to the reasons why they changed the code in the first place to not have gargantuan additions added onto these modest homes. It’s very disappointing to her to see this being presented and feels it’s a very unsuccessful project, it’s not historic preservation and she can’t support a bonus. She supports moving it forward, but only if it allows some breathing room, which it doesn’t in this presentation because it’s being attached in an uncomfortable way. This feels like a small resource with a train wreck attached because it overwhelms the historic resource. She is a little surprised that it would be taken so nonchalantly to not have a linking element. The addition itself, from a massing standpoint, has a lot going on with flat roofs and dormers. The historic resource should be a visual model for where you are taking the addition and this has very complicated looking gables that don’t seem to relate to anything on the historic resource. The complication of massing doesn’t meet our guidelines nor do the flat roofs. This needs to be simpler and quieter because it overwhelms the historic context on the corner. She wants them to rethink the whole proposal and do the restoration that they say they want to do by reducing the square footage on the site, bring down the massing, simplify the house and expose more of the historic resource. Mr. Lai said he concurs with staff in terms of the recommendations. He also questions the reason for the setting of the building forward. He agrees with Ms. Greenwood that the idea is not to preserve, but to increase the FAR. When we look at the configurations from 5th St. on page 401 of the memo, the complex is much too complicated. If you take away everything on the second floor that is in the middle component, it would be a lot more elegant. With the additional FAR, it spoils an elegant design. The gables echo the design of the historic building, so when you add the second story flat roof addition, it complicates the whole design like you are trying to squeeze every FAR possible out of the project, which is the root of all the problems. Ms. Berko said she echoes the staff recommendations. She doesn’t feel that 10.7 is met at all for the connector. She would like to see a connector not as living space, but connecting and she would like to see it tucked in and under. She doesn’t feel it meets mass and scale (11.3) as it totally overwhelms that P6 II.B. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8, 2017 little house. Part of what she is feeling is that if one needs variances, there is too much program. The relocation is problematic for her. She said she cannot support moving the house forward because she feels that is destroying the historic streetscape. She said what happens across the street is not their concern so she is having a hard time. The words she keeps reading in the memo over and over are “overpower”, “overwhelm”, “imbalance” and “complicate”, with the solution being “reduction” and “simplification”. This is so overwhelming to her that she can’t support it. She feels the house has been completely buried by the construction on the back. Mr. Pember commented that the renderings are the most compelling to him as far as the ones that show the trees. Since the Parks department has determined that these trees have to stay, the resource needs to move, otherwise it’s getting crushed and is a fire hazard. It is not always fair or correct, but it’s Parks decision. He feels the addition slips in and out of the landscape in a convincing way and thinks it’s very musical the way it bounces up to a giant crescendo. It may be a half tone out of scale and too large, but everyone needs to remember that the back side has already been compromised before anyone drew their first line on this proposal. He thinks the concept is clever, but again, the band organizes the whole thing and it seems very chunky. Many contemporary architects around here miss the constructivists clues that these old buildings had. He feels the connector needs to be restudied, which needs a little more finesse. Mr. Blaich said he lives very close by and he doesn’t have a problem with moving it forward and doesn’t care if it is to maximize on the property or not and said the storm water issue has already been addressed. The connecting element needs restudy, but he doesn’t have a problem with it himself. He agreed with the restudy of the scale and massing, but thinks this is a great improvement over what exists and thinks it’s a better design proposal than what was previously presented. He feels that it’s a pretty good reflection of the historic resource and thinks it has that kind of resonance for him and it doesn’t look foreign. He feels that the scale and mass need to be reworked a little, but is generally positive and thinks it’s going in the right direction and feels it will be a good addition to the neighborhood. Mr. Moyer concurs with staff’s comments. He said connecting links came to be in the 1990’s when he was on HPC and he said the point was simple; it was not to look exactly like the historic resource and not to look exactly like the new addition. He feels the key to this proposal, is that the connecting link looks like the new addition and that has to be changed. Because the link is short, fat and high, it brings that mass closer to the resource and you have the impression that it’s overtaking or swallowing up the resource. It’s the big fish swallowing the little fish. He is with Ms. Greenwood, that he is only in favor of moving the resource forward unless it enhances the resource. He continued to speak about the trees and how they can be damaging to a historic resource and feels this topic needs much more discussion. He spoke about the sprinkler heads against the house. As far as the 500-sq. ft. bonus, he doesn’t feel they should give the full amount unless it is an exemplary project. He feels all applicants are expecting FAR because they build it into their project. Ms. Greenwood agreed. He feels this needs to be addressed with the City as well and restudy this before we give any FAR. He feels the underground variance should be granted and doesn’t have a problem with the shed being on the lot line. P7 II.B. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Mr. Halferty said in summary, he would have to agree with the board. He feels that 10.7 is a key point as far as compliance. The link is most problematic due to height and the way it crashes into the south façade. He does feel that the architecture of the addition and the modules is very clever and it does work in certain parts and the renderings are well done, but the mass and scale are the biggest problems. He mentioned 10.9 regarding the roof forms. He feels the gables are very well thought, but the flat roofs and combination into them, creates a competition. He feels the board should give variances and bonuses when they are warranted, but doesn’t feel that is the case here. He said restudy is warranted. It’s close to meeting the guidelines, but it needs to be massaged more. He said it makes sense moving the resource to the north if it helps HPC promote restoration. He is not sure if moving it more forward helps the situation due to the trees and to design around the tree, is very difficult. 10.9, 10.7 and 11.3 are sticking points for him. Specifically, he agrees with Mr. Pember regarding the link and feels it is busy, large, fat and detrimental to the historic resource. He agrees on the placement of the shed that was presented and he can support. He agrees and understands how the board feels about the floor area bonus. He approves of and supports staff recommendations, but feels the applicant has strong intent as do the architects and planners on this project. MOTION: Mr. Lai moved for continuance to December 13th, 2017, Mr. Blaich seconded. Ms. Greenwood moved to amend Mr. Lai’s motion and remove #5 regarding the FAR bonus, Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Halferty, no; Mr. Pember, no; Mr. Blaich, no; Mr. Lai, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes. 4 yes, 3 no, motion carried for continuance. Mr. Halferty motioned to adjourn, Mr. Moyer seconded at 6:45 p.m. ________________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk P8 II.B. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 15, 2017 Chairperson Halferty called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Gretchen Greenwood, Willis Pember, Nora Berko, Bob Blaich, Roger Moyer, Richard Lai. Absent was Scott Kendrick. Staff present: Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Amy Simon, Senior Planner Justin Barker, Senior Planner Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES: No minutes. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Mr. Pember was in Boulder, Estes Park and the Rocky Mountain National Forest this past weekend and had a lot of fun. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT: Ms. Berko stated that she is conflicted on the second item for 209 W. Bleeker. Mr. Halferty said he is conflicted on the first item for 500 W. Main. PROJECT MONITORING: No. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon mentioned a special HPC lunch meeting for the first week of December, which she sent an email about so they can go over some policy issues, etc. Mr. Barker has an update on revisions to the Land Use Code and asking for some feedback on the miscellaneous section regarding calculations and scattered items. They typically update this every two years or so to keep up with current technologies and calculations. For this update, they have a screening board of eleven people, which includes architects, designer, landscape architects, etc. to help identify all of the issues. They are also looking to update some of the parking standards as well. There was a meeting held on the 8th of this month and page 2 of the memo lists the ideas that the group came up with. They would like to have something in front of council by early spring. We would like HPC to continue to give ideas or experiences to either Mr. Barker or Mr. Supino and the board will continue to meet about every two weeks or so until they present to council. Ms. Greenwood asked if there is this an issue that needs to be changed for parking for multi resident residences. Mr. Barker said yes, there has been a big shift in this community regarding this type of use and they really need full adequate parking and they want to ensure there is enough parking for residents. They are looking at alternative methods because they feel the current parking standards are too lenient. Mr. Halferty asked Mr. Barker to revisit the zones that were discussed. Mr. Barker said it would be the commercial core and Main St. district with multi-family projects in that area regarding one space per P9 II.B. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 15, 2017 unit. Mr. Halferty asked if it is PUD, what that process looks like and Mr. Barker said those are looked at separately and have site specific approvals. Mr. Pember referred to bullet point 6 and said they should use the word, “clarify” as well as the address. The problem is not only being the relationship between natural and artificial and covered walking surfaces and exterior stairways, but the whole subject matter is very mysterious. There is a lot of questioning and who is going to decide what and there is no reason written. Mr. Barker agreed and said they would like to simplify this. Mr. Pember said all of these things are related and jumbled together in regard to FAR and he suggested a separate chapter for FAR. Ms. Simon said she isn’t working on this update, but mentioned it takes a lot of effort to figure out how to calculate things on both sides. Mr. Barker said they will also be meeting with P&Z and continue with the bi-weekly meetings and hope to come back to HPC with more specifics and get a little more technical feedback sometime in late winter. Mr. Blaich mentioned that there has been a lot of discussion about parking and especially about the project they are discussing tonight. This needs to be coordinated with the city and worked out because it affects projects such as the one being discussed. He was unsure if this is relevant to current situations or just planning for the future. Mr. Barker said this definitely ties into multi-family developments, but could play into other projects and agrees, there needs to be better coordination. CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Simon said yes, they issued two in the last week. She signed off on the Sardy House for repair work to deteriorated wood, masonry repair and re-roof and all within scale of normal repair issues. Ms. Yoon did one for 330 Gillespie for the addition of a window in a window well on the east side of the non-historic addition. Mr. Halferty asked Ms. Simon if some of the repair work being done is on the historic resource and she said yes. He said it is a pretty special building and asked if she advised them of the proper restoration and repair guidelines. She said she signed off authorizing them to apply for a permit and gave them specific requirements, materials, samples, test patches, etc. that will need to be reviewed. She will bring out the project monitor on site to see the test patches and work that is being done. Mr. Pember asked Ms. Simon if she discussed or reviewed the windows again since the last meeting. Ms. Simon said there hasn’t been any changes since that meeting, but we did follow up because she was uncomfortable so we looked at the glass again with the glass expert and concluded there was maybe only one or two panes of historic glass to make sure we are all on the same page. PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Bryan stated she had 500 W. Main and was fine with that one. The notice for 209 W. Bleeker was just handed to her and she will review as the meeting proceeds. CALL UPS: None. Mr. Halferty exited the meeting. P10 II.B. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 15, 2017 OLD BUSINESS: None. NEW BUSINESS: 500 W Main St. Sarah Yoon This is also known as the Mesa Store and a very well-known historic landmark in a mixed-use zone district. It has recently received a land use approval for their revised mechanical plan for setback variation. This is regarding two condenser units on the west side yard and a transformer unit in the northeast corner. They have submitted a first design and the applicant has revised since communicating with staff. This new proposal moves the trash enclosures to the east side yard setback. The applicant has proposed a closed in fence for the chiller units and the trash enclosure, but because of the location in the setback, it is subject to land use code 26.57, which says it needs to be screened, but it also needs to be double the minimum setback. The design does meet those two requirements, but there is another requirement, which prohibits mechanical equipment in the setback between a primary structure and the adjacent street, unless an exception is made by the Community Development Director, who was consulted. Ms. Garrow has accepted it, if it is approved by HPC. Ms. Yoon said it is in conformance with the historic pattern and the revision mitigates adverse impact by creating screenings and keeping it away from the historic resource. Staff recommends HPC approve the 5’ setback variation. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Dana Ellis of Rowland & Broughton They submitted for building permit a few months ago and one comment which came back on the review had to do with location of the transformer. This brought up items of combining mechanical equipment, which brought us to the chiller location that was presented to staff and they advised them to rethink this. They are comfortable with the new location and feel it is a good compromise. The sites are dealing with tight constraints and the existing alley has the trash on the opposite side of the alley pathway. They were focused on the back façade and didn’t want the equipment to block this view. They want to do a compliant six-foot-tall fence along that property line and would provide the screening for the trash enclosure. They are showing a planter in front of transformer and the city informed them that they need to have a permanent encroachment in order to put concrete in front of it and have access to the transformer. The trash enclosures are Barracuda brand so it’s not an exposed trash can and is used a lot in the west end due to the bear problem and is more attractive than bright green ones that waste management provides. It will be 5 ft. 4 inches tall and screened completely by the fence. They are trying to keep the line of the property and the historic building intact. They are not sacrificing a parking space for this and will keep the two they have now. They will paint them a neutral color and will not clad them. Mr. Blaich asked if the tree that is shown, is a crabapple because if so, it will attract bears. Ms. Ellis said it is a snow apple tree that Parks recommended and just flowers, but does not bear fruit. Mr. Pember asked how one would put a fence around a chiller. Ms. Ellis said it would be a venting off the top and open on the ramp side for intake. She said you can also get it custom painted or wrapped in anything you want, such as aspen trees since it’s a pretty ugly piece of equipment. P11 II.B. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 15, 2017 Ms. Greenwood asked about the concrete wall and clarified that it is an engineering decision and Ms. Ellis said yes. Ms. Greenwood said she doesn’t understand how this can happen. It’s the complete wrong language and she feels that a simple bollard would be better as she feels this is overkill. She doesn’t understand how this can be allowed on historic property. Ms. Ellis said the alternative would be an at grade path, but then it’s a concrete pad, which they felt is even worse. A transformer needs a certain clearance and a bollard would work, but wasn’t acceptable to Engineering because they want a permanent surface treatment that cannot be knocked down or moved, but it’s in the right of way (at the fence line) so they have no control over that anyway. The applicant doesn’t love it either and Ms. Greenwood recommended that staff discuss this with Engineering. Ms. Simon agreed and said now that they know it’s objectionable, they can make as a suggestion to Engineering to try to find an alternative. Ms. Greenwood said they need to have some sensitivity to the historic property. Mr. Moyer said they need to meet with the tree people and Engineering because there are a lot of issues to discuss. Ms. Greenwood said they need to flex their muscles a bit with these departments. Ms. Ellis said they would be happy with two bollards at the two corners with a bush in front or whatever and that was their original suggestion. She did say that Parks has been great and they really like the fence line. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. Ms. Greenwood said she is in favor, Mr. Blaich said he is in favor and Mr. Moyer said he is in favor, but commented on the landscaping. He said he noticed shrubs against the building and encouraged that this doesn’t actually happen and to have no sprinkler heads within two feet of the building. MOTION: Mr. Blaich motioned to approve with the conditions outlined in the staff memo. Ms. Berko asked to add that they would like to see something softer there, like a bollard. Mr. Blaich said that could be recommendation #3 in addition to the other staff recommendations. Mr. Moyer seconded. Mr. Pember continued the discussion on adding a strip of gravel. Ms. Greenwood asked for a voice vote on the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Ms. Berko exited the meeting. Ms. Bryan confirmed she reviewed the public notice for 209 W. Bleeker and it is fine. Mr. Halferty reentered the meeting. NEW BUSINESS: 209 W. Bleeker St. Amy Simon This is the final review for the former home of the Hayes family. This has been in front of HPC a couple of times now and the Fromm family are now the new owners. This will be a free-standing home and P12 II.B. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 15, 2017 then they will build a new house behind it. There have been two hearings on the conceptual review with a very detailed discussion on how to relate the new and old buildings. There were some setback variations and floor area bonuses involved. All of this has been resolved for the final review tonight. There is a limited scope tonight and we will be looking at landscaping, lighting and fenestration and selection of new materials. There are two conditions of approval. One of them is that in this version, it was recognized that the house is sitting in a depression, which calls for bad drainage. The applicant has proposed to raise the cottage up and bring the grade back to character. The house will be about 7 inches above surrounding grade. The other thing that was said, was no storm water features should be appearing in front of the cottage. Typically, the civil design is not done until the permit is almost issued. At conceptual, it was said that we do not want manholes in front of the resource. They have provided a detailed landscape plan for drainage and will be in front of the new structure, not the historic structure. Staff is recommending approval with a number of conditions and feel they can be resolved during permit review. They have done a good job with the landscaping to create a setting that is somewhat differentiated from the modern building, which helps to create a scale. We support their proposed fence and walkways. There are a number of shrubs around the new building that we feel could grow very high and we’d like to see a slight reduction in this. There are a few trees that have to be preserved on this site on the northeast side of the property and no fill can be added, even though there is a small dip. There is a terrace area that will help retain water and would like you to focus on is the fact that they are proposing some retaining walls in the right of way. Engineering doesn’t normally allow this, so we need to hear more reasoning from the applicant and have HPC decide what is appropriate. Architectural issues that need to be dealt with at this point are selection of materials and detailing of the project. Staff would like to see shop drawings for the restoration of the front porch. We support the applicant’s choice of materials for the new construction, which relate to the historic resource, but aren’t a copy of it. There are a lot of solar panels proposed for the roof. Staff feel that the application meets the guidelines and are recommending approval. Mr. Halferty asked about the side walls for the landscaping on the engineering side and said this is atypical for historic properties. Ms. Simon said they need to hear more from the applicant what their limitations are. She said they are basically creating a retaining pond surrounded by some low walls and can’t get too close to the tree. It is an unusual situation and they want to make sure if fits in. She said it is engineering and parks call overall, but they do want to hear HPC’s input. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Seth Hmielowski and Melanie Noonan of Z Group Architects, Katie Tabor of Connect One Design along with Dan and Andy Fromm, owners. Mr. Hmielowski began showing plans on the screen. As far as the street side view, there will be no solar panels from that direction. There will be canned lights under roof or eave and the cabin has three sconces. He said they are debating over having a white picket fence or wrought iron and is up for discussion. They are doing a brick chimney with an extended flue and proposing a wood shingle roof. They are also proposing a gutter over the top of the entry with a downspout and a Kynar finish to match the flashing. Regarding the doors, they would like to refurbish them. As far as wood siding, they are P13 II.B. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 15, 2017 already at a 4 ½ inch wood lap siding that they will match. They are going to reuse the wood decking. There will be three sconces added and they will have frosted globes to comply with the code. Ms. Tabor started by saying that their overarching goal was to create a sense of identity for each building on the property and to set the cabin apart visually. Regarding the historic cabin, there is a brick walkway leading directly to the front door and there is a step up onto the front porch. They have pulled the shrubs away from the house and created a more historically accurate woody screen to the front behind the fence and have stepped down the plant material to a vegetative plant. There is no landscape lighting except for the entry lighting sconces, which Mr. Hmielowski previously mentioned. Regarding the new residence, there are three legacy trees that the parks department want to reserve and this creates a sort of dip so to mitigate this, they have created a sunken courtyard. They will be replacing a CMU wall with a very thin profile steel and micropyle footings so to not damage the roots of the trees. They are proposing step lighting and two path lights due to the tree cover making things very dark and hard to see. As for the plant life, they are proposing a smooth hydrangea, a spirea, a chokeberry (which only grows to around 3 ft.), hosta and a vinka. Mr. Pember asked Ms. Tabor to go through the planting plan again and on the screen to see where they will be located and what will go where. Ms. Tabor proceeded to go through the plan and said the chokeberry will be lining the front of the fence, then in front of that is the hosta, which creates a layer that goes all the way out to the lawn. The spirea will run along the side of the cabin and the porch, the hydrangea will be along the retaining wall to soften the edge and the vinka will be underneath the spruce trees. Mr. Halferty asked Ms. Tabor to discuss the drainage and retention a bit more. Ms. Tabor said they thought the trees were all at the same elevation, but looking at the survey, there is one tree higher and the existing retaining wall is at the property line so that changed the condition. Mr. Pember asked if there is any concern with snow sliding off the house onto the spirea since they are so close to the house. Mr. Hmielowski said they will have a snow fence on the new structure. Ms. Tabor said they will have little snow clips on the historic cabin. Mr. Moyer asked what the overhang is on the historic cabin and Ms. Noonan said it is about 18 inches. He said he wanted to make sure the plants are at least that far from the house and Ms. Noonan said they can do that. Mr. Moyer asked where the sprinkler heads will be located and Ms. Noonan said they are not planning to have a watering system there. Ms. Greenwood asked if the civil plan has been approved by the engineering department to dig down and around the existing trees regarding the water quality. Ms. Tabor said it will not be a typical type of rain garden, but will just be using the green space to filter the water and they are working with engineering on this currently and do not have an issue with it thus far. Mr. Halferty asked about the steel plate detail and clarified that it will go through the root system. Ms. Tabor said that is correct and they will dig two feet apart, little micropyle footings and then place the P14 II.B. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 15, 2017 steel panel slightly above so as to not disturb the below grade vegetation. She said they do not have final sign off on this yet from parks. Mr. Pember asked what kind of solar panels they will be installing and how effective they are. Mr. Hmeilowski they are working with Sunsense Solar who put together the design. They want this to be more green with a low profile and will sit about 5 inches off the roof and are photovoltaic. Mr. Pember asked if they have done any shading studies. Mr. Hmielowski said yes and was surprised at how high efficiency they can get. Mr. Pember asked about the porch light being replaced by a frosted globe and asked if it is the same shape as what you are seeing on the screen and Mr. Hmielowski said yes. Mr. Moyer asked how they are capping the top of the chimney and Mr. Hmielowski said they will do a low-profile flashing. Mr. Lai asked Mr. Hmielowski to expand on the fence preferences and said they would rather do a wrought iron and it would be thinner than a wood picket fence, but could be a bit more ornate than what was happening historically. Mr. Lai asked what color the wrought iron would be and Mr. Hmielowski said it will be either black or charcoal. Mr. Pember asked if it is a typical detail to have the gutter over front porch and asked what color or kind of kynar is being used. Mr. Hmielowski said they would be doing the flashing on the facia in a dark charcoal and were looking at going dark or going light to have it blend in with the color of the framing. They do not want to call attention to it or have it be shiny. Ms. Greenwood asked Ms. Simon if she doesn’t like to see galvanized and she said yes, there are a couple of things that have come up in the presentation that were not part of the packet so they need to clean up a few points. First, the drawings show wood shingled roofing throughout the historic cabin so the introduction of the metal roof over the porch is new and doesn’t meet the design guidelines. These modest little cottages may have had some tin on aspects of the roof, but this high-level roof that is being suggested, has not been approved. We allow a membrane, not a standing seam metal on a miner’s cottage. The other thing was the discussion of the metal fence. We typically have not approved a metal or wrought iron type of fence in front of little buildings like this. Only the fanciest of houses had this type of fence historically so we ask for modesty. She feels this should stay as low key as possible, but is for the board to evaluate and she is happy to show what the fence actually looks like that they normally approve. The gutters are indicated as half round on the drawings and doesn’t have to be this way, but the guidelines call for painted metal, galvanized or lead coated copper. This could be resolved with staff and monitor. The reason galvanized has been used is because of its simplicity, but if they don’t like that look, a painted metal is ok. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. Mr. Halferty recapped the chapters being discussed for the board discussion. Mr. Lai said they did a good job meeting the guidelines overall. He said he still wishes that the precedent in this area of having such large additions, was not there. He feels overwhelmed by the additions when P15 II.B. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 15, 2017 he walks down that street, but thinks the applicant has done a good job of preserving the historic asset. He agrees with staff to not have a wrought iron fence in front of the miner’s cabin, but have a picket fence instead. He said the addition does a good job of reflecting, but being distinctive of the historic asset so he would vote to approve this project. Ms. Greenwood said she would also approve this project, but she still feels that the addition is overwhelming the Victorian and really hopes this is the last project with this much sq. footage involved. She feels the landscape plan for the Victorian helps show the importance of the Victorian and she really likes this. As far as the drainage issues, she doesn’t understand the green drainage concept and prefers to see them take the steel detail to minimize the depression versus a concrete modern design. She feels that if they can minimize that depression, the project will be much more successful. She feels like it’s more development on the site that it can’t handle. She doesn’t think the concrete walls are congruent with Aspen. For her, it doesn’t work. She would like to see the whole front yard have the simplicity of the historic resource. She just doesn’t like the modern landscaping. She suggested they take staff’s recommendation from staff on the fence. The Victorian looks really nice and she will vote for it, but would like staff to monitor this project closely. Mr. Pember said he loves the landscaping because it distinguishes the new from the old. These are new projects and it shows the power of design. The history of the cabin and the white picket fence are a consistent narrative regarding the cabin itself. It falls into the realm of surrealism to have this little cabin with a white picket fence that you would see in Nebraska. This is quite amazing and we should applaud them for the landscape and working with it to achieve a goal. If people would see it as a way to work with architecture and work with civil engineering…he feels they have grabbed the landscape by the heart and have done a good job. It’s really strong. He said the detail about the porch should be worked out with staff more clearly. This is one of the better solutions they’ve seen as far as mass and scale goes. He feels they’ve done the best they can in dealing with those vicious arborists considering parks wants to keep the trees. Mr. Blaich said that professor Pember stole his whole pitch, but he particularly likes what they did in the front on the new construction. He thinks architecturally, the new house is standing alone and this reinforces that so he likes the proposal as it is, but there is only one thing he would have liked to have seen regarding the landscaping plan. He said in the old days, they used to refer to this house as the Hayes hollyhock farm. He said it was all hollyhocks and it went with the rusticity of the house so it would be nice, as a sort of memorial, if they could find a spot for some hollyhocks. He said they need to be in a sunny spot for them to grow well. He said he likes the project very much and that Mr. Pember covered his major points so he is satisfied with what was said. Mr. Moyer said he feels it’s a very good project. Regarding the landscaping, he understands the hard lines on new addition due to sunken lawn, but he prefers dirt rather than steel to soften it, but it is not a major concern. Regarding the porch/ roof, he discourages the membrane and says it would be a nightmare to maintain so he would do a steel roof instead. Regarding the fence, the idea of a white painted fence is nice, but it is a nightmare to maintain. He would do a wood fence and use a cedar or P16 II.B. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 15, 2017 bleaching/weather stain and let it develop a soft grade patina, which would offer a softening to the historic house and would blend with a little bit of history. Overall, he feels it’s a job well done; particularly the landscaping for the Victorian. Mr. Blaich said he agrees with Mr. Moyer on the fence. He thinks this is a very good proposal from Mr. Moyer on how to treat this and keep the character. Mr. Halferty stated that the applicants have met the requirements for approval. The restoration of the cabin is wonderfully detailed and the landscape design is compliant with our guidelines and distinguishes new from old. He likes the subtle improvements around the historic resource and the detailing on the east side of the lot. He wants to reiterate, regarding parks, there will be a lot of concrete paving and large sidewalks going over root systems so he would defer to them regarding on-going maintenance on the historic trees. Regarding the architectural detailing of the porch, he would defer to staff and monitor on this. The lighting is in compliance with the guidelines and the materials of the solar panels are fine on the southside away from the historic resource. The mass and scale are a nice change because it doesn’t actually have a link on the rear façade. He said this is commendable to the architects. Regarding the historic imagery the detailing of the headers and roofs, should also be dealt with staff and monitor. He supports this project overall for final approval. Mr. Halferty said there is a resolution in the packet on page 41. Ms. Simon said the resolution is actually on page 50. She reminded everyone that the first condition is about the shrubs in front of the miner’s cabin due to a concern about the chokeberry’s getting taller and possible obstruction to the front of the cabin. The second condition is no longer an issue and has resolved itself. The third condition has to do with providing more detail about the restoration of the front porch. The other topics that have come up tonight are the issue of the roof on the porch and the fence. MOTION: Mr. Pember moved to approve resolution #25 as written, Mr. Blaich seconded. Mr. Pember noted the amendments: to replace the standing seam with flat seam metal or membrane over the front porch and include drawings which include the porch and fence. Roll call vote: Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. Pember, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Lai, yes. 6-0 all in favor, motion carried. Motion to adjourn at 6:44 p.m. by Ms. Greenwood. _______________________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk P17 II.B. C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\B0F117FF-5F54- 4C14-8D94-7EAE6D41BBEE\13009.doc 12/7/2017 HPC PROJECT MONITORS- projects in bold are under construction Nora Berko 1102 Waters 417/421 W. Hallam 602 E. Hyman 61 Meadows Road 210 S. First 530 W. Hallam ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Bob Blaich Lot 2, 202 Monarch Subdivision 232 E. Bleeker 609 W. Smuggler 209 E. Bleeker 300 E. Hyman, Crystal Palace 128 E. Main, Sardy House ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Gretchen Greenwood 28 Smuggler Grove 135 E. Cooper 1280 Ute 211 E. Hallam 124 W. Hallam 411 E. Hyman 300 E. Hyman, Crystal Palace 101 W. Main, Molly Gibson Lodge 201 E. Main ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Willis Pember 229 W. Smuggler 305/307 S. Mill 534 E. Cooper Jeff Halferty 540 E. Main and Holden-Marolt 980 Gibson 845 Meadows, Aspen Meadows Reception Center 232 E. Main 541 Race Alley 310/330 E. Main (Hotel Jerome) 201 E. Hyman Roger Moyer 517 E. Hyman (Little Annie’s) 500 W. Main 406 S. Mill ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Richard Lai ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Scott Kendrick Need to assign: 223 E. Hallam 333 W. Bleeker 134 W. Hopkins 517 E. Hopkins 422/434 E. Cooper 529-535 E. Cooper, Stein Building 420 E. Hyman 110 W. Main, Hotel Aspen 301 Lake 208 E. Main 122 W. Main P18 II.F. 300 W. Main Street Page 1 of 19 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 300 W. Street- Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Demolition, Relocation, Special Review and Variations, PUBLIC HEARING DATE: December 13, 2017 SUMMARY: 300 W. Main is a 9,000 square foot landmarked property located in the Main Street Historic District. The property was designated early in the City’s discussion of mid-century preservation as a representation of the Rustic Style in Aspen. The structure on the site was built in 1944 and was expanded in 1988. The property is currently in use as a single family home and was purchased by the owner of the adjacent Annabelle Inn in 2014. The owner has submitted a land use application which proposes demolition of the 80s addition, relocation of the resource towards the southeast, and construction of a new basement and addition. Setback and parking variations are requested. As with all Conceptual HPC reviews, City Council will be informed of the board’s approval if granted and has the authority, through Call-Up review, to advise HPC to reconsider their decision. Following Conceptual Review and Call-up, the proposal will require Growth Management Review for the allocation of lodge pillows from the annual pool of 112 pillows/aka 56 lodge units. Because no units remain available in 2017, the application has delayed the GMQS portion of their application to 2018. GMQS review may occur simultaneous with Final review. Staff has a number of concerns with the proposal that has been submitted and recommends continuation for restudy. APPLICANT: Dennis Chookaszian, represented by Charles Cunniffe Architects. ADDRESS AND PARCEL ID: 300 W. Main Street, Lots Q, R and S, Block 44, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, PID# 2735-124-41-006. ZONING: MU, Mixed Use. P19 IV.A. 300 W. Main Street Page 2 of 19 DEMOLITION 26.415.100.4. The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the property owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the standards for demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a) The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b) The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, c) The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen or d) No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a) The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic District in which it is located and b) The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c) Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. Staff Response: The 1988 addition to this historic resource is butted against the west and north facades of the cabin, but the cabin walls were substantially left in place on the interior. It appears that some original window openings on the west side of the building became interior doorways and a new interior door may have been cut into the north façade of the building. More information is needed from the applicant to establish how intact the cabin is on the west and north. Historic photos, like the one on the following page, may be of assistance. Demolition of the addition, which surrounds the historic resource to a greater extent than today’s guidelines advise, is an opportunity to re-address preservation of this unique home. Staff supports demolition but the goal should be to expose and retain as much of the historic fabric as possible. Further removal of any of the perimeter of the cabin walls should be avoided. Existing Main Level Floor Plan P20 IV.A. 300 W. Main Street Page 3 of 19 RELOCATION Relocation of a historic building will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards: 1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: Real Estate Ad, 1960, Aspen Historical Society P21 IV.A. 300 W. Main Street Page 4 of 19 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. Staff Response: The historic home appears to be in its original location. The applicant proposes to move the structure 4’3” southward and 4’0” eastward. The property contains a number of very substantial spruce trees, impressive in size even in the 1960s real estate ad on the previous page. The Parks Department has visited the property and will allow the cabin to be moved 4’ east and no further. They will impose restrictions on the basement excavation techniques, do not wish to see planters extending the excavation around the base of the cabin, and will want to ensure that at-grade patios and walkways do not cause damage to tree roots. It appears that some additional southward movement or a shift north, towards the alley are possibilities that may benefit the project and are acceptable to Parks. This Rustic Style house is an anomaly within the historic district, which is predominantly Victorian era homes. It is the only building in the district with its main entrance oriented to the side street instead of Main Street. For this reason, staff does find that some flexibility in siting is possible without detrimental impact to relationships to surrounding structures. The relocation request is described as necessary to provide more area for an addition and functional garage. Shifting a historic resource to create some distance from a new addition, or to allow a more appropriate siting of an addition is a relatively common practice in Aspen. In this case, the extent to which the cabin can be moved is relatively limited. Protection of the dripline of the spruce trees requires all development to be held about 20’ away from the east property line (considered to be the front yard setback), where 10’ would normally be required. It does not appear that the proposed relocation is benefitting the historic resource. The design guidelines call for a number of gestures to sensitively transition between new and old construction. Unfortunately, the current proposal does not include important features such as a one story connector. The addition, at a two story height, attaches substantially to the west and north facades of the cabin and encroaches onto its roof. Relocation may be shown to be an appropriate approach, but the current plan does not justify this compromise to the authenticity of preserving the structure where it was built in the 1940s. Staff also has concerns that moving the cabin closer to the trees could reduce public visibility and aggravate P22 IV.A. 300 W. Main Street Page 5 of 19 CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW maintenance issues by shading and shedding rain and snow onto the structure to a greater extent than occurs now. Further consideration of these potential effects is needed before staff could recommend approval. The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project’s conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the site plan, height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list of the relevant HPC design guidelines for this stage in the review process is attached as “Exhibit A.” Since the use of the property is lodge, Commercial Design Review is also needed. Those relevant guidelines are also identified in “Exhibit A.” P23 IV.A. 300 W. Main Street Page 6 of 19 The property is currently a single family home, which has a maximum floor area of 4,080 square feet and a height limit of 25’. A lodge is permitted up to 6,750 square feet and a maximum height of 28.’ The floor area proposed in this project is 6,081 square feet with a maximum height of 26’3.” The historic cabin component of the proposed structure is approximately 1,400 square feet in size and the addition, above grade, is about 3,900 square feet. Given the size of the project, it is important to ensure that the redevelopment will meet the City’s definition of a lodge and be offered for overnight accommodations for the general public on a short-term basis for a fee. At a future meeting, HPC will consider the lodge use more specifically, applying Growth Management criteria and establishing conditions of approval. The City may periodically audit the business to confirm that occupancy and operational requirements are being met. In 2016, HPC adopted new design guidelines reflecting updated philosophies on additions to historic buildings in Aspen. An area of significant change in the guidelines was the treatment of corner lots like this one. The guidelines became more restrictive as to the size of an addition. Direct expansions to the resource are to be limited, while detached new construction will be allowed more flexibility. The guidelines were firmly worded as to the limitations, but room for exceptions, on a case by case basis, was allowed. Staff has a concern that the following guidelines are not met and that the exceptions which HPC may consider are not appropriate given the impacts of the addition on the historic building. 10.4 The historic resource is to be the focus of the property, the entry point, and the predominant structure as viewed from the street. • The historic resource must be visually dominant on the site and must be distinguishable against the addition. • The total above grade floor area of an addition may be no more than 100% of the above grade floor area of the original historic resource. All other above grade development must be completely detached. HPC may consider exceptions to this policy if two or more of the following are met: o The proposed addition is all one story o The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of the historic resource and the proposed design is particularly sensitive to the scale and proportions of the historic resource o The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older addition that is considered to have been particularly detrimental to the historic resource o The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable floors as existed historically o The project is on a large lot, allowing the addition to have a significant setback from the street o There are no variance requests in the application other than those related to historic conditions that aren’t being changed o The project is proposed as part of a voluntary AspenModern designation, or P24 IV.A. 300 W. Main Street Page 7 of 19 o The property is affected by non-preservation related site specific constraints such as trees that must be preserved, Environmentally Sensitive Areas review, etc. 10.5 On a corner lot, no portion of an addition to a one story historic resource may be more than one story tall, directly behind that resource, unless completely detached above grade by a distance of at least 10 feet. HPC may consider exceptions to this policy if two or more of the following are met: o The connector element that links the new and old construction is a breezeway or transparent corridor, well recessed from the streetfacing side(s) of the historic resource and the area of two story construction that appears directly behind the one story historic resource is minimal o The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of the historic resource and the proposed design is particularly sensitive to the scale and proportions of the historic resource o The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older addition that is considered to have been particularly detrimental to the historic resource o The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable floors as existed historically o There are no variance requests in the application other than those related to historic conditions that aren’t being changed o The project is proposed as part of a voluntary AspenModern designation, or o The property is affected by non-preservation related site specific constraints such as trees that must be preserved, Environmentally Sensitive Areas review, etc. Regarding guideline 10.4, an above grade addition can be no larger than the above grade historic resource. In this case, the addition is a bit less than three times the size of the resource. This is obviously well beyond the threshold established in the guideline and a challenging mass to insert on the site in a sensitive manner, especially on a corner lot, between two historic structures (referencing the Victorian era carriage house at 320 W. Main Street, just 5’ away from the west façade of the proposed addition.) Reasons why an exception could be considered on this site are the fact that the historic resource is being productively and fully used as a primary space in the lodge, and the site is impacted by large trees. Staff does not find that the rest of the exceptions are meaningfully met. The existing addition does not meet today’s guidelines, but the proposed addition is arguably not improving the objectionable aspects of that work, namely the way in which it envelops two sides of the resource. A new addition that is larger than 1,400 square feet could be appropriate, but not as configured. Regarding 10.5, the addition is not one story tall as it appears behind the historic resource, it is two stories both behind and directly alongside the resource. This is staff’s most significant objection to the proposal. A long standing objective of the Aspen HPC is to ensure a limited attachment point to the historic resource and some distance between the landmarked building and the inevitably larger addition. While the application describes a portion of the addition as a connector, it is not a transparent breezeway or corridor, nor, as prescribed at guideline 10.9, is it one story for a length of 10,’minimal in width and tucked below the eaves of the historic resource. In fact, as noted above, the addition perches on top of the resource. The status of the original log walls forming the west and north sides of the cabin is not entirely clear at this time in terms of any original openings that were created or historic openings that P25 IV.A. 300 W. Main Street Page 8 of 19 were infilled. Reversibility of changes to a log wall is a challenge and no new penetrations should be created by this project if possible. The proposed addition does not meet guideline 10.10, which states: 10.10 Place an addition at the rear of a primary building or set it back substantially from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. • Locating an addition at the front of a primary building is inappropriate. • Additions to the side of a primary building are handled on a case-by-case basis and are approved based on site specific constraints that restrict rear additions. • Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. The addition wraps around two sides of the structure. While this is true of the existing addition, which was built almost 30 years ago, the boards philosophy on acceptable impacts has evolved to a significantly different approach. Staff recommends that HPC continue the project for redesign and that the applicant consider other options that may include reducing the proposed square footage of the addition, designing a compliant connector, and studying the possible benefits of positioning of the south façade of the cabin somewhat closer towards Main Street or the north façade somewhat closer to the alley. The applicant plans to remove the existing metal roof from the cabin and return it to wood shingle, which will be a notable restoration improvement to the building. Other opportunities to reverse alterations that have occurred over the years, particularly on the front façade, should be researched. As stated above, the proposal is subject to not only the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, but also the Commercial Design Guidelines. Staff has applied Chapter 1: General Guidelines/Pedestrian Amenity and Chapter 3: Main Street Historic District. Although there is a chapter related specifically to Small Lodges, this property is not part of the collection of modest older lodges that are formally identified and zoned for Lodge Preservation. Staff chose not to apply those guidelines to the review. The General guidelines are primarily focused on new buildings and traditional commercial forms in Aspen. This project is considered to be a remodel according to the Commercial guidelines. The only guideline which staff finds may warrant discussion is guideline 1.7, which suggests the use of varied building setbacks and materials to reduce scale along the alley. Additional study may be appropriate on this topic. Chapter 1 also addresses Pedestrian Amenity and requires the project to either provide 25% of the property in compliance with the guidelines, or substitute a cash-in-lieu payment or equivalent community benefit. The unbuildable area of the property, where the major trees are located, more than addresses this requirement by offering street-facing passive open space. Chapter 3 of the Commercial Design Guidelines address development in the Main Street Historic District. Again, the emphasis is on new construction, however additions to historic buildings in the P26 IV.A. 300 W. Main Street Page 9 of 19 neighborhood are, per Guideline 3.8, to be compatible with the historic resource in terms of size and scale, lower or similar in height to the resource. Though the district is zoned for commercial uses, the guidelines emphasize the residential scale that predominates the neighborhood, particularly on the western end of Main. Staff finds that the Commercial Design Guidelines cited above, also indicate that restudy of the project is needed. SETBACK VARIATIONS The project includes a request for a reduction of the setback requirement along the alley. For clarification, 2nd Street is considered to be the front yard, Main Street and the alley are side yards, and the west lot line is the rear yard. This is all driven by the orientation of the front door of the cabin towards the side street. The Mixed Use zone district requires a front yard setback of at least 10’, with side and rear yards to be a minimum of 5’. The proposal is to place the addition 1’ from the alley, with an eave extending to the property line. In order to grant a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. Staff Response: Flexibility on the setback requirement along the alley is important to a good preservation outcome, given development constraints on the south, east and west yards. In general, staff finds that the criteria for a variation could be met. The architect must recognize that no elements of the development, including gutters, can cross the property line so some addition setback from the alley or a reduced eave would be important. SPECIAL REVIEW FOR PARKING Parking requirements are now expressed as required “parking units” rather than parking spaces. This is a recognition that other transportation options may be more beneficial to the community than creating more spots to park cars. This project requires 0.5 parking units per lodge unit. There are 12 lodge rooms proposed, therefore 6 parking units required. A minimum of 60% of the required parking units must be in the form of 3.6 on-site spaces. Up to 40% of the parking units, or 2.4 units, may be provided through cash-in-lieu payment. The applicant can apply a 1 parking unit credit they have earned on the Transportation Impact Assessment worksheet included in the application to reduce their parking requirement. The credit was earned by the applicant’s commitment to provide bike racks on the property. The site plan provided for HPC review indicates 5 parking spaces will be available on this site, accessed from the alley. However, since submission of the application, the Engineering Department has indicated P27 IV.A. 300 W. Main Street Page 10 of 19 that parking will no longer be allowed to encroach into the 2nd Street right-of-way, as it does now, therefore the two spaces closest to 2nd Street on the proposed site plan will not be possible. The addition to the cabin includes one enclosed ADA parking space, and there will be two unenclosed spaces off the alley. The site plan shown below indicates the compliant spaces with a star and the spaces which must be eliminated with an x. The applicant requested HPC approval to waive one parking space and the $30,000 cash-in-lieu fee as a preservation benefit. In actuality, the applicant has a shortfall of two parking units. The portion of the addition that features garage doors contains a large trash and recycling area, as required by the Municipal Code, and one accessible parking space, which has extra clearances required around the vehicle. The balance of the new construction along the alley is a guest room. This area would appear to be large enough for two parking spaces. HPC must evaluate whether parking reductions are appropriate or whether the scope of the project, particularly the number of guest rooms, must be adjusted to match the parking that can be on-site. Section 26.515.080 of the Municipal Code establishes criteria for decision-making on this issue. A Special Review for establishing, varying or waiving transportation, mobility or off-street parking requirements may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on its conformance with all of the following criteria: 1. The transportation, mobility, and off-street parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts on the on-street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. 2. An on-site mitigation solution meeting the requirements and guidelines is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. 3. Existing or planned on-site or off-site facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking. It is premature for HPC to make findings on this topic given the likely restudy of the project, possibly resulting in a reduced parking unit generation. HPC has the authority to waive parking unit requirements and fees. This is an important incentive intended to assist in the preservation of landmark properties. P28 IV.A. 300 W. Main Street Page 11 of 19 There are a number of other aspects of the proposal before HPC that will require careful consideration before moving forward. This property is at the base of what is referred to as “the Mesa” on Main Street, where grade begins to climb. The site is surrounded by a concrete retaining wall on the south and west lot lines. The construction date of this wall is unknown and it is topped by a fence which was permitted by the City but which contributes to the difficult public visibility of the property. Along the west lot line, towards the alley, a tall Victorian era sandstone retaining wall, unlike any other remaining in Aspen, supports the carriage house, shown at left, associated with the Smith-Elisha house at 320 W. Main. It appears that wall sits partially on the subject property, as does an eave of the carriage house. This project must not only be respectful of the rustic log cabin on the site, but also the neighboring resource. Though the cabin on the subject site was built for use as a home, the 1988 remodel converted the log cabin to use as a restaurant, with the addition serving as home for the owners. More recently, the log cabin housed an office/retail use. The ramp along the north side of the porch was built to provide accessibility for these past functions. This application proposes to demolish the ramp and to provide a path from the alley to a door in the new addition. The Building Department has indicated that this is inadequate. A direct route from the sidewalk along 2nd Street to the front door of the lodge must be created. There must also be an accessible route from the parking space in the garage into the structure. As part of the restudy of the addition, the architects must revisit this topic. The project will need to address the City’s standards for Water Quality Capture Volume and release to City Storm Water system. HPC design guideline 1.8 indicates that preliminary plans for storm water should be discussed at Conceptual review. The applicant has not provided specifics. HPC would be unlikely to prefer any visible features, such as manhole covers, in the foreground of the resource. The Environmental Health Department has indicated that the required standards for Utilities, Trash and Recycling are met by the proposal. A 200 square foot area has been devoted to this purpose in the garage area. It is found to meet design characteristics that ensure the space is functional and secure from wildlife. ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ The HPC may: • approve the application, • approve the application with conditions, P29 IV.A. 300 W. Main Street Page 12 of 19 • disapprove the application, or • continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC continue the application and direct the applicant to prepare amendments to bring the project into compliance with the design guidelines and other review requirements stated in this memo. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A: Relevant design guidelines Exhibit B: Application Exhibit C: Referral comments provided by other City Departments Exhibit A: Relevant design guidelines Historic Preservation Design Guidelines 1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood or district. • Building footprint and location should reinforce the traditional patterns of the neighborhood. • Allow for some porosity on a site. In a residential project, setback to setback development is typically uncharacteristic of the historic context. Do not design a project which leaves no useful open space visible from the street. 1.2 Preserve the system and character of historic streets, alleys, and ditches. When HPC input is requested, the following bullet points may be applicable. • Retain and preserve the variety and character found in historic alleys, including retaining historic ancillary buildings or constructing new ones. • Retain and preserve the simple character of historic ditches. Do not plant flowers or add landscape. • Abandoning or re-routing a street in a historic area is generally discouraged. • Consider the value of unpaved alleys in residential areas. • Opening a platted right of way which was abandoned or never graded may be encouraged on a case by case basis. 1.3 Remove driveways or parking areas accessed directly from the street if they were not part of the original development of the site. • Do not introduce new curb cuts on streets. P30 IV.A. 300 W. Main Street Page 13 of 19 • Non-historic driveways accessed from the street should be removed if they can be relocated to the alley. 1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces. • Reflect the established progression of public to private spaces from the public sidewalk to a semi-public walkway, to a semi private entry feature, to private spaces. 1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on residential projects. • Meandering walkways are not allowed, except where it is needed to avoid a tree or is typical of the period of significance. • Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style and install them in the manner that they would have been used historically. For example on an Aspen Victorian landmark set flagstone pavers in sand, rather than in concrete. Light grey concrete, brick or red sandstone are appropriate private walkway materials for most landmarks. • The width of a new entry sidewalk should generally be three feet or less for residential properties. A wider sidewalk may be appropriate for an AspenModern property. 1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site. • Ensure that open space on site is meaningful and consolidated into a few large spaces rather than many small unusable areas. • Open space should be designed to support and complement the historic building. 1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process. • When included in the initial planning for a project, stormwater quality facilities can be better integrated into the proposal. All landscape plans presented for HPC review must include at least a preliminary representation of the stormwater design. A more detailed design must be reviewed and approved by Planning and Engineering prior to building permit submittal. • Site designs and stormwater management should provide positive drainage away from the historic landmark, preserve the use of natural drainage and treatment systems of the site, reduce the generation of additional stormwater runoff, and increase infiltration into the ground. Stormwater facilities and conveyances located in front of a landmark should have minimal visual impact when viewed from the public right of way. • Refer to City Engineering for additional guidance and requirements. 1.21 Preserve original retaining walls • Replace only those portions that are deteriorated beyond repair. Any replacement materials should match the original in color, texture, size and finish. • Painting or covering a historic masonry retaining wall or covering is not allowed. • Increasing the height of a retaining wall is inappropriate. 1.24 Preserve historically significant landscapes with few or no alterations. • An analysis of the historic landscape and an assessment of the current condition of the landscape should be done before the beginning of any project. • The key features of the historic landscape and its overall design intent must be preserved. P31 IV.A. 300 W. Main Street Page 14 of 19 1.25 New development on these sites should respect the historic design of the landscape and its built features. • Do not add features that damage the integrity of the historic landscape. • Maintain the existing pattern of setbacks and siting of structures. • Maintain the historic relationship of the built landscape to natural features on the site. • All additions to these landscapes must be clearly identifiable as recent work. • New artwork must be subordinate to the designed landscape in terms of placement, height, material, and overall appearance. Place new art away from significant landscape features. • Avoid installing utility trenches in cultural landscapes if possible. 1.26 Preserve the historic circulation system. • Minimize the impact of new vehicular circulation. • Minimize the visual impact of new parking. • Maintain the separation of pedestrian and vehicle which occurred historically. 1.27 Preserve and maintain significant landscaping on site. • Protect established vegetation during any construction. • If any tree or shrub needs to be removed, replace it with the same or similar species. • New planting should be of a species used historically or a similar species. • Maintain and preserve any gardens and/or ornamental planting on the site. • Maintain and preserve any historic landscape elements. 2.1 Preserve original building materials. • Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place. • Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices, pediments, steps and foundations, should be preserved. • Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired in place. Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity. • Original AspenModern materials may be replaced in kind if it has been determined that the weathering detracts from the original design intent or philosophy. 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. • Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Preserve the orientation and slope of the roof as seen from the street. • Retain and repair original and decorative roof detailing. • Where the original roof form has been altered, consider restoration. 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. • Overhangs contribute to the scale and detailing of a historic resource. • AspenModern properties typically have very deep or extremely minimal overhangs that are key character defining features of the architectural style. 7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they are made non-functional. P32 IV.A. 300 W. Main Street Page 15 of 19 • Reconstruct a missing chimney when documentation exists. 9.2 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. • In general, on-site relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. • In a district, where numerous adjacent historic structures may exist, the way that buildings were placed on the site historically, and the open yards visible from the street are characteristics that should be respected in new development. • Provide a figure ground study of the surrounding parcels to demonstrate the effects of a building relocation. • In some cases, the historic significance of the structure, the context of the site, the construction technique, and the architectural style may make on-site relocation too impactful to be appropriate. It must be demonstrated that on-site relocation is the best preservation alternative in order for approval to be granted. • If relocation would result in the need to reconstruct a substantial area of the original exterior surface of the building above grade, it is not an appropriate preservation option. 9.3 Site a relocated structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. • It must face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. In general, a forward movement, rather than a lateral movement is preferred. HPC will consider setback variations where appropriate. • A primary structure may not be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. • Be aware of potential restrictions against locating buildings too close to mature trees. Consult with the City Forester early in the design process. Do not relocate a building so that it becomes obscured by trees. 9.4 Position a relocated structure at its historic elevation above grade. • Raising the finished floor of the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable if needed to address drainage issues. A substantial change in position relative to grade is inappropriate. • Avoid making design decisions that require code related alterations which could have been avoided. In particular, consider how the relationship to grade could result in non-historic guardrails, etc. 9.5 A new foundation shall appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. • On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a miner’s cottage where there is no evidence that one existed historically is out of character and is not allowed. • Exposed concrete or painted metal flashing are generally appropriate. • Where a stone or brick foundation existed historically, it must be replicated, ideally using stone salvaged from the original foundation as a veneer. The replacement must be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. • New AspenModern foundations shall be handled on a case by case basis to ensure preservation of the design intent. P33 IV.A. 300 W. Main Street Page 16 of 19 9.6 Minimize the visual impact of lightwells. • The size of any lightwell that faces a street should be minimized. • Lightwells must be placed so that they are not immediately adjacent to character defining features, such as front porches. • Lightwells must be protected with a flat grate, rather than a railing or may not be visible from a street. • Lightwells that face a street must abut the building foundation and generally may not “float” in the landscape except where they are screened, or on an AspenModern site. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. • For Aspen Victorian properties, HPC generally relies on the 1904 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps to determine which portions of a building are historically significant and must be preserved. • HPC may insist on the removal of non-historic construction that is considered to be detrimental to the historic resource in any case when preservation benefits or variations are being approved. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one’s ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. • A new addition must be compatible with the historic character of the primary building. • An addition must be subordinate, deferential, modest, and secondary in comparison to the architectural character of the primary building. • An addition that imitates the primary building’s historic style is not allowed. For example, a new faux Victorian detailed addition is inappropriate on an Aspen Victorian home. • An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. • Proposals on corner lots require particular attention to creating compatibility. 10.4 The historic resource is to be the focus of the property, the entry point, and the predominant structure as viewed from the street. • The historic resource must be visually dominant on the site and must be distinguishable against the addition. • The total above grade floor area of an addition may be no more than 100% of the above grade floor area of the original historic resource. All other above grade development must be completely detached. HPC may consider exceptions to this policy if two or more of the following are met: o The proposed addition is all one story o The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of the historic resource and the proposed design is particularly sensitive to the scale and proportions of the historic resource o The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older addition that is considered to have been particularly detrimental to the historic resource o The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable floors as existed historically o The project is on a large lot, allowing the addition to have a significant setback from the street P34 IV.A. 300 W. Main Street Page 17 of 19 o There are no variance requests in the application other than those related to historic conditions that aren’t being changed o The project is proposed as part of a voluntary AspenModern designation, or o The property is affected by non-preservation related site specific constraints such as trees that must be preserved, Environmentally Sensitive Areas review, etc. 10.5 On a corner lot, no portion of an addition to a one story historic resource may be more than one story tall, directly behind that resource, unless completely detached above grade by a distance of at least 10 feet. HPC may consider exceptions to this policy if two or more of the following are met: • The connector element that links the new and old construction is a breezeway or transparent corridor, well recessed from the streetfacing side(s) of the historic resource and the area of two story construction that appears directly behind the one story historic resource is minimal • The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of the historic resource and the proposed design is particularly sensitive to the scale and proportions of the historic resource • The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older addition that is considered to have been particularly detrimental to the historic resource • The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable floors as existed historically • There are no variance requests in the application other than those related to historic conditions that aren’t being changed • The project is proposed as part of a voluntary AspenModern designation, or • The property is affected by non-preservation related site specific constraints such as trees that must be preserved, Environmentally Sensitive Areas review, etc. 10.6 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. • An addition shall be distinguishable from the historic building and still be visually compatible with historic features. • A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material, or a modern interpretation of a historic style are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from historic construction to new construction. • Do not reference historic styles that have no basis in Aspen. • Consider these three aspects of an addition; form, materials, and fenestration. An addition must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from the historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design response. • Note that on a corner lot, departing from the form of the historic resource may not be allowed. • There is a spectrum of appropriate solutions to distinguishing new from old portions of a development. Some resources of particularly high significance or integrity may not be the right instance for a contrasting addition. 10.7 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic alignments on the street. P35 IV.A. 300 W. Main Street Page 18 of 19 • Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings may align at approximately the same height. An addition can not be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured. 10.8 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. • An addition that is lower than, or similar to the height of the primary building, is preferred. 10.9 If the addition is taller than a historic building, set it back from significant façades and use a “connector” to link it to the historic building. • Only a one-story connector is allowed. • Usable space, including decks, is not allowed on top of connectors unless the connector has limited visibility and the deck is shielded with a solid parapet wall. • In all cases, the connector must attach to the historic resource underneath the eave. • The connector shall be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. • Minimize the width of the connector. Ideally, it is no more than a passage between the historic resource and addition. The connector must reveal the original building corners. The connector may not be as wide as the historic resource. • Any street-facing doors installed in the connector must be minimized in height and width and accessed by a secondary pathway. See guideline 4.1 for further information. 10.10 Place an addition at the rear of a primary building or set it back substantially from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. • Locating an addition at the front of a primary building is inappropriate. • Additions to the side of a primary building are handled on a case-by-case basis and are approved based on site specific constraints that restrict rear additions. • Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. 10.11 Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building. • A simple roof form that does not compete with the historic building is appropriate. • On Aspen Victorian properties, a flat roof may only be used on an addition to a gable roofed structure if the addition is entirely one story in height, or if the flat roofed areas are limited, but the addition is primarily a pitched roof. 10.12 Design an addition to a historic structure that does not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. • Loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices, and eavelines must be avoided. 12.1 Address accessibility compliance requirements while preserving character defining features of historic buildings and districts. • All new construction must comply completely with the International Building Code (IBC) for accessibility. Special provisions for historic buildings exist in the law that allow some flexibility when designing solutions which meet accessibility standards. P36 IV.A. 300 W. Main Street Page 19 of 19 12.4 Minimize the visual impacts of utilitarian areas, such as mechanical equipment and trash storage. • Place mechanical equipment on the ground where it can be screened. • Mechanical equipment may only be mounted on a building on an alley façade. • Rooftop mechanical equipment or vents must be grouped together to minimize their visual impact. Where rooftop units are visible, it may be appropriate to provide screening with materials that are compatible with those of the building itself. Use the smallest, low profile units available for the purpose. • Window air conditioning units are not allowed. • Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Group them in a discrete location. Use pedestals when possible, rather than mounting on a historic building. • Paint mechanical equipment in a neutral color to minimize their appearance by blending with their backgrounds • In general, mechanical equipment should be vented through the roof, rather than a wall, in a manner that has the least visual impact possible. • Avoid surface mounted conduit on historic structures. P37 IV.A. Aspen Historical Society 1 The purpose of Commercial Design Review is to preserve and to encourage appropriate architecture that creates walkable neighborhoods and supports the heritage of Aspen. The Standards and Guidelines below apply to all projects subject to Commercial Design Review. Site Planning and Streetscape The original townsite was platted in 1880 based on an orthogonal pattern, regardless of topography. Orienting buildings parallel to the street reinforces the traditional network of streets and alleys and enhances the pedestrian experience. Today, given the increased height and density of development, site planning and the relationship to streets and adjacent properties have a particularly important role in shaping neighborhood character. Original Townsite of Aspen - 1896 Willits Map Special care should be taken when placing a building within the River Approach and Mountain Base character areas. The majority of parcels in these areas are not located on the traditional townsite grid and topography of the site should be given additional consideration. 1.1 All projects shall provide a context study. •The study should include the relationship to adjacent structures and streets through photographs, streetscape elevations, historic maps, etc. 1.2 All projects shall respond to the traditional street grid. •A building shall be oriented parallel to the street unless uncharacteristic of the area. Refer to specific chapters for more information. •Buildings on corners shall be parallel to both streets. General General Guidelines Page 11 P38 IV.A. 1.3 Landscape elements (both hardscape and softscape) should complement the surrounding context, support the street scene, and enhance the architecture of the building. •This applies to landscape located both on-site and in the public right-of-way. •High quality and durable materials should be used. •Early in the design process, consider stormwater best management practices as an integral part of the landscape design process. 1.4 Where there is open space on a site, reinforce the traditional transition from public space, to semi-public space to private space. •This may be achieved through a fence, a defined walkway, a front porch element, covered walkway, or landscape. 1.5 Maintain alignment of building facades where appropriate. •Consider the entire block of a neighborhood to determine appropriate building placement. Carefully examine and respond to the variety of building alignments that are present. •Consider all four corners of an intersection and architectural context to determine appropriate placement for buildings located on corners. •Consider the appropriate location of street level Pedestrian Amenity when siting a new building. 1.6 When a building facade is set back, define the property line. Review the context of the block when selecting an appropriate technique. Examples include: •A fence which is low in height and mostly transparent so as to maintain openness along the street. •Landscaping, though it may not block views of the architecture or a Pedestrian Amenity space. Hedgerows over 42 inches are prohibited. •Benches or other street furniture. Landscape design can enhance relationships between pedestrian access and architecture. The iconic Elks Building sits on its property lines. Hardscape can enhance the street scene. Page 12 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P39 IV.A. 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 P40 IV.A. Parking The Aspen community values a positive pedestrian experience and encourages walking and biking to get around town. Designs for on-site parking should minimize conflicts between pedestrians and cars. The original Aspen townsite includes alleyways, which are an appropriate location to access parking. Neighborhoods without alleys require additional measures to accomodate cars successfully. Because parking areas can detract from other desirable qualities of a neighborhood, the visibility of on-site parking should be reduced in all locations. The following standard only applies to properties that are providing on-site parking. 1.9 Minimize the visual impacts of parking. •All on-site parking shall be accessed off an alley where one is available. •Break up the massing of the alley facade, especially when garage doors are present. •Consider the potential for future retail use accessed from alleys and the desire to create a safe and attractive environment for cars and people. •If no alley access exists, access should be from the shortest block length. •Screen surface parking and avoid locating it at the front of a building. Landscaping and fences are recommended. •Consider a paving material change to define surface parking areas and to create visual interest. •Design any street-facing entry to underground parking to reduce visibility. Use high quality materials for doors and ramps and integrate the parking area into the architecture. Integrate parking into the architecture as a garage enclosure by matching the color to adjacent materials. Architectural details break up the massing of an alley and the garage doors blend into the facade. Screen surface parking. Page 14 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P41 IV.A. Building Mass, Height, and Scale Designing a new building to fit within the context of the neighborhood requires careful thought. Researching historic maps, identifying nearby historic landmarks, and defining key character features of a neighborhood are critical steps before designing a new building. Special care is required for development adjacent to a designated landmark. New development has the opportunity to positively impact the cohesion of a neighborhood. Specific context descriptions are provided in each Character Area Chapter to define these features. 1.10 A new building should appear similar in scale and proportion with buildings on the block. 1.11 A minimum building height difference of 2 feet from immediately adjacent buildings is required. •The height difference shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide. •The height difference should reflect the range and variation in building height in the block. •This may be achieved through the use of a cornice, parapet or other architectural articulation. 1.12 On lots larger than 6,000 square feet, break up building mass into smaller modules. •A street level front setback to accommodate Pedestrian Amenity in accordance with the Pedestrian Amenity Guidelines may be an appropriate method to break up building mass. •Building setbacks, height variation, changes of material, and architectural details may be appropriate techniques to vertically divide a building into modules. Aspen contains many historic landmarks including the Independence Square building. Varied building heights are important for larger developments. New construction must appear similar in scale and proportion with buildings on its block. General Guidelines Page 15 P42 IV.A. 1.13 Development adjacent to a historic landmark should respond to the historic resource. •A new building should not obscure historic features of the landmark. •A new large building should avoid negative impacts on historic resources by stepping down in scale toward a smaller landmark. •Consider these three aspects of a new building adjacent to a landmark: form, materials and fenestration. •When choosing to relate to building form, use forms that are similar to the historic resource. •When choosing to relate to materials, use materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site, and use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of pedestrian scale. •When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that are similar in size, shape, and proportion to those of the historic resource. Maps showing locations of historic landmarks are available online, at the Aspen Historical Society and at the Planning Office. Stepping down to historic resources is important for development adjacent to historic buildings. Small scale additions to small historic resources are most appropriate. Relating to a historic resource through a variety of methods is appropriate. Page 16 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P43 IV.A. Street Level Design Street level design directly contributes to the vitality, walkability, and overall success of a commercial, lodge, or mixed use area. The relationship of entrances and storefronts to the street is critical. Carefully considered pedestrian-scaled elements can enhance the experience along Aspen’s streets and reinforce neighborhood character. 1.14 Commercial entrances shall be at the sidewalk level and oriented to the street. •Finished floor and sidewalk level shall align for at least 1/2 the depth of the ground floor where possible. If significant grade changes exist on property, then the project will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. •All buildings shall have at least one clearly defined primary entrance facing the front lot line, as defined in the Land Use Code. An entrance located within a chamfered corner is an alternative. (See Commercial Core Historic District). •If a building is located on a corner lot, two entrances shall be provided; a primary entrance facing the longest block length and a secondary entrance facing the shortest block length. 1.15 Incorporate an internal airlock or air curtain into first floor commercial space. •An airlock or air curtain shall be integrated into the architecture. •Adding a temporary exterior airlock of any material to an existing building not allowed. Street level entries are important pedestrian features. Varied scaling and rhythm devices create an interesting and inviting streetscape. Pedestrian-scaled elements, materials and rhythms should be incorporated. General Guidelines Page 17 P44 IV.A. 1.16 Entries that are significantly taller or shorter than those seen historically or that conflict with the established scale are highly discouraged. •Transom windows above an entry are a traditional element that may be appropriate in neighborhoods with 19th century commercial buildings. •Entries should reflect the established range of sizes within the context of the block. Analyze surrounding buildings to determine appropriate height for entry doors. 1.17 ATMs and vending machines visible from the street are prohibited. Refer to Chapter 11 of the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines for more information on appropriate new construction, remodels, or additions adjacent to landmarks. Transom windows may be appropriate. Entries should reflect the established range and not be over- or undersized. OVERSIZED DOORS PREFERRED DOORS NOTE: BUILDING CODE REQUIRES THAT AT LEAST ONE THESE ENTRY DOORS BE AT LEAST 3’-0” IN WIDTH. UNDERSIZED DOORS Historic proportions of a two-story commercial building in Aspen. Page 18 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P45 IV.A. Roofscape The roofscape of a building is considered the fifth facade given its visibility from nearby buildings and mountains. As such, careful attention should be paid to creating a thoughtful, organized, and varied roofscape. Rooftop design can be a challenge considering the need to place mechanical equipment, venting, and elevator shafts on the roof. A successful roofscape can minimize the visual impacts of these elements and also incorporate City goals such as storm water treatment through a green roof system or streetscape vibrancy with an activated roof deck. Consider a birds-eye view when creating a roof plan. 1.18 The roofscape should be designed with the same attention as the elevations of the building. •Consolidate mechanical equipment, including solar panels, and screen from view. •Locate mechanical equipment toward the alley, or rear of a building if there is no alley access. •Use varied roof forms or parapet heights to break up the roof plane mass and add visual interest. 1.19 Use materials that complement the design of the building facade. •Minimize the visual impact of elevator shafts and stairway corridors through material selection and placement of elements. 1.20 Incorporate green roofs and low landscape elements into rooftop design where feasible. 1.21 Minimize visibility of rooftops railings. •Mostly transparent railings are preferred. •Integrating the rooftop railing into the architecture as a parapet or other feature, may be appropriate considering the neighborhood context and proposed building style. •Set back the railing a distance that equals or exceeds the height of the railing. Screen rooftop features from view. Varied roof forms enhances the neighborhood character. The Land Use Code establishes minimum setabacks for various rooftop features. General Guidelines Page 19 P46 IV.A. 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 P47 IV.A. Lighting, Service and Mechanical Areas The character and intensity of outdoor lighting can greatly impact neighborhood character. The City of Aspen has comprehensive exterior lighting standards, defined in the Land Use Code. These standards balance the needs of the building with the desire to enjoy the dark night skies. When the service and mechanical areas of a commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success of the neighborhood. Poor logistics of one building can detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. 1.26 The design of light fixtures should be appropriate to the form, materials, scale, and style of the building. 1.27 Trash and recycle service areas shall be co- located along an alleyway where one exists, and screened from view with a fence or door. •Screening fences shall be 6 feet high from grade (unless prohibited by the Land Use Code), shall be of sound construction, and shall be no less than 90% opaque, unless otherwise varied based on a recommendation from the Environmental Health Department. 1.28 Design trash and recycle areas thoughtfully and within the style of the building, with the goal of enhancing pedestrian and commercial uses along alleys. 1.29 Delivery areas shall be located along an alleyway where one exists. •Shared facilities are highly encouraged. 1.30 Mechanical equipment, ducts, and vents shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or co-located on the roof. •Screen rooftop mechanical equipment and venting with a low fence or recess behind a parapet wall to minimize visual impacts. Reference City Municipal Code for trash size and location requirements. 1.31 Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. •Group and discreetly locate these features. •Use screening and materials that compliment the architecture. 1.32 Transformer location and size are dictated by City and utility company standards and codes. •Place a transformer on an alley where possible. •Provide screening for any non-alley location. Efficient service areas are important to the function of alleyways. Screen mechanical equipment and trash and recycle areas from view. General Guidelines Page 21 P48 IV.A. 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 P49 IV.A. Examples of Architectural Lighting General Guidelines Page 23 P50 IV.A. Examples of Entries Page 24 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P51 IV.A. Examples of Storefront Design General Guidelines Page 25 P52 IV.A. Examples of Architectural Details Page 26 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P53 IV.A. Well-designed open spaces should enhance the streetscape, creatively reinforce property boundaries, and support a variety of uses. The goal of the Pedestrian Amenity requirement is to create intentionally designed and meaningful open space that conveys human scale, provides relief from the built environment, and improves the experience in commercial, mixed-use, and lodging neighborhoods. Successful Pedestrian Amenity space allows for nature to blend into the built environment. Most Pedestrian Amenity spaces should be open to view from the street, open to the sky, and not permanently enclosed with walls. Visibility adds to vitality at the street level. These spaces should be versatile and easily adaptable for different uses. Restaurant seating and outdoor food vending are particularly appropriate uses of Pedestrian The Aspen community considers open space to be a pedestrian amenity and a top priority. Maintaining the feel of a natural environment with frequent opportunities to dwell outdoors is of utmost importance. Pedestrian Amenity Amenity space. Where on-site Pedestrian Amenity is required, it should be usable and accessible space. Pedestrian Amenity need not be available to the public at all times, but needs to contribute to an active streetscape and promote interaction and engagement. There are many different options to meet the required Pedestrian Amenity for a property, such as physical or operational improvements to private property, improvements to the public right-of-way, or cash-in-lieu payment, to be used by the City for the creation of related amenities. Each type of Pedestrian Amenity space and applicable Character Areas are described in the following standards and guidelines. Successful amenity space provides a varied pedestrian experience. Page 28 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P54 IV.A. Questions to Consider 1. Is there a successful Pedestrian Amenity space on an adjacent or nearby property already? 2. Is there good solar access? 3. How have the historic development patterns been maintained or eroded? 4. Can the proposed Pedestrian Amenity utilize innovative design to connect to the proposed architecture? 5. How does the proposed Pedestrian Amenity enhance the intersection and overall context? 6. How can the architecture create a Public Amenity that provides the highest quality for a variety of potential uses?Galena StreetHopkins Avenue Pedestrian Amenity space provides relief from the built environment and an active streetscape. A figure-ground study is helpful in identifying Pedestrian Amenity space opportunities. Consult the Land Use Code for elements allowed within setbacks. Pedestrian Amenity Page 29 P55 IV.A. Street Level Pedestrian Amenity PA1 - (All Character Areas) Historic maps of 19th century Aspen illustrate a densely developed downtown core with minimal building setbacks. This pattern generally remains in place today. Setbacks are varied as development moves out from the downtown core. The Design Standards and Guidelines recognize and encourage this historic pattern of development by providing more Pedestrian Amenity options for properties located outside of the Historic Districts. Properties within the Historic Districts need to maintain historic integrity and continuity. Street level Pedestrian Amenity must be carefully planned to highlight, not erode, these important development patterns. PA1.1 Maximize solar access to Pedestrian Amenity space on the subject property. •At grade Pedestrian Amenity on the north side of the street is discouraged, except when providing a front yard along Main Street. PA1.2 Consider all four corners of an intersection when designing street level amenity space on a corner lot. •If one or more lots on the intersection already includes a large corner Pedestrian Amenity, a new corner amenity space may not be appropriate. Seating can create areas to relax and interact. Street level seating for restaurants on the property can be considered Pedestrian Amenity. Setbacks for street level amenity vary as development moves out from the core. Page 30 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P56 IV.A. Planters can define a property line. Storefronts can line an amenity space. Successful amenity space allows for future retail and restaurant use. PA1.3 Street level Pedestrian Amenity spaces should be equal to a minimum of 1/3 of the total Pedestrian Amenity requirement. •For example, a requirement of 300 square feet of Pedestrian Amenity can be comprised of three 100 square feet spaces; but cannot be comprised of one 275 square feet space and one 25 square feet space. PA1.4 Street level Pedestrian Amenity shall be within 18 inches above or below the existing grade of the street or sidewalk which abuts the space. PA1.5 Street level Pedestrian Amenity areas shall be open to the sky. •Direct access to the Pedestrian Amenity from the street is required. •A street level Pedestrian Amenity space may be covered, subject to HPC or P&Z approval. If the space is covered, the street-facing portion shall be entirely open. PA1.6 Design meaningful street level space that is useful, versatile, and accessible. •Small unusable spaces are inappropriate. •Consider providing space for future outdoor merchandising or restaurant seating opportunities when designing the space. •Providing good solar access, capturing mountain views, and providing seating is recommended. •Do not duplicate existing nearby open space. •Storage areas, delivery areas, parking areas, or trash areas are not allowed uses within Pedestrian Amenity space. PA1.7 Design amenity space that enhances the pedestrian experience and faces the street. •On corner lots, Pedestrian Amenity space may be considered on side streets or adjacent to the alley rather than facing primary streets. Pedestrian Amenity Page 31 P57 IV.A. PA1.8 Street level Pedestrian Amenity space should reinforce the property line. Consider the context of the block when selecting an appropriate technique. Examples include: •Overhangs: A cantilevered roof or retractable awning that stretches to the property line. •Fences: A low fence, mostly transparent, that allows views into the Pedestrian Amenity space. •Landscape: Low planter boxes. If including trees, the mature tree canopy size should not prohibit views into the amenity space. Hedgerows over 42 inches are prohibited. •Street Furniture: Permanent, fixed benches or other pedestrian-related elements may be considered to establish property lines. •Surface Material: A change in hardscape material to differientiate between Pedestrian Amenity and right-of-way. PA1.9 Street level Pedestrian Amenity may be appropriate on a case-by-case basis within the Commercial Core Historic District. •Consider the existing context of the block . •Clearly define the property line as defined in PA1.8. •In this District, street level Pedestrian Amenity should be subordinate to the line of building fronts. PA1.10 Street level Pedestrian Amenity may include providing public access to the mountain or river in the Mountain Base and River Approach Character Areas through a trail easement, subject to Parks and Engineering approval. PA1.11 Within the Main Street Historic District, required building setbacks may be used toward a Pedestrian Amenity requirement. Changes to hardscape material is a way to reinforce the property line. Low planters and softscape adds to a successful amenity space. Using a variety of techniques is appropriate. Page 32 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P58 IV.A. Main Street Historic District Main Street Historic District Page 53 P59 IV.A. Main Street Historic District Preserve the residential scale of the neighborhood and the character of the landscaping including generous front yards, low fences, mature trees and irrigation ditches. A typical miner’s cottage at 208 E. Main Street.1 A Victorian brick structure, at 201 E. Main Street, covered in stucco in the 1940s.1 128 E. Main Street, built in 1890 by Jack Atkinson, an early prospector who made his fortune after locating the Little Annie and Midnight Mines. The Atkinson family also owned the brickyard that supplied the material for this home.2 History Initially, development in Aspen was located in close proximity to the core of town and the mines. Development along Main Street was sparse until the mid 1880s. The creation of a horse drawn street-car line in 1889 contributed to the spread of construction along Main Street and into the West End. Some of the largest Victorian-era homes in Aspen were built here between 1888 and 1893. These highly visible and ornate buildings were home to several of the families who prospered the most from silver mining. Page 54 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P60 IV.A. The 300s block of Main Street in 1890.1 Alleys feature small scale historic sheds. Looking east on Main Street in 1925.1 From its beginnings, Main Street from 7th Street to Monarch Street was almost entirely residential. The majority of the buildings were one story “miner’s cottages”, with only a handful of other uses mixed in, such as churches and a grocery store. Buildings were primarily wood frame with gable roofs, on open lots. A few examples of false front buildings and flat-roofed brick structures were built as well. One of the most beloved characteristics of Main Street is its design as a wide boulevard lined with cottonwoods. Ditch companies began to be formed in the City in the early 1880s to bring water into the townsite. Small trees were relocated from the banks of local streams, and planted in orderly rows. Though these trees did not reach maturity during the mining era, Main Street, for much of its history, has had a soft edge, grand trees, and a clearly residential character, with landscaped front yards and low fences surrounding many properties. Another reflection of Main Street’s early development can be seen in the alleys, some of which feature small scale historic sheds, carriage houses, and garages. Many of the alleys in this area are still unpaved. No roads in Aspen were paved until the early 1960s. Main Street Historic District Page 55 P61 IV.A. Lodging at 435 W. Main Street, c. 1930s. The original Aspen Public Library at 120 E. Main Street. Winterskol parade, 1991.1 More than 50% of the lots in this Character Area contain Victorian-era structures, which was the justification for naming Main Street a historic district in 1976. There are other important structures in this neighborhood. For instance, starting in the 1930s, lodging development occurred along Main Street, first as small scale cabins and then as larger motels. Most of those that remain are are identified as “Small Lodges” and reviewed as an additional Character Area. Modernism is found on Main Street, for instance the original public library designed by Fritz Benedict and built at 120 E. Main Street in 1960. Though these buildings tell Aspen’s story, they are generally one of a kind and do not form a pattern for the neighborhood. Main Street is Aspen’s front porch and the first impression as one enters town. It is the setting for races, parades, and banners announcing community events. Though the area is affected by vehicular traffic more so today than in the past, the historic scale and architectural character still reinforce that Aspen is a small city. Car racing on Main Street, 1953.9 Page 56 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P62 IV.A. 320 W. Main Street. 430 W. Main Street. Existing Character For many, Main Street is the first impression of Aspen. It is a snapshot of Aspen’s history. The rhythm of mature cottonwoods, ditches and sidewalks, and generous yards with one- and two- story Victorian buildings strongly convey Aspen’s mining heritage. Small lodges are mixed within the District along with modernist architecture. More than half of the buildings in the Main Street Historic District are designated landmarks. Preservation of the context of historic Main Street is vital to the designated landmarks and to Aspen’s small town character. The majority of Main Street is 19th- century residential buildings with gable roof forms. Painted wood siding, simple picket fences, and perpendicular walkways to porches are character defining features among the Victorians. As Main Street approaches downtown, the residential feel gradually transitions into commercial character with smaller yards and a greater intensity of uses. New buildings and remodels should reflect these characteristics. Because most properties in the district are landmarked or fall into the Small Lodge Character Area, there are few opportunities for new buildings in the Main Street Character Area. Main Street Historic District is defined by Victorian-style architecture. In addition to the following guidelines, historic landmark properties are also subject to the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Main Street Historic District Page 57 P63 IV.A. Building Placement Aspen’s Victorian-era buildings are parallel to the lot lines, with the primary entrance facing the street. This helps establish the pedestrian friendly quality associated with the Main Street Historic District. For many blocks within the Main Street Historic District, front yards are similar in depth, resulting in a relatively uniform alignment of building fronts which contributes to the sense of visual continuity. Maintaining the established range of setbacks, including side yards, is important to maintaining that continuity. 3.1 Orient a new building or addition to the street. •All buildings should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern. •Generally, do not set a structure forward of any historic resources within the block. Alignment of front setbacks is preferred. An exception may be made on a corner lot. Primary entrances should face the street. WEST M A I N S T WEST BL E E K E R S T SOUTH 7th STSOUTH 6th STSOUTH 5th STSOUTH 4th STSOUTH 3rd STSOUTH 2nd STSOUTH 1st STSOUTH GRAMISCH STSOUTH ASPEN STSOUTH MONARCH STSOUTH MILL STSOUTH GALENA STSOUTH HUNTER STSOUTH SPRING STSOUTH ORIGINAL STSOUTH WEST END STSOUTH CLEVELAND STSOUTH ASPEN STSOUTH MONARCH STSOUTH MILL STSOUTH GALENA STNORTH MILL STNORTH 3rd STNORTH 4th STNORTH 6th STNORTH 6th STNORTH 2nd STNORTH 1st STWEST B L E E K E R S T WEST H O P K I N S A V E WEST H O P K I N S A V E WEST H A L L A M S T EAST BL E E K E R S T EAST H O P K I N S A V E EAST HY M A N A V E EAST CO O P E R A V E EAST DU R A N T A V E EAST HO P K I N S A V E NEAL AVEGIBSON AVE LONE P INE RD RI O G R A N D E P LPUPPY SM ITH ST EAST HY M A N A V E EAST CO O P E R A V E EAST D U R A N T A V E ASPEN MTN RDEAST CO O P E R A V E EAST DU R A N T A V E WATERS A V E U T E A V E DEAN S T DEAN ST EAST GI L B E R T S T EAST SU M M I T S T EAST JU A N S T EAST H A L L A M S T WEST FR A N C I S S T WEST M A I N S T EAST M A I N S T EAST M A I N S T MAIN STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE EAST COMMERCIAL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE WEST COMMERCIAL CORE HISTORIC DISTRICT MOUNTAIN BASE RIVER APPROACH COMMERCIAL CORE HISTORIC DISTRICT CHARACTER AREA MAP MAIN STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMERCIAL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE MOUNTAIN BASE not to scale RIVER APPROACH SMALL LODGE N Building placement varies from one end of Main Street to another. Page 58 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P64 IV.A. Architecture Imitation faux-Victorian architecture and unrelated contemporary architecture are inappropriate in the Main Street Historic District. New buildings or additions that utilize differentiation but emphasize compatibility are most appropriate. Creating differentiation by introducing contrasting styles or statement buildings within the historic district leads to the gradual erosion of character and sense of place. New construction should do more than relate to context with a gable roof. Buildings that focus on the fundamentals of architecture: spatial relationships, hierarchy, proportion, details, materials, texture, rhythm, and character will contribute value to the built environment. The focus should be more on supporting a sense of place rather than creating a stylistic statement. The goal is not boring new architecture: development which is creative, responsible, simple, elegant, communicative, and familiar is desired. Most historic buildings in Aspen are composed of simple forms – a simple rectangular solid with a gable is typical. In some cases, a building consists of a combination of simple forms. A new building within the Main Street Historic District should respect these traditions. 3.2 Design a new structure to be recognized as a product of its time. •Consider these three aspects of a new building; form, materials, and fenestration. A project should relate strongly to the historic district in at least two of these elements. Departing from one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design response. •When choosing to relate to building form, use forms that are similar to the historic district. •When choosing to relate to materials, use materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically in the district and use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale. •When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that are similar in size and shape to those in the historic district. 3.3 The imitation of older historic styles blurs the distinction between old and new buildings and is discouraged. •Overall, details should be modest in character. Front yards and gardens are prevalent along Main Street. Front porches are a traditional way to create a transition from public to private. Building materials are typically painted wood or brick. Main Street Historic District Page 59 P65 IV.A. Building Proportion, Scale, Height and Width More than half of the properties within the Main Street Historic District are designated 19th-century landmarks that are one to two stories and 1,000 to 2,200 square feet in size. The maximum perceived mass of new buildings or remodels within the Main Street Historic District should reflect this character by creating detached buildings on a property or through one building that is clearly broken up into distinguishable modules using connecting elements, material changes, or roof forms, for example. 3.4 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale and proportion with the historic buildings in the district. •Subdivide larger masses into smaller modules that are similar in size to the historic buildings in the historic district. •Reflect the heights and proportions that characterize the historic district. •Use secondary structures to break up mass of buildings. These are most appropriately located along alleyways. Roof forms shall be in character with surrounding historic buildings. The perception of mass can change with the material used. Maintain relationships of scale and setbacks. Page 60 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P66 IV.A. 3.5 Roof forms should be in character with surrounding historic buildings. •Roof forms should be simple. •If applicable, gable ends should be oriented toward the street. •Carefully consider roof eaves, orientation of ridgelines, roof pitch, dormers, and other features as a way to either create compatibility or differentiate a new building or addition. 3.6 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to historic buildings in the district. •The primary plane of the front elevation should not appear taller than historic structures. 3.7 Clearly define the primary entrance to a new building with a front porch or similar feature. •The front porch should be functional, and used as the means of access to the front door. •A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. 3.8 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. •An addition that is lower, or similar in height to the existing building, is preferred. 3.9 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic alignments on the street. •Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings may align at approximately the same height. •An addition should not be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured. •Detach building mass along alleyways, similar to the pattern of traditional shed development. New buildings should appear similar in scale to historic buildings in the district. The Mesa Store building is an example of a false storefront. Front elevations are typically residential in form and articulation. Main Street Historic District Page 61 P67 IV.A. Details and Materials Wood and brick are the primary building materials found on Victorian-era buildings within the Main Street Historic District. It is important to maintain consistency in material palette throughout the Main Street Historic District. Carefully consider existing material colors, finishes, and textures within the block before selecting materials. Study the typical placement and character of architectural details. 3.10 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the Victorian-era residences seen traditionally on Main Street. •These include windows, doors, and porches. •Overall, details should be modest in character. 3.11 Architectural details should reinforce the historic context of the block. •Consider how detailing can be used to create relationships between new and old buildings while still allowing for current architectural expression. •Consider scale, location, and purpose of historic detailing to inform new designs. •It is inappropriate to imitate historic details. 3.12 Primary materials should be wood or brick. •Alternate primary materials may be considered on a case-by-case basis depending on the historic context of the block. 3.13 Secondary materials should relate to the historic context. •More variety is acceptable for secondary materials if a relationship to the historic palette can be demonstrated. •Stone should be limited to the foundation. 3.14 Use roofing materials that are similar in appearance to those seen historically. New construction can be referential without copying historic details. Painted wood mixed with natural wood is appropriate. Page 62 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines P68 IV.A. Annabelle Lodge Conceptual HPC Review Submitted By: Charles Cunniffe Architects 610 E Hyman Ave Aspen, CO 81611 970-925-5590 2 October 2017 P69 IV.A. 1 Table of Contents Page I. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………….………2 II. Property Description…………………………………………………………………………………….…...….3 III. Character Defining Features………………………………………………………………………….…...….4 IV. Historic Preservation – Demolition and Relocation Review…………………………………….……….5 V. Historic Preservation – Requested Variations………………………………………………….………..….7 VI. Historic Preservation – Change in Use……………………………………………………………………...10 VII. Historic Preservation – Conceptual Development Review………………………………………..…...11 VIII. Commercial Design Review……………………………………………………………………………...…..38 IX. Conclusion…..………………………………………………………………………………………...…………51 Appendix Appendix A – Photos of Existing Conditions Appendix B – Historic Photographs Appendix C – Street Elevation Photo Appendix D – Signage Appendix E – Extent of Demolition Appendix F – Streetscape Photos Appendix G – Selection of Building Materials Appendix H – Historic Cabin Relocation Diagram Exhibits #1 Proof of Ownership #2 Letter Authorizing Submission of Application #3 Pre-Application Conference Summary #4 Land Use Application #5 Traffic Impact Analysis #6 List of Adjacent Property Owners Drawings Vicinity Map Figure Ground Map Improvement Survey Proposed Site Plan Proposed Floor Plans Proposed Building Elevations Proposed Perspective Views Area Calculations P70 IV.A. 2 I. Introduction This is an application to redevelop the property located at 300 W. Main Street in Aspen. The property is a landmarked 9,000 sf parcel, located within the Main Street Historic District and zoned Mixed Use (MU). The property’s parcel ID number is 273512441006. The Land referred to is located in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, and described as follows: Lots Q, R, and S, Block 44, City and Townsite of Aspen 300 W Main St is owned by Dennis Chookaszian. Proof of ownership is provided in the form of a certificate provided by a title insurance company (see Exhibit #1). Dennis Chookaszian (hereinafter, “the applicant”) has designated Charles Cunniffe Architects as its representative for this application. A letter from Dennis Chookaszian authorizing the submission of this application is attached hereto as Exhibit #2. Several pre-application meetings were held between the applicant and the staff of the Community Development Department prior to the submission of this application. A copy of the pre-application form staff provided to the applicant is attached hereto as Exhibit #3. The form indicates that the application will be subject to the following Land Use Code Review Procedures: Land Use Code Section(s) 26.104.100 General Provisions, Definitions 26.104.110 Use Categories 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.412 Commercial Design Review 26.415 Historic Preservation 26.415.070 Certificate of appropriateness for a Major development 26.415.080 Demolition 26.415.090 Relocation 26.415.110 Historic Preservation Benefits 26.430 Special Review (to increase Floor Area, if proposed) 26.470 Growth Management Quota System 26.470.040 Allotment Procedures 26.470.050 Calculations 26.470.080 Affordable Housing Mitigation 26.470.090.D Administrative Change in Use of a Historic Landmark 26.470.100.A Enlargement of a Historic Landmark for Commercial, Lodge or Mixed Use Development 26.515 Transportation and Parking Management 26.575 Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements 26.710.180 Mixed Use (MU) zone district Municipal Code Section 12.10 Space Allotment for Trash and Recycling Storage The following sections of this application are organized to demonstrate how the proposal complies with the applicable review standards for each of these review procedures. First however, some background information is presented to summarize existing conditions at the property. P71 IV.A. 3 II. Property Description The Annabelle Lodge property consists of a log cabin, completed in 1944, and an addition to the original structure, completed in 1988. The historic cabin sits at the center of the property, spanning all three townsite lots. The non-historic addition is located on a portion of lots Q and R. The original cabin, which is approximately 1,400 sf in size, is identified on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, approved by Ordinance 21, Series of 1988. While only built in 1944, it was historically designated due to the “type, style of architecture, and construction” and was further recognized as a “noteworthy surviving example of a style becoming rare in the locale or is identified with a street scene or other landscape.” (Staff memorandum, dated 13 June 1988, page 5). Moreover, the large spruce trees were also recognized as providing, “a special, rustic character to the site and contribute to a sense of maturity, permanence, and visual relief from the buildings on Main Street. (IBID, page 6). The addition consists of a wood framed structure attached to the log cabin on the north and west sides. The massing of the 1988 addition is not differentiated from the original structure, as would be required by the current Historic Preservation Guidelines. The exterior cladding of the 1988 addition consists of wood siding darker in appearance than the original logs, differentiating itself from the cabin. A green standing seam metal roof was added to the historic cabin to match the new roof of the 1988 addition. The roof structure of the 1988 addition consists of complex combinations of gabled and shed roofs, with portions of the gabled roof at an elevation higher than the ridgeline of the log cabin. The intent of new development at 300 W Main St includes the following: - Maintain the historic log cabin as the focal point of the redevelopment. - Demolish the existing addition that is not in compliance with the historic guidelines. - Build a new addition to the cabin that complies with the historic guidelines. - Move the cabin forward to a more prominent location on the street, to the extent as allowed by the location of the historic trees. - Restore the roof of the cabin to reflect the intent of the original materials. - Convert the property to a lodge use, a permitted use in the zone district. See Appendix A for photos of the existing site conditions. P72 IV.A. 4 III. Character Defining Features The original log cabin is an example of Rustic Architecture, characterized by the following: - Circa 1900-present, Residential, Commercial, Public - Popularized by the designs of the National Park Service for its institutional buildings, these structures were designed to blend with the environment and were constructed of native building materials. An emphasis upon simplicity, hand craftsmanship and the natural environment made this a popular style for vacation homes, hunting lodges, dude ranches and tourist facilities. In Aspen, these appear similar to Pioneer Houses, but usually include larger timber elements and emphasize more craftsmanship in details. Characteristics: - Hand built out of locally available materials, using limited tools. - Single story or 1 1/2 story. - Low pitched gable roof. - Simple rectangular footprint, with smaller additive elements. - Small porch or entry feature. - True log construction with overlapping log ends, coped and stacked, with chinking to infill irregularities between the logs. - Stone at the base or in the fireplace and chimney. - Small window openings, spare and usually horizontally proportioned with wood trim. - Minimal detail and decoration. See Appendix B for Historical Photos provided by the Aspen Historical Society. P73 IV.A. 5 IV. Historic Preservation – Demolition and Relocation Review a. Demolition The applicant proposes to demolish the non-historic addition constructed in 1988, situated on a portion of lots Q and R. This structure is considered to be non-contributing, if not detracting, from the historic character of the site. Demolition of the historic log cabin in not proposed. Refer to Appendix E showing the extent of the demolition on site. Section 26.415.080.A.4 of the Land Use Code establishes the standards for demolition of designated properties, as follows: Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a) The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b) The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, c) The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen or d) No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and Response: The non-historic addition was built in 1988 prior to the establishment of the current Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. It violates many of the current Guidelines including maintaining a separation from the historic asset and replacing original building materials of the asset with modern materials (a shingled roof was replaced by a standing seam metal roof). Demolishing the 1988 addition will expose portions of the historic cabin’s exterior façade that is currently covered up, rectifying conformance to many of the guidelines it currently violates. The proposed demolition is consistent with criterion (d) above. Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a) The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic District in which it is located and b) The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c) Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. Response: See response above. P74 IV.A. 6 b. Relocation Due to constraints on the site, the applicant is requesting to relocate the historic cabin within the site. This is an essential element of the project so as to construct an addition that is properly separated from the historic asset while remaining wide enough to produce viable living space and a functional garage. The applicant proposed to move the cabin 4’-0” east and 4’-3” south, as allowed by the driplines of the historic spruce trees. The cabin’s primary orientation will remain along N 2nd Street. Refer to Appendix H for the Historic Cabin Relocation Diagram. The relocation plan moves the cabin to a more prominent location along N 2nd Street. The cabin’s current proximity to the rear and side property line to the west does not provide adequate space for proper separation between the proposed addition and the historic cabin. Moving the cabin provides space for a transparent linking corridor to buffer the gap between the historic resource and the proposed addition. A move towards the trees does not further obscure the cabin as the cabin is already obscured by the historic trees on site. Refer to Appendix C for photos showing the current site condition. All plans for the relocation of the cabin, including contractor choice and methods, will be reviewed with HPC prior to any work being done. The cabin will be underpinned while a foundation is excavated and poured in the new location. The new foundation for the cabin will be board formed concrete to match the original. Section 26.415.090.C establishes the standards for relocation and designated properties, as follow: Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards: 1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400 – Historic Preservation Page 23 the integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Response: The relocation of the cabin is consistent with criterion (1) above. The relocation of the historic cabin maintains the historic setbacks of the neighborhood and does not affect the character of the historic district. Refer to the Figure Ground Map included in the drawing portion of this application. Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: P75 IV.A. 7 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. Response: To meet criterion (1), proof that the historic cabin is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation will be provided at the Final Review. The historic cabin shall remain on its current site. To meet criterion (3), a plan and necessary financial security documentation will be submitted during the Final Review. P76 IV.A. 8 V. Historic Preservation – Requested Variations a. Setback Variation The applicant is requesting a setback variation at the rear yard setback along the garage façade. This is an essential element to the project so as to provide a functioning garage off of the alley. The garage space in the 1988 addition is not deep enough to park a car due to the proximity of the historic cabin to the property line. Relocating the cabin contributes to the viability of the garage space. The applicant requests to reduce the setback from the required 5’-0” to 1’-0” across the 32’-5” garage length. A 1’-0” setback allows for the eave of the roofline above to remain within the property line. Refer to the Main Level Floor Plan included in the drawing portion of the application. Section 26.415.110c in the Land Use code reads as follows: C. Variances. Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving designated properties to create development that is more consistent with the character of the historic property or district than what would be required by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards. 1. The HPC may grant variances of the Land Use Code for designated properties to allow: a) Development in the side, rear and front setbacks; b) Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between buildings; c) Up to five percent (5%) additional site coverage; d) Less public amenity than required for the on-site relocation of commercial historic properties. 2. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance: a) Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b) Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. Response: The setback variation is allowed per criterion 1(a) above. The rear yard setback does not change the character of the historic property (2(a)), and allows for a properly separated viable addition to the historic asset (2(b)). b. Parking The proposed project is a Lodge Use containing 12 units. The parking requirement for Hotel/Lodge is 0.5 units/Key per Table 26.515-1 of the Land Use Code. This results in a required parking total of 6 spaces. 4 parking spaces are currently provided in the gravel parking area off of the alley and will remain as-is. One additional van accessible parking space will be provided in the garage of the proposed interior. Refer to the Site Plan and Main Level Floor Plan included in the drawing portion of this application for parking space locations. 5 parking spaces are provided on site, with 1 space not provided for. The applicant is applying for a reduction in the required amount of parking per Section 26.415.110d of the Land Use Code which reads as follows: D. Parking. Parking reductions are permitted for designated historic properties on sites unable to contain the number of on-site parking spaces required by the underlying zoning. Commercial designated historic properties may receive waivers of payment-in-lieu fees for parking reductions. In addition to the review criteria listed in Chapter 26.515, the parking reduction and waiver of payment-in-lieu fees may be approved upon a finding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400 – Historic Preservation Page 27 impact on the historic significance or architectural character of a designated historic property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district. P77 IV.A. 9 Response: The applicant is applying for a waiver of payment-in-lieu fee for the 1 parking space not provided on site. The location of the historic cabin and the historically significant trees on the site do not allow for the required amount of parking spaces to be located off of the alley. P78 IV.A. 10 VI. Historic Preservation – Change in Use The property at 300 W Main is located within a Mixed Use (MU) zone district. The property is currently zoned as a Residential Use per Ordinance 33 (Series of 2013). The applicant is requesting a change in use from Residential to Lodge. A Lodge use is permitted in this zone district per Section 26.710.180(B)(7) of the Land Use Code. A change is use of a historic property or structure qualifies as an administrative change per Section 26.470.090(d) which reads as follows: D. Change in use of historic landmark sites and structures. The change of use between City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400 – GMQS Page 21 the development categories identified in Section 26.470.020, of a property, structure or portion of a structure designated as an historic landmark shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Community Development Director if no more than one (1) free-market residence is created. No employee mitigation shall be required. If more than one (1) free-market residence is created, the additional units shall be reviewed pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.G. The change in amount of development and number of units shall not be added or deducted from the respective annual development allotments. Response: The project contains only Lodge Units, no free-market residential units are a part of the proposal. P79 IV.A. 11 VII. Historic Preservation – Conceptual Development Review The property is a landmarked parcel located in the Main Street Historic District. The applicable review standard for Conceptual Review is a determination of consistency with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. In considering whether the proposed development is consistent with the Guidelines, the following statement, which appears in the introduction of the Guidelines, must be taken into consideration: “… not every guideline will apply to each project, and some balancing of the guidelines must occur on a case-by-case basis. The HPC must determine that a significant number of the relevant guidelines have been adequately met in order to approve a project proposal.” Responses have been provided to each of the Guidelines to demonstrate the project’s compliance with “a significant number of the relevant guidelines”. 1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood or district. • Building footprint and location should reinforce the traditional patterns of the neighborhood. • Allow for some porosity on a site. In a residential project, setback to setback development is typically uncharacteristic of the historic context. Do not design a project which leaves no useful open space visible from the street. Response: Please refer to the Figure Ground Map showing the new location for the historic cabin and proposed addition within the context of the neighborhood. The setback along N 2nd Street is in line with the new residential construction to the north. The historic setback along Main St is maintained as a side yard to the property. 1.2 Preserve the system and character of historic streets, alleys, and ditches. When HPC input is requested, the following bullet points may be applicable. • Retain and preserve the variety and character found in historic alleys, including retaining historic ancillary buildings or constructing new ones. • Retain and preserve the simple character of historic ditches. Do not plant flowers or add landscape. • Abandoning or re-routing a street in a historic area is generally discouraged. • Consider the value of unpaved alleys in residential areas. • Opening a platted right of way which was abandoned or never graded may be encouraged on a case by case basis. Response: Alley to remain unpaved gravel. 1.3 Remove driveways or parking areas accessed directly from the street if they were not part of the original development of the site. • Do not introduce new curb cuts on streets. P80 IV.A. 12 • Non-historic driveways accessed from the street should be removed if they can be relocated to the alley. Response: All existing and new parking is accessed through the alley. No new curb cuts will be introduced. 1.4 Design a new driveway or improve an existing driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. • If an alley exists at the site, the new driveway must be located off it. • Tracks, gravel, light gray concrete with minimal seams, or similar materials are appropriate for driveways on Aspen Victorian properties. Response: All existing and new parking is accessed through the alley. Alley and parking surface to remain unpaved gravel. 1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces. • Reflect the established progression of public to private spaces from the public sidewalk to a semi- public walkway, to a semi private entry feature, to private spaces. Response: Access progresses from the public sidewalk to a semi-public walkway into the property, to the semi- private front porch, to the historic cabin. 1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on residential projects. • Meandering walkways are not allowed, except where it is needed to avoid a tree or is typical of the period of significance. • Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style and install them in the manner that they would have been used historically. For example on an Aspen Victorian landmark set flagstone pavers in sand, rather than in concrete. Light gray concrete, brick or red sandstone are appropriate private walkway materials for most landmarks. • The width of a new entry sidewalk should generally be three feet or less for residential properties. A wider sidewalk may be appropriate for an Aspen Modern property. Response: The walkway to the cabin is currently a 5’-0” light gray concrete sidewalk leading directly to the front porch. A new walkway will connect in the same manner to meet the front porch of the cabin in its relocated position. A single bend in the sidewalk is provided in order to avoid existing trees. 1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site. • Ensure that open space on site is meaningful and consolidated into a few large spaces rather than many small unusable areas. • Open space should be designed to support and complement the historic building. Response: Ample open space is provided in the front and side yards of the property. P81 IV.A. 13 1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process. • When included in the initial planning for a project, stormwater quality facilities can be better integrated into the proposal. All landscape plans presented for HPC review must include at least a preliminary representation of the stormwater design. A more detailed design must be reviewed and approved by Planning and Engineering prior to building permit submittal. • Site designs and stormwater management should provide positive drainage away from the historic landmark, preserve the use of natural drainage and treatment systems of the site, reduce the generation of additional stormwater runoff, and increase infiltration into the ground. Stormwater facilities and conveyances located in front of a landmark should have minimal visual impact when viewed from the public right of way. • Refer to City Engineering for additional guidance and requirements. Response: Stormwater requirements will be considered early in project planning and will comply as required by City Engineering. Further information will be provided at the Final Review as necessary. 1.9 Landscape development on Aspen Modern landmarks shall be addressed on a case by case basis. Response: See site plan for landscape design. Landscape design to be comparable with current site conditions. 1.10 Built-in furnishings, such as water features, fire pits, grills, and hot tubs that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate. • Site furnishings that are added to the historic property should not be intrusive or degrade the integrity of the neighborhood patterns, site, or existing historic landscape. • Consolidating and screening these elements is preferred. Response: No built in furnishings will interfere with the views of the historic structure. An existing bench on the southeast corner of the property contributes to the pedestrian amenity requirement. See site plan for location. 1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. • Retaining historic planting beds and landscape features is encouraged. • Protect historically significant vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Removal of damaged, aged, or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department. • If a significant tree must be removed, replace it with the same or similar species in coordination with the Parks Department. • The removal of non-historic planting schemes is encouraged. • Consider restoring the original landscape if information is available, including original plant materials. Response: Five large spruce trees on site are historically protected. Historic trees to remain and be protected during construction as directed by the City Forester. Refer to Appendix H for historic tree locations. P82 IV.A. 14 1.12 Provide an appropriate context for historic structures. See diagram. • Simplicity and restraint are required. Do not over plant a site, or install a landscape which is over textured or overly complex in relationship to the historic resource, particularly in Zone A. In Zone A, new planting shall be species that were used historically or species of similar attributes. • In areas immediately adjacent to the landmark, Zone A and Zone B, plants up 42” in height, sod, and low shrubs are often appropriate. • Contemporary planting, walls and other features are not appropriate in Zone A. A more contemporary landscape may surround new development or be located in the rear of the property, in Zone C. • Do not cover areas which were historically unpaved with hard surfaces, except for a limited patio where appropriate. • Where residential structures are being adapted to commercial use, proposals to alter the landscape will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The residential nature of the building must be honored. • In the case of a historic landmark lot split, careful consideration should be given so as not to over plant either property, or remove all evidence of the landscape characteristics from before the property was divided. • Contemporary landscapes that highlight an Aspen Modern architectural style are encouraged. Response: Plantings to maintain simple arrangement on site similar to the current conditions. A small patio will be placed adjacent to the addition on the south side of the property in a similar arrangement to what is there now. Please refer to the site plan for further information. 1.13 Additions of plant material to the landscape that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate. • Low plantings and ground covers are preferred. • Do not place trees, shrubs, or hedgerows in locations that will obscure, damage, or block significant architectural features or views to the building. Hedgerows are not allowed as fences. • Consider mature canopy size when planting new trees adjacent to historic resources. Planting trees too close to a landmark may result in building deteriorate or blocked views and is inappropriate. • Climbing vines can damage historic structures and are not allowed. Response: Only new low plantings will be provided in planter beds similar to the current layout. Please refer to the site plan for further information. 1.14 Minimize the visual impacts of landscape lighting. • Landscape and pathway lighting is not permitted in Zone A (refer to diagram) on Aspen Victorian properties unless an exception is approved by HPC based on safety considerations. • Landscape, driveway, and pathway lighting on Aspen Modern properties is addressed on a case- by-case basis. P83 IV.A. 15 • Landscape light fixtures should be carefully selected so that they are compatible with the building, yet recognizable as a product of their own time. • Driveway lighting is not permitted on Aspen Victorian properties. • Landscape up lighting is not allowed. Response: No landscape lighting will be provided. 1.15 Preserve original fences. • Fences which are considered part of the historic significance of a site should not be moved, removed, or inappropriately altered. • Replace only those portions of a historic fence that are deteriorated beyond repair. • Replacement elements must match the existing. Response: The existing fence along Main Street will remain. 1.16 When possible, replicate a missing historic fence based on photographic evidence. Response: Not applicable. 1.17 No fence in the front yard is often the most appropriate solution. • Reserve fences for back yards and behind street facing façades, as the best way to preserve the character of a property. Response: There is no fence in the front yard. The fence screening the property from Main St will remain. 1.18 When building an entirely new fence, use materials that are appropriate to the building type and style. • The new fence should use materials that were used on similar properties during the period of significance. • A wood fence is the appropriate solution in most locations. • Ornate fences, including wrought iron, may create a false history are not appropriate for Aspen Victorian landmarks unless there is evidence that a decorative fence historically existed on the site. • A modest wire fence was common locally in the early 1900s and is appropriate for Aspen Victorian properties. This fence type has many desirable characteristics including transparency, a low height, and a simple design. When this material is used, posts should be simply detailed and not oversized. Response: Not applicable. 1.19 A new fence should have a transparent quality, allowing views into the yard from the street. • A fence that defines a front yard must be low in height and transparent in nature. P84 IV.A. 16 • For a picket fence, spacing between the pickets must be a minimum of 1/2 the width of the picket. • For Post-WWII properties where a more solid type of fence may be historically appropriate, proposals will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. • Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment. Response: Not applicable. 1.20 Any fence taller than 42” should be designed so that it avoids blocking public views of important features of a designated building. • A privacy fence should incorporate transparent elements to minimize the possible visual impacts. Consider staggering the fence boards on either side of the fence rail. This will give the appearance of a solid plank fence when seen head on. Also consider using lattice, or other transparent detailing on the upper portions of the fence. • A privacy fence should allow the building corners and any important architectural features that are visible from the street to continue to be viewed. • All hedgerows (trees, shrub bushes, etc.) are prohibited in Zones A and B. Response: Not applicable. 1.21 Preserve original retaining walls • Replace only those portions that are deteriorated beyond repair. Any replacement materials should match the original in color, texture, size and finish. • Painting or covering a historic masonry retaining wall or covering is not allowed. • Increasing the height of a retaining wall is inappropriate. Response: There is an existing concrete retaining wall along the south property line and a portion of the west property line. There is a stone retaining wall along a portion of the west property line. Both retaining walls will remain as-is. Please refer to the site plan for further information. 1.22 When a new retaining wall is necessary, its height and visibility should be minimized. • All wall materials, including veneer and mortar, will be reviewed on a case by case basis and should be compatible with the palette used on the historic structure. Response: Not applicable. 1.23 Re-grading the site in a manner that changes historic grade is generally not allowed and will be reviewed on a case by case basis. Response: Site grading to remain as-is. 1.24 Preserve historically significant landscapes with few or no alterations. P85 IV.A. 17 • An analysis of the historic landscape and an assessment of the current condition of the landscape should be done before the beginning of any project. • The key features of the historic landscape and its overall design intent must be preserved. Response: The five historic trees will remain and be protected during construction. No other historically significant landscape features are present on site. Refer to Appendix H for historic tree locations. 1.25 New development on these sites should respect the historic design of the landscape and its built features. • Do not add features that damage the integrity of the historic landscape. • Maintain the existing pattern of setbacks and siting of structures. • Maintain the historic relationship of the built landscape to natural features on the site. • All additions to these landscapes must be clearly identifiable as recent work. • New artwork must be subordinate to the designed landscape in terms of placement, height, material, and overall appearance. Place new art away from significant landscape features. • Avoid installing utility trenches in cultural landscapes if possible. Response: Not applicable. 1.26 Preserve the historic circulation system. • Minimize the impact of new vehicular circulation. • Minimize the visual impact of new parking. • Maintain the separation of pedestrian and vehicle which occurred historically. Response: All parking is accessed from the alley. 1.27 Preserve and maintain significant landscaping on site. • Protect established vegetation during any construction. • If any tree or shrub needs to be removed replace it with the same or similar species. • New planting should be of a species used historically or a similar species. • Maintain and preserve any gardens and/or ornamental planting on the site. • Maintain and preserve any historic landscape elements. Response: Historic trees to be maintained and protected during construction. 2.1 Preserve original building materials. • Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place. • Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices, pediments, steps and foundations, should be preserved. • Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired in place. Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity. P86 IV.A. 18 • Original Aspen Modern materials may be replaced in kind if it has been determined that the weathering detracts from the original design intent or philosophy. Response: Materials of the historic log cabin are determined to be in good condition. 2.2 The finish of materials should be as it would have existed historically. • Masonry naturally has a water-protective layer to protect it from the elements. Brick or stone that was not historically painted shall not be painted. • If masonry that was not painted historically was given a coat of paint at some more recent time, consider removing it, using appropriate methods. • Wood should be painted, stained or natural, as appropriate to the style and history of the building. Response: Finish materials of the cabin are original and in good condition. Roof to be restored to reflect the intent of the original materials. 2.3 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary surfaces. • If the original material is wood clapboard for example, then the replacement material must be wood as well. It should match the original in size, and the amount of exposed lap and finish. • Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only those should be replaced, not the entire wall. For Aspen Modern buildings, sometimes the replacement of a larger area is required to preserve the integrity of the design intent. Response: Not applicable. 2.4 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for original building materials. • Original building materials such as wood siding and brick should not be replaced with synthetic materials. Response: Not applicable. 2.5 Covering original building materials with new materials is inappropriate. • Regardless of their character, new materials obscure the original, historically significant material. • Any material that covers historic materials may also trap moisture between the two layers. This will cause accelerated deterioration to the historic material which may go unnoticed. Response: Not applicable. 2.6 Remove layers that cover the original material. • Once the non-historic siding is removed, repair the original, underlying material. P87 IV.A. 19 Response: Portions of the historic cabin’s log walls will be uncovered and exposed upon the removal of the 1988 addition. Repair of the original, underlying material will be performed by an approved contractor. 3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. • Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntins/mullions, sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operations, and groupings of windows. • Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them. • Preserve the original glass. If original Victorian era glass is broken, consider using restoration glass for the repair. Response: Not applicable. Historic windows are in good condition and will remain as-is. 3.2 Preserve the position, number, and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. • Enclosing a historic window is inappropriate. • Do not change the size of an original window opening. Response: Not applicable. Historic windows to remain as-is. 3.3 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. • If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window must also be double-hung. If the sash have divided lights, match that characteristic as well. Response: Not applicable. Historic windows to remain as-is. 3.4 When replacing an original window, use materials that are the same as the original. Response: Not applicable. Historic windows to remain as-is. 3.5 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. • Changing the window opening is not permitted. • Consider restoring an original window opening that was enclosed in the past. Response: Not applicable. Historic windows to remain as-is. 3.6 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the original window. • A historic window often has a complex profile. Within the window’s casing, the sash steps back to the plane of the glazing (glass) in several increments. These increments, which individually only measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are important details. They distinguish the actual window from the surrounding plane of the wall. • The historic profile on Aspen Modern properties is typically minimal. Response: Not applicable. Historic windows to remain as-is. P88 IV.A. 20 3.7 Adding new openings on a historic structure is generally not allowed. • Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear or secondary walls. • New windows should be similar in scale to the historic openings on the building, but should in some way be distinguishable as new, through the use of somewhat different detailing, etc. • Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a façade. • Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character defining façade will negatively affect the integrity of a structure. Response: Not applicable. No new windows in the historic structure. 3.8 Use a storm window to enhance energy conservation rather than replace a historic window. • Install a storm window on the interior, when feasible. This will allow the character of the original window to be seen from the public way. • If a storm window is to be installed on the exterior, match the sash design and material of the original window. It should fit tightly within the window opening without the need for sub-frames or panning around the perimeter. A storm window should not include muntins unless necessary for structure. Any muntin should be placed to match horizontal or vertical divisions of the historic window. Response: Not applicable. 4.1 Preserve historically significant doors. • Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These include the door, door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware, detailing, transoms and flanking sidelights. • Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances. • If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be reversible so that the door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place, in its historic position. • Previously enclosed original doors should be reopened when possible. Response: Not applicable. 4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening. • Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height. Response: Not applicable. 4.3 When a historic door or screen door is damaged, repair it and maintain its general historic appearance. Response: Not applicable. P89 IV.A. 21 4.4 When replacing a door or screen door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original door or a door associated with the style of the building. • A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement. • A historic door or screen door from a similar building also may be considered. • Simple paneled doors were typical for Aspen Victorian properties. • Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic evidence can support their use. Response: Not applicable. 4.5 Adding new doors on a historic building is generally not allowed. • Place new doors in any proposed addition rather than altering the historic resource. • Greater flexibility in installing a door in a new location may be considered on rear or secondary walls. • A new door in a new location should be similar in scale and style to historic openings on the building and should be a product of its own time. • Preserve the historic ratio of openings to solid wall on a façade. Significantly increasing the openings on a character defining façade negatively affects the integrity of a structure. Response: Not applicable. 4.6 If energy conservation and heat loss are concerns, use a storm door instead of replacing a historic entry door. • Match the material, frame design, character, and color of the primary door. • Simple features that do not detract from the historic entry door are appropriate for a new storm door. • New storm or screen doors should be in character with the primary door. Response: Not applicable. 4.7 Preserve historic hardware. • When new hardware is needed, it must be in scale with the door and appropriate to the style of the building. • On Aspen Victorian properties, conceal any modern elements such as entry key pads. Response: Not applicable. 5.1 Preserve an original porch or balcony. • Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions, material and spacing of balusters. • Expanding the size of a historic porch or balcony is inappropriate. P90 IV.A. 22 Response: Not applicable. 5.2 Avoid removing or covering historic materials and details. • Removing an original balustrade, for example, is inappropriate. Response: Not applicable. 5.3 Enclosing a porch or balcony is not appropriate. • Reopening an enclosed porch or balcony is appropriate. Response: Not applicable. 5.4 If reconstruction is necessary, match the original in form, character and detail. • Match original materials. • When reconstructing an original porch or balcony without historic photographs, use dimensions and characteristics found on comparable buildings. Keep style and form simple with minimal, if any, decorative elements. Response: Not applicable. 5.5 If new steps are to be added, construct them out of the same primary materials used on the original, and design them to be in scale with the porch or balcony • Steps should be located in the original location. • Step width should relate to the scale of entry doors, spacing between posts, depth of deck, etc. • Brick, red sandstone, gray concrete, or wood are appropriate materials for steps. Response: Not applicable. 5.6 Avoid adding handrails or guardrails where they did not exist historically, particularly where visible from the street. • If handrails or guardrails are needed according to building code, keep their design simple in character and different from the historic detailing on the porch or balcony. Response: An ADA ramp was previously added to the historic cabin, obscuring a portion of the east elevation. This will be removed and incorporated into the new addition so as not to obscure the historic asset. 6.1 Preserve significant architectural features. • Repair only those features that are deteriorated. • Patch, piece-in, splice, or consolidate to repair the existing materials, using recognized preservation methods whenever possible. P91 IV.A. 23 • On Aspen Modern properties, repair is preferred, however, it may be more important to preserve the integrity of the original design intent, such as crisp edges, rather than to retain heavily deteriorated material. Response: Existing materials to be preserved during relocation. All areas uncovered as a result of removing the existing addition to be repaired using recognized preservation methods. 6.2 When disassembly of a historic element is necessary for its restoration, use methods that minimize damage to the original material. • Document its location so it may be repositioned accurately. Always devise methods of replacing the disassembled material in its original configuration. Response: Not applicable. 6.3 Remove only the portion of the detail that is deteriorated and must be replaced. • Match the original in composition, scale, and finish when replacing materials or features. • If the original detail was made of wood, for example, then the replacement material should be wood, when feasible. It should match the original in size and finish. Response: Not applicable. 6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features are required to be based on original designs. • The design should be substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a misrepresentation of the building’s heritage. • When reconstruction of an element is impossible because there is no historical evidence, develop a compatible new design that is a simplified interpretation of the original, and maintains similar scale, proportion and material. Response: Not applicable. 6.5 Do not guess at “historic” designs for replacement parts. • Where scars on the exterior suggest that architectural features existed, but there is no other physical or photographic evidence, then new features may be designed that are similar in character to related buildings. • Using ornate materials on a building or adding new conjectural detailing for which there is no documentation is inappropriate. Response: Not applicable. 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. • Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Preserve the orientation and slope of the roof as seen from the street. P92 IV.A. 24 • Retain and repair original and decorative roof detailing. • Where the original roof form has been altered, consider restoration. Response: Roof form to be preserved as-is. 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. • Overhangs contribute to the scale and detailing of a historic resource. • Aspen Modern properties typically have very deep or extremely minimal overhangs that are key character defining features of the architectural style. Response: Existing eave depths to remain as-is. 7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices. • Skylights and solar panels are generally not allowed on a historic structure. These elements may be appropriate on an addition. Response: There are no skylights on the historic structure. 7.4 New vents should be minimized, carefully, placed and painted a dark color. • Direct vents for fireplaces are generally not permitted to be added on historic structures. • Locate vents on non-street facing facades. • Use historic chimneys as chases for new flues when possible. Response: Not applicable. 7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they are made non-functional. • Reconstruct a missing chimney when documentation exists. Response: Stones from the original chimney to be used in the reconstructed chimney. Chimney to be restored to a functioning condition. 7.6 A new dormer should remain subordinate to the historic roof in scale and character. • A new dormer is not appropriate on a primary, character defining façade. • A new dormer should fit within the existing wall plane. It should be lower than the ridgeline and set in from the eave. It should also be in proportion with the building. • The mass and scale of a dormer addition must be subordinate to the scale of the historic building. • While dormers improve the livability of upper floor spaces where low plate heights exist, they also complicate the roof and may not be appropriate on very simple structures. • Dormers are not generally not permitted on Aspen Modern properties since they are not characteristic of these building styles. P93 IV.A. 25 Response: Not applicable. No new dormers on the historic structure. 7.7 Preserve original roof materials. • Avoid removing historic roofing material that is in good condition. When replacement is necessary, use a material that is similar to the original in both style as well as physical qualities and use a color that is similar to that seen historically. Response: Not applicable. The original roofing material is not present on the historic asset. 7.8 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to the original. • If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish. • Flashing should be in scale with the roof material. • Flashing should be tin, lead coated copper, galvanized or painted metal and have a matte, non-reflective finish. • Design flashing, such as drip edges, so that architectural details are not obscured. • A metal roof is inappropriate for an Aspen Victorian primary home but may be appropriate for a secondary structure from that time period. • A metal roof material should have a matte, non-reflective finish and match the original seaming. Response: Existing metal roof to be removed and roof replacement material to convey the scale, color, and texture similar to the original. 7.9 Avoid using conjectural features on a roof. • Adding ornamental cresting, for example, where there is no evidence that it existed, creates a false impression of the building’s original appearance, and is inappropriate. Response: Not applicable. 7.10 Design gutters so that their visibility on the structure is minimized to the extent possible. • Downspouts should be placed in locations that are not visible from the street if possible, or in locations that do not obscure architectural detailing on the building. • The material used for the gutters should be in character with the style of the building. Response: Not applicable. 8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved. • When treating a historic secondary building, respect its character-defining features. These include its materials, roof form, windows, doors, and architectural details. • If a secondary structure is not historically significant, then its preservation is optional. The determination of significance is based on documentation of the construction date of P94 IV.A. 26 the outbuilding and/or physical inspection. A secondary structure that is related to the period of significance of the primary structure will likely require preservation. Response: Not applicable. 8.2 Preserve a historic secondary building as a detached structure. • Any proposal to attach a secondary structure is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. • The position and orientation of the structure should be maintained except when HPC finds that an alternative is the best preservation option. • Some Aspen Modern properties incorporated garages and carports into the architecture. This pattern should be maintained. Response: Not applicable. 8.3 Do not add detailing or features to a secondary structure that are conjectural and not in keeping with its original character as a utilitarian structure. • Most secondary structures are basic rectangular solids, with simple finishes and no ornamentation. Response: Not applicable. 8.4 When adding on to a secondary structure, distinguish the addition as new construction and minimize removal of historic fabric. • Additions to a secondary structure must be smaller in footprint than the original building and lower in height. Maintaining the overall mass and scale is particularly important. • Do not alter the original roof form. • An addition must be inset from the corners of the wall to which it attaches. Response: Not applicable. 8.5 Preserve the original building materials, or match in kind when necessary. Response: Not applicable. 8.6 Preserve original door and window openings and minimize new openings. • If an original carriage door exists, and can be made to function for automobile use, this is preferred. Response: Not applicable. 8.7 If a new garage door is added, it must be compatible with the character of the historic structure. • The materials and detailing should be simple. P95 IV.A. 27 Response: Not applicable. 8.8 Adaptation of an obsolete secondary structure to a functional use is encouraged. • The reuse of any secondary structure should be sensitive so that its character is not lost. Response: Not applicable. 9.1 Developing a basement by underpinning and excavating while the historic structure remains in place may help to preserve the historic Fabric. • This activity will require the same level of documentation, structural assessment, and posting of financial assurances as a building relocation. Response: The historic cabin is to be relocated 4’-0” to the east and 4’-3” to the south. The cabin will be underpinned while a new foundation is excavated and poured in the new location. Refer to Appendix H for a relocation diagram. Documentation, structural assessment, and posting of financial assurances will be provided as needed. 9.2 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis • In general, on-site relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. • In a district, where numerous adjacent historic structures may exist, the way that buildings were placed on the site historically, and the open yards visible from the street are characteristics that should be respected in new development. • Provide a figure ground study of the surrounding parcels to demonstrate the effects of a building relocation. • In some cases, the historic significance of the structure, the context of the site, the construction technique, and the architectural style may make on-site relocation too impactful to be appropriate. It must be demonstrated that on-site relocation is the best preservation alternative in order for approval to be granted. • If relocation would result in the need to reconstruct a substantial area of the original exterior surface of the building above grade, it is not an appropriate preservation option. Response: The historic cabin is to be relocated 4’-0” to the east and 4’-3” to the south. The front elevation of the cabin to remain along 2nd Street. Refer to Appendix H for a relocation diagram and the Figure Ground Map included in this application. 9.3 Site a relocated structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. • It must face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. In general, a forward movement, rather than a lateral movement is preferred. HPC will consider setback variations where appropriate. P96 IV.A. 28 • A primary structure may not be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. • Be aware of potential restrictions against locating buildings too close to mature trees. Consult with the City Forester early in the design process. Do not relocate a building so that it becomes obscured by trees. Response: The historic cabin is to be relocated 4’-0” to the east and 4’-3” to the south. The front elevation of the cabin to remain along 2nd Street, similar to its historic orientation. The historic cabin is already obscured by the historic trees on site, as seen the in the photos provided in Appendix C. The new location is outside of the drip line for the historic trees, as directed by the City Forester. 9.4 Position a relocated structure at its historic elevation above grade. • Raising the finished floor of the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable if needed to address drainage issues. A substantial change in position relative to grade is inappropriate. • Avoid making design decisions that require code related alterations which could have been avoided. In particular, consider how the relationship to grade could result in non-historic guardrails, etc. Response: Historic cabin to remain at its historic elevation above grade. 9.5 A new foundation shall appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. • On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a miner’s cottage where there is no evidence that one existed historically is out of character and is not allowed. • Exposed concrete or painted metal flashing are generally appropriate. • Where a stone or brick foundation existed historically, it must be replicated, ideally using stone salvaged from the original foundation as a veneer. The replacement must be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. • New Aspen Modern foundations shall be handled on a case by case basis to ensure preservation of the design intent. Response: New foundation to be exposed board formed concrete to match what is shown in the historic photographs. Refer to Appendix B for Historic Photographs of the foundation wall. 9.6 Minimize the visual impact of light wells. • The size of any light well that faces a street should be minimized. • Lightwells must be placed so that they are not immediately adjacent to character defining features, such as front porches. • Lightwells must be protected with a flat grate, rather than a railing or may not be visible from a street. P97 IV.A. 29 • Lightwells that face a street must abut the building foundation and generally may not “float” in the landscape except where they are screened, or on an Aspen Modern site. Response: Light well locations are protected with a flat grate and abut the building foundation in all locations. 9.7 All relocations of designated structures shall be performed by contractors who specialize in moving historic buildings, or can document adequate experience in successfully relocating such buildings. • The specific methodology to be used in relocating the structure must be approved by the HPC. • During the relocation process, panels must be mounted on the exterior of the building to protect existing openings and historic glass. Special care shall be taken to keep from damaging door and window frames and sashes in the process of covering the openings. Significant architectural details may need to be removed and securely stored until restoration. • The structure is expected to be stored on its original site during the construction process. Proposals for temporary storage on a different parcel will be considered on a case by case basis and may require special conditions of approval. • A historic resource may not be relocated outside of the City of Aspen. Response: All plans for the relocation of the cabin including contractor choice and methods will be reviewed with HPC. The historic resource will be stored and relocated on site. 9.8 Proposals to relocate a building to a new site are highly discouraged. • Permanently relocating a structure from where it was built to a new site is only allowed for special circumstances, where it is demonstrated to be the only preservation alternative. Response: Not applicable. 10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right. Response: Not applicable. The addition constructed in 1988 does not comply with the current guidelines and is not favorable for preservation. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. • For Aspen Victorian properties, HPC generally relies on the 1904 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps to determine which portions of a building are historically significant and must be preserved. • HPC may insist on the removal of non-historic construction that is considered to be detrimental to the historic resource in any case when preservation benefits or variations are being approved. Response: The addition constructed in 1988 is not historically significant and is detrimental to the historic resource. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one’s ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. P98 IV.A. 30 • A new addition must be compatible with the historic character of the primary building. • An addition must be subordinate, deferential, modest, and secondary in comparison to the architectural character of the primary building. • An addition that imitates the primary building’s historic style is not allowed. For example, a new faux Victorian detailed addition is inappropriate on an Aspen Victorian home. • An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. • Proposals on corner lots require particular attention to creating compatibility. Response: The proposed addition frames the historic cabin as the primary element on the site. The design of the proposed addition features a contemporary massing clad in wood siding as a modern day reference to the wood log construction. 10.4 The historic resource is to be the focus of the property, the entry point, and the predominant structure as viewed from the street. • The historic resource must be visually dominant on the site and must be distinguishable against the addition. • The total above grade floor area of an addition may be no more than 100% of the above grade floor area of the original historic resource. All other above grade development must be completely detached. HPC may consider exceptions to this policy if two or more of the following are met: • The proposed addition is all one story. • The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of the historic resource and the proposed design is particularly sensitive to the scale and proportions of the historic resource. • The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older addition that is considered to have been particularly detrimental to the historic resource. • The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable floors as existed historically. • The project is on a large lot, allowing the addition to have a significant setback from the street. • There are no variance requests in the application other than those related to historic conditions that aren’t being changed. • The project is proposed as part of a voluntary Aspen Modern designation, or • The property is affected by non-preservation related site specific constraints such as trees that must be preserved, Environmentally Sensitive Areas review, etc. Response: The historic cabin is the focal point of the property and is the main entrance to the reception area of the lodge. It is the visually dominant element to the site. The area of the proposed addition is greater than the area of the historic cabin, however, the project qualifies for the exceptions highlighted in bold above. P99 IV.A. 31 10.5 On a corner lot, no portion of an addition to a one story historic resource may be more than one story tall, directly behind that resource, unless completely detached above grade by a distance of at least 10 feet HPC may consider exceptions to this policy if two or more of the following are met: • The connector element that links the new and old construction is a breezeway or transparent corridor, well recessed from the street facing side(s) of the historic resource and the area of two story construction that appears directly behind the one story historic resource is minimal • The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of the historic resource and the proposed design is particularly sensitive to the scale and proportions of the historic resource • The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older addition that is considered to have been particularly detrimental to the historic resource • The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable floors as existed historically • There are no variance requests in the application other than those related to historic conditions that aren’t being changed • The project is proposed as part of a voluntary Aspen Modern designation, or • The property is affected by non-preservation related site specific constraints such as trees that must be preserved, Environmentally Sensitive Areas review, etc. Response: The proposed addition shows more than one story on a corner lot, however the project qualifies for the exceptions highlighted in bold above. The connecting element along 2nd Street is a transparent corridor that is set back from the front elevation of the historic cabin. The width of the connecting element is limited to 8’-6” due to the location of the historic trees and the side setback requirement. The connecting element facing Main Street is a 10’-0” wide transparent corridor that is setback from the elevation of the historic cabin. 10.6 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. • An addition shall be distinguishable from the historic building and still be visually compatible with historic features. • A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material, or a modern interpretation of a historic style are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from historic construction to new construction. • Do not reference historic styles that have no basis in Aspen. • Consider these three aspects of an addition; form, materials, and fenestration. An addition must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from the historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design response. • Note that on a corner lot, departing from the form of the historic resource may not be allowed. • There is a spectrum of appropriate solutions to distinguishing new from old portions of a development. Some resources of particularly high significance or integrity may not be the right instance for a contrasting addition. Response: The proposed addition is separated from the historic cabin by a transparent corridor on both the east and south facades, distinguishing it from the historic cabin. The proposed addition references the historic P100 IV.A. 32 cabin in both form and material. The design of the proposed addition features a contemporary pitched roof massing clad in wood siding as a modern day reference to the wood log construction. 10.7 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic alignments on the street. • Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings may align at approximately the same height. An addition cannot be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured. Response: Not applicable. 10.8 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. • An addition that is lower than, or similar to the height of the primary building, is preferred. While the proposed addition is two stories in height, it sits behind the historic cabin in such a way that the visual impact is minimized from the street level. 10.9 If the addition is taller than a historic building, set it back from significant façades and use a “connector” to link it to the historic building. • Only a one-story connector is allowed. • Usable space, including decks, is not allowed on top of connectors unless the connector has limited visibility and the deck is shielded with a solid parapet wall. • In all cases, the connector must attach to the historic resource underneath the eave. • The connector shall be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. • Minimize the width of the connector. Ideally, it is no more than a passage between the historic resource and addition. The connector must reveal the original building corners. The connector may not be as wide as the historic resource. • Any street-facing doors installed in the connector must be minimized in height and width and accessed by a secondary pathway. See guideline 4.1 for further information. Response: The connecting element is 10’-0” wide on the south elevation and 8’-6” wide on the east elevation due to site restrictions. A ramp was previously added to the east elevation of the historic cabin to provide an accessible entrance. The current proposal removes this ramp, restoring the historic cabin’s front elevation to its original state. The accessible entrance will be provided through the connecting element on the east elevation. 10.10 Place an addition at the rear of a primary building or set it back substantially from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. • Locating an addition at the front of a primary building is inappropriate. • Additions to the side of a primary building are handled on a case-by-case basis and are approved based on site specific constraints that restrict rear additions. P101 IV.A. 33 • Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. Response: The proposed addition is located to the side and rear of the historic cabin, due to site restrictions created by the location of the historic trees on the property. 10.11 Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building. • A simple roof form that does not compete with the historic building is appropriate. • On Aspen Victorian properties, a flat roof may only be used on an addition to a gable roofed structure if the addition is entirely one story in height, or if the flat roofed areas are limited, but the addition is primarily a pitched roof. Response: The pitched roof form of the proposed addition is compatible with the historic cabin. Portions of the roof are flat to minimize the impact of the addition behind the historic cabin. 10.12 Design an addition to a historic structure that does not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. • Loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices, and eave lines must be avoided. Response: Many of the details of the historic cabin will be restored with construction of the proposed addition. The existing addition will be removed from the historic cabin, allowing for more exposure of the historic resource on both the east and west sides. The roof material of the historic resource will be restored to reflect the intent of the original materials. 10.13 When constructing a rooftop addition, keep the mass and scale subordinate to that of the historic building. Response: Not applicable. 10.14 Set a rooftop addition back from the street facing façades to preserve the original profile of the historic resource. • Set the addition back from street facing façades a distance approximately equal to its height. Response: Not applicable. 10.15 The roof form of a rooftop addition must be in character with the historic building. Response: Not applicable. 11.1 Orient the new building to the street. • Aspen Victorian buildings should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern. P102 IV.A. 34 • Aspen Modern alignments shall be handled case by case. • Generally, do not set the new structure forward of the historic resource. Alignment of their front setbacks is preferred. An exception may be made on a corner lot or where a recessed siting for the new structure is a better preservation outcome. Response: Not applicable. 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. • The front porch shall be functional, and used as the means of access to the front door. • A new porch must be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. Response: Not applicable. 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale and proportion with the historic buildings on a parcel. • Subdivide larger masses into smaller “modules” that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. • Reflect the heights and proportions that characterize the historic resource. Response: Not applicable. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. • The primary plane of the front shall not appear taller than the historic structure. Response: Not applicable. 11.5 The intent of the historic landmark lot split is to remove most of the development potential from the historic resource and place it in the new structure(s). • This should be kept in mind when determining how floor area will be allocated between structures proposed as part of a lot split. Response: Not applicable. 11.6 Design a new structure to be recognized as a product of its time. • Consider these three aspects of a new building; form, materials, and fenestration. A project must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from the historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design response. • When choosing to relate to building form, use forms that are similar to the historic resource. • When choosing to relate to materials, use materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site and use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale. P103 IV.A. 35 • When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic resource. Response: Not applicable. 11.7 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. • This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. • Overall, details shall be modest in character. Response: Not applicable. 12.1 Address accessibility compliance requirements while preserving character defining features of historic buildings and districts. • All new construction must comply completely with the International Building Code (IBC) for accessibility. Special provisions for historic buildings exist in the law that allow some flexibility when designing solutions which meet accessibility standards. Response: The proposed addition includes removing the existing accessible ramp that is encroaching on the front facade of the historic cabin and relocating it to the entry of the new addition. All new construction complies with IBC for accessibility. 12.2 Original light fixtures must be maintained. When there is evidence as to the appearance of original fixtures that are no longer present, a replication is appropriate. Response: Exterior lighting fixtures are present on the historic cabin. The project team will work with HPC to determine if the fixtures convey the original design intent of the historic cabin. 12.3 Exterior light fixtures should be simple in character. • The design of a new fixture should be appropriate in form, finish, and scale with the structure. • New fixtures should not reflect a different period of history than that of the affected building, or be associated with a different architectural style. • Lighting should be placed in a manner that is consistent with the period of the building, and should not provide a level of illumination that is out of character. • One light adjacent to each entry is appropriate on an Aspen Victorian residential structure. A recessed fixture, surface mounted light, pendant or sconce will be considered if suited to the building type or style. • On commercial structures and Aspen Modern properties, recessed lights and concealed lights are often most appropriate. Response: The project team will work with HPC to determine if the fixtures present on the historic cabin convey the original design intent. A discreet wall sconce with downward indirect lighting will be provided at each entrance to the new addition. Specific light fixtures will be presented and discussed at the Final Review. P104 IV.A. 36 12.4 Minimize the visual impacts of utilitarian areas, such as mechanical equipment and trash storage. • Place mechanical equipment on the ground where it can be screened. • Mechanical equipment may only be mounted on a building on an alley façade. • Rooftop mechanical equipment or vents must be grouped together to minimize their visual impact. Where rooftop units are visible, it may be appropriate to provide screening with materials that are compatible with those of the building itself. Use the smallest, low profile units available for the purpose. • Window air conditioning units are not allowed. • Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Group them in a discrete location. Use pedestals when possible, rather than mounting on a historic building. • Paint mechanical equipment in a neutral color to minimize their appearance by blending with their backgrounds • In general, mechanical equipment should be vented through the roof, rather than a wall, in a manner that has the least visual impact possible. • Avoid surface mounted conduit on historic structures. Response: Trash and recycling storage will be concealed within the garage of the proposed addition. Mechanical equipment will be concealed within the basement. Utility connections and service boxes will be located along the alley adjacent to the proposed addition. 12.5 Awnings must be functional. • An awning must project at least 3 feet, and not more than 5 feet from the building façade. • An awning may only be installed at a door or window and must fit within the limits of the door or window opening. • Awnings are inappropriate on Aspen Modern properties unless historic evidence shows otherwise. Response: Not applicable. 12.6 Signs should not obscure or damage historic building fabric. • Where possible, install a free standing sign that is appropriate in height and width. Consolidate signage for multiple businesses. • Mount signs so that the attachment point can be easily repaired when the sign is replaced. Do not mount signage directly into historic masonry. • Blade signs or hanging signs are generally preferred to wall mounted signs because the number of attachment points may be less. • Signs should be constructed of wood or metal. • Pictographic signs are encouraged because they add visual interest to the street. Response: Existing sign to remain. Refer to Appendix D for existing signage location. P105 IV.A. 37 12.7 Sign lighting must be subtle and concealed. • Pin mounted letters with halo lighting will not be approved on Aspen Victorian buildings. • The size of a fixture used to light a sign must be minimized. The light must be directed towards the sign. If possible, integrate the lights into the sign bracket. Response: Not applicable. 12.8 Locate signs to be subordinate to the building design. • Signs should be located on the first floor of buildings, primarily. • Signs should not obscure historic building details. Response: Existing sign to remain. Refer to Appendix D for existing signage location. 12.9 Preserve historic signs. Response: Not applicable. P106 IV.A. 38 VIII. Commercial Design Review The Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines provide the applicable review standard for this property as it is located within the Main Street Historic District and the use group is Lodge. Based on the extent and type of development proposed for this site, the following Chapters of the Standards and Guidelines apply to the overall development plan for the property: Chapter 1 Site Planning and Streetscape Chapter PA1 Street Level Pedestrian Amenity (All Character Areas) Chapter 3 Main Street Historic District Chapter 8 Small Lodge Responses have been provided to each of the Standards and Guidelines to demonstrate the project’s intent to promote a sense of neighborhood and contribute to the pedestrian experience of Aspen. Required standards are highlighted in bold. 1.1 All projects shall provide a context study. • The study should include the relationship to adjacent structures and streets through photographs, streetscape elevations, historic maps, etc. Response: Refer to Appendix F for streetscape photos. Please also refer to the Figure Ground Map included in this application. The streetscape photos demonstrate the project fits within the scale of the neighborhood. The Figure Ground Map demonstrates that the project is sited in an appropriate location based on the setbacks of the adjacent properties. 1.2 All projects shall respond to the traditional street grid. • A building shall be oriented parallel to the street unless uncharacteristic of the area. Refer to specific chapters for more information. • Buildings on corners shall be parallel to both streets. Response: The historic cabin and proposed addition are located on a corner lot and are parallel to both streets. 1.3 Landscape elements (both hardscape and softscape) should complement the surrounding context, support the street scene, and enhance the architecture of the building. • This applies to landscape located both on-site and in the public right-of-way. • High quality and durable materials should be used. • Early in the design process, consider stormwater best management practices as an integral part of the landscape design process. P107 IV.A. 39 Response: The landscape consists primarily of a grass lawn with planter beds adjacent to the cabin and the retaining wall along Main Street. The landscape is appropriate to the scale and context of the neighborhood. Adjacent properties have similarly sized lawns and planting areas. Stormwater management will be taken into consideration as an integral part of the landscape design. 1.4 Where there is open space on a site, reinforce the traditional transition from public space, to semi- public space to private space. • This may be achieved through a fence, a defined walkway, a front porch element, covered walkway, or landscape. Response: The public space is defined by the sidewalk along 2nd Street. A walkway leads you from the sidewalk to the semi-public space of the front lawn to the main entrance of the lodge which is defined by a covered front porch. 1.5 Maintain alignment of building facades where appropriate. • Consider the entire block of a neighborhood to determine appropriate building placement. Carefully examine and respond to the variety of building alignments that are present. • Consider all four corners of an intersection and architectural context to determine appropriate placement for buildings located on corners. • Consider the appropriate location of street level Pedestrian Amenity when siting a new building. Response: The Figure Ground Map, included in this application, shows the siting of the relocated historic cabin. The map demonstrates that the east elevation of cabin aligns with the adjacent property on 2nd Street. The buildings that face Main Street to the west are set back from the street with large front yards. The location of the historic cabin and proposed addition maintain this setback along Main Street as a side yard. 1.6 When a building facade is set back, define the property line. Review the context of the block when selecting an appropriate technique. Examples include: • A fence which is low in height and mostly transparent so as to maintain openness along the street. • Landscaping, though it may not block views of the architecture or a Pedestrian Amenity space. Hedgerows over 42 inches are prohibited. • Benches or other street furniture. Response: The location of the historic trees and their canopies define the property line along 2nd Street. A bench is also present at the southeast corner of the lot along 2nd Street. 1.7 Develop alley facades to create visual interest. • Use varied building setbacks and/or changes in material to reduce perceived scale. P108 IV.A. 40 Response: The alley facade is clad with the same exterior finishes as the other facades of the proposed addition. Window and door openings along this facade give scale to the elevation. Refer to the North Elevation included in the drawing portion of this application. 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. Response: Not applicable. 1.9 Minimize the visual impacts of parking. • All on-site parking shall be accessed off an alley where one is available. • Break up the massing of the alley facade, especially when garage doors are present. • Consider the potential for future retail use accessed from alleys and the desire to create a safe and attractive environment for cars and people. • If no alley access exists, access should be from the shortest block length. • Screen surface parking and avoid locating it at the front of a building. Landscaping and fences are recommended. • Consider a paving material change to define surface parking areas and to create visual interest. • Design any street-facing entry to underground parking to reduce visibility. Use high quality materials for doors and ramps and integrate the parking area into the architecture. Response: All parking is accessed off of the alley. 1.10 A new building should appear similar in scale and proportion with buildings on the block. Response: The building is similar in scale to other buildings on the block. Refer to Appendix F for streetscape elevations. 1.11 A minimum building height difference of 2 feet from immediately adjacent buildings is required. • The height difference shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide. • The height difference should reflect the range and variation in building height in the block. • This may be achieved through the use of a cornice, parapet or other architectural articulation. Response: The height difference between the proposed addition and the building to the north along 2nd street is approximately 8’-0”. The height difference between the proposed addition and the building to the west along Main Street is approximately 4’-0”. 1.12 On lots larger than 6,000 square feet, break up building mass into smaller modules. P109 IV.A. 41 • A street level front setback to accommodate Pedestrian Amenity in accordance with the Pedestrian Amenity Guidelines may be an appropriate method to break up building mass. • Building setbacks, height variation, changes of material, and architectural details may be appropriate techniques to vertically divide a building into modules. Response: The lot is 9,000 sf. The building mass is broken up by the transparent linking elements connecting the historic cabin and the proposed addition. 1.13 Development adjacent to a historic landmark should respond to the historic resource. • A new building should not obscure historic features of the landmark. • A new large building should avoid negative impacts on historic resources by stepping down in scale toward a smaller landmark. • Consider these three aspects of a new building adjacent to a landmark: form, materials and fenestration. • When choosing to relate to building form, use forms that are similar to the historic resource. • When choosing to relate to materials, use materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site, and use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of pedestrian scale. • When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that are similar in size, shape, and proportion to those of the historic resource. Response: This development is a historic landmark, please refer to the responses provided to the Historic Preservation Guidelines. 1.14 Commercial entrances shall be at the sidewalk level and oriented to the street. • Finished floor and sidewalk level shall align for at least 1/2 the depth of the ground floor where possible. If significant grade changes exist on property, then the project will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. • All buildings shall have at least one clearly defined primary entrance facing the front lot line, as defined in the Land Use Code. An entrance located within a chamfered corner is an alternative. (See Commercial Core Historic District). • If a building is located on a corner lot, two entrances shall be provided; a primary entrance facing the longest block length and a secondary entrance facing the shortest block length. Response: The primary entrance to the lodge is through the front door of the historic cabin, located along 2nd Street. The entry is raised by a short flight of steps up to the front porch. To change this would be a significant alteration to the historic asset. A ramp was added to provide an accessible route, however, the ramp covers up a portion of the historic cabin’s facade. The proposed addition adds an accessible entrance to the property, eliminating the need for the current ramp and allowing the facade of the historic cabin to be restored to its original state. 1.15 Incorporate an internal airlock or air curtain into first floor commercial space. P110 IV.A. 42 • An airlock or air curtain shall be integrated into the architecture. • Adding a temporary exterior airlock of any material to an existing building not allowed. Response: Not applicable. 1.16 Entries that are significantly taller or shorter than those seen historically or that conflict with the established scale are highly discouraged. • Transom windows above an entry are a traditional element that may be appropriate in neighborhoods with 19th century commercial buildings. • Entries should reflect the established range of sizes within the context of the block. Analyze surrounding buildings to determine appropriate height for entry doors. Response: The entry of the historic cabin has not changed in scale from its original design. The second entry provided in the proposed addition is scale and proportional to the size of the entry in the historic cabin. Refer to the East Elevation provided in the drawing portion of this application. 1.17 ATMs and vending machines visible from the street are prohibited. Response: ATMs and/or vending machines are not present in the project. 1.18 The roofscape should be designed with the same attention as the elevations of the building. • Consolidate mechanical equipment, including solar panels, and screen from view. • Locate mechanical equipment toward the alley, or rear of a building if there is no alley access. • Use varied roof forms or parapet heights to break up the roof plane mass and add visual interest. Response: The roof of the historic cabin will be restored to reflect the intent of the original materials. The roof of the proposed addition is a combination of gabled and flat areas, providing varied roof forms to create visual interest. The material for the roof of the proposed addition is standing seam metal. Mechanical equipment is located in the lower level of the addition and solar panels are not a part of the project. All roof penetrations will be thoughtfully placed and concealed if possible. 1.19 Use materials that complement the design of the building facade. • Minimize the visual impact of elevator shafts and stairway corridors through material selection and placement of elements. Response: The roof is unobstructed by vertical circulation elements. The standing seam metal roof compliments the log facade of the historic cabin as well as the wood siding of the proposed addition. 1.20 Incorporate green roofs and low landscape elements into rooftop design where feasible. Response: Not applicable. Access to the roof to maintain such systems is not provided. P111 IV.A. 43 1.21 Minimize visibility of rooftops railings. • Mostly transparent railings are preferred. • Integrating the rooftop railing into the architecture as a parapet or other feature, may be appropriate considering the neighborhood context and proposed building style. • Set back the railing a distance that equals or exceeds the height of the railing. Response: Rooftop railings on the upper most roof are not present in the project. A balcony guardrail is provided on the south elevation at the second level. Refer to the South Elevation provided in the drawing portion of this application. 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. Response: Please refer to the Elevations in the drawing portion of this application for material designations. Refer to Appendix G for images of building materials. Physical material samples will be provided at the Final Review. 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. Response: The materials for the proposed addition include wood siding for the facade and a standing seam metal roof. Both materials are appropriate for the neighborhood, and complement the materials of the historic log cabin. 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. Response: Not applicable. P112 IV.A. 44 1.25 Architecture that reflects corporate branding of the tenant is not permitted. Response: Not applicable. 1.26 The design of light fixtures should be appropriate to the form, materials, scale, and style of the building. Response: Exterior lighting fixtures are present on the historic cabin. The project team will work with HPC to determine if the fixtures convey the original design intent of the historic cabin. A discreet wall sconce with indirect lighting will be provided at each entrance to the new addition. Specific light fixtures will be presented and discussed at the Final Review. 1.27 Trash and recycle service areas shall be co- located along an alleyway where one exists, and screened from view with a fence or door. • Screening fences shall be 6 feet high from grade (unless prohibited by the Land Use Code), shall be of sound construction, and shall be no less than 90% opaque, unless otherwise varied based on a recommendation from the Environmental Health Department. Response: The trash and recycling room is located inside of the building, with a garage door opening to the alley to provide access. 1.28 Design trash and recycle areas thoughtfully and within the style of the building, with the goal of enhancing pedestrian and commercial uses along alleys. Response: The trash and recycling room is located inside of the building, with a garage door opening to the alley to provide access. 1.29 Delivery areas shall be located along an alleyway where one exists. • Shared facilities are highly encouraged. Response: Deliveries will be received from the alley. 1.30 Mechanical equipment, ducts, and vents shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or co-located on the roof. • Screen rooftop mechanical equipment and venting with a low fence or recess behind a parapet wall to minimize visual impacts. Response: Mechanical equipment is mainly located in the lower level. Mechanical vents located on the roof will be located to minimize visual impact. PA1.1 Maximize solar access to Pedestrian Amenity space on the subject property. P113 IV.A. 45 • At grade Pedestrian Amenity on the north side of the street is discouraged, except when providing a front yard along Main Street. Response: Pedestrian amenity space is provided along the east and south sides of the property. PA1.2 Consider all four corners of an intersection when designing street level amenity space on a corner lot. • If one or more lots on the intersection already includes a large corner Pedestrian Amenity, a new corner amenity space may not be appropriate. Response: The pedestrian amenity space is provided at the northwest corner of Main and 2nd Street as allowed by the location of the historic cabin. PA1.3 Street level Pedestrian Amenity spaces should be equal to a minimum of 1/3 of the total Pedestrian Amenity requirement. • For example, a requirement of 300 square feet of Pedestrian Amenity can be comprised of three 100 square feet spaces; but cannot be comprised of one 275 square feet space and one 25 square feet space. Response: The pedestrian amenity space is provided as one area at street level. PA1.4 Street level Pedestrian Amenity shall be within 18 inches above or below the existing grade of the street or sidewalk which abuts the space. Response: The pedestrian amenity space is provided at grade adjacent to the sidewalk that abuts the space. PA1.5 Street level Pedestrian Amenity areas shall be open to the sky. • Direct access to the Pedestrian Amenity from the street is required. • A street level Pedestrian Amenity space may be covered, subject to HPC or P&Z approval. If the space is covered, the street-facing portion shall be entirely open. Response: The pedestrian amenity space is open to the sky and is directly accessed from the sidewalk. PA1.6 Design meaningful street level space that is useful, versatile, and accessible. • Small unusable spaces are inappropriate. • Consider providing space for future outdoor merchandising or restaurant seating opportunities when designing the space. • Providing good solar access, capturing mountain views, and providing seating is recommended. • Do not duplicate existing nearby open space. • Storage areas, delivery areas, parking areas, or trash areas are not allowed uses within Pedestrian Amenity space. P114 IV.A. 46 Response: The pedestrian amenity space provides seating along 2nd Street with views to the surrounding mountains. PA1.7 Design amenity space that enhances the pedestrian experience and faces the street. • On corner lots, Pedestrian Amenity space may be considered on side streets or adjacent to the alley rather than facing primary streets. Response: The pedestrian amenity space is provided along 2nd Street, along the primary facade of the historic cabin. PA1.8 Street level Pedestrian Amenity space should reinforce the property line. Consider the context of the block when selecting an appropriate technique. Examples include: • Overhangs: A cantilevered roof or retractable awning that stretches to the property line. • Fences: A low fence, mostly transparent, that allows views into the Pedestrian Amenity space. • Landscape: Low planter boxes. If including trees, the mature tree canopy size should not prohibit views into the amenity space. Hedgerows over 42 inches are prohibited. • Street Furniture: Permanent, fixed benches or other pedestrian-related elements may be considered to establish property lines. • Surface Material: A change in hardscape material to differentiate between Pedestrian Amenity and right-of-way. Response: A bench is provided that reinforces the property line along 2nd Street. The placement of the historic trees and their canopies also reinforce the property line. PA1.9 Street level Pedestrian Amenity may be appropriate on a case-by-case basis within the Commercial Core Historic District. • Consider the existing context of the block. • Clearly define the property line as defined in PA1.8. • In this District, street level Pedestrian Amenity should be subordinate to the line of building fronts. Response: Not applicable. PA1.10 Street level Pedestrian Amenity may include providing public access to the mountain or river in the Mountain Base and River Approach Character Areas through a trail easement, subject to Parks and Engineering approval. Response: Not applicable. PA1.11 Within the Main Street Historic District, required building setbacks may be used toward a Pedestrian Amenity requirement. Response: The pedestrian amenity is partially located within the required setbacks. P115 IV.A. 47 3.1 Orient a new building or addition to the street. • All buildings should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern. • Generally, do not set a structure forward of any historic resources within the block. Alignment of front setbacks is preferred. An exception may be made on a corner lot. Response: The historic cabin and proposed addition are aligned parallel to the lot lines. The proposed addition is set back from the facade of the historic cabin on both the east and south sides. 3.2 Design a new structure to be recognized as a product of its time. • Consider these three aspects of a new building; form, materials, and fenestration. A project should relate strongly to the historic district in at least two of these elements. Departing from one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design response. • When choosing to relate to building form, use forms that are similar to the historic district. • When choosing to relate to materials, use materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically in the district and use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale. • When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that are similar in size and shape to those in the historic district. Response: The form of the building relates to the historic cabin, utilizing similar rectangular forms and a gabled roof. The wood siding is a modern reference to the log walls of the historic cabin. The fenestration size of the proposed addition differentiates it from the historic cabin by utilizing larger windows absent of window muntins. 3.3 The imitation of older historic styles blurs the distinction between old and new buildings and is discouraged. • Overall, details should be modest in character. Response: The proposed addition is a contemporary design of its own time that compliments the historic log cabin. The proposed addition frames the cabin as the primary feature of the site. Transparent linking elements separate the proposed addition from the historic asset. 3.4 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale and proportion with the historic buildings in the district. • Subdivide larger masses into smaller modules that are similar in size to the historic buildings in the historic district. • Reflect the heights and proportions that characterize the historic district. • Use secondary structures to break up mass of buildings. These are most appropriately located along alleyways. Response: The proposed addition is within the scale of the other buildings in the district. Refer to Appendix F for streetscape elevations. P116 IV.A. 48 3.5 Roof forms should be in character with surrounding historic buildings. • Roof forms should be simple. • If applicable, gable ends should be oriented toward the street. • Carefully consider roof eaves, orientation of ridgelines, roof pitch, dormers, and other features as a way to either create compatibility or differentiate a new building or addition. Response: The roof of the proposed addition is simple in form, relating to and framing the existing historic cabin while providing visual interest. 3.6 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to historic buildings in the district. • The primary plane of the front elevation should not appear taller than historic structures. Response: The proposed addition is similar in scale to the other historic buildings in the district, specifically to the buildings located to the west along Main Street. Refer to Appendix F for streetscape elevations. 3.7 Clearly define the primary entrance to a new building with a front porch or similar feature. • The front porch should be functional, and used as the means of access to the front door. • A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. Response: The covered front porch of the historic cabin is the primary entrance to this lodge property. 3.8 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. • An addition that is lower, or similar in height to the existing building, is preferred. Response: Please refer to the responses to Historic Preservation Design Guidelines for further information. 3.9 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic alignments on the street. • Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings may align at approximately the same height. • An addition should not be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured. • Detach building mass along alleyways, similar to the pattern of traditional shed development. Response: Please refer to the responses to Historic Preservation Design Guidelines for further information. 3.10 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the Victorian-era residences seen traditionally on Main Street. • These include windows, doors, and porches. • Overall, details should be modest in character. P117 IV.A. 49 Response: The windows, doors, and porches of the proposed addition all reflect the scale of the buildings in the neighborhood. 3.11 Architectural details should reinforce the historic context of the block. • Consider how detailing can be used to create relationships between new and old buildings while still allowing for current architectural expression. • Consider scale, location, and purpose of historic detailing to inform new designs. • It is inappropriate to imitate historic details. Response: Please refer to the responses to Historic Preservation Design Guidelines for further information. 3.12 Primary materials should be wood or brick. • Alternate primary materials may be considered on a case-by-case basis depending on the historic context of the block. Response: The primary material of the proposed addition is wood siding. 3.13 Secondary materials should relate to the historic context. • More variety is acceptable for secondary materials if a relationship to the historic palette can be demonstrated. • Stone should be limited to the foundation. Response: Secondary materials include the standing seam metal roof. The foundation will be board formed concrete to match the existing foundation of the cabin. The height of the foundation for the proposed addition will match the height of the foundation for the existing cabin. Refer to Appendix G for Building Materials and to the Building Elevations included in the drawing portion of this application. 3.14 Use roofing materials that are similar in appearance to those seen historically. Response: The roof material for the proposed addition is standing seam metal. The roof of the cabin will be replaced with materials that reflect the intent of the original roofing materials. 8.1 Carefully design parking areas and drop off locations and include landscape features that reduce the visual impact of these functions. • Provide access to parking areas from an alley if one is adjacent to the property. Response: Access to parking is from the alley. 8.2 Building scale should reflect the character of the neighborhood and enhance the pedestrian experience. • Incorporate pedestrian scaled elements. For example, a front porch introduces a one-story element that relates to residential context and is human-scaled. P118 IV.A. 50 • Subdivide larger masses into smaller modules that are similar to surrounding buildings. Response: A pedestrian scale front porch is provided at the historic cabin main entrance as well as the accessible entrance that is part of the proposed addition. Due to the historic considerations for the project, the proposed addition is appropriate for the scale of the neighborhood and the pedestrian experience. 8.3 Provide a clearly defined entrance to the lodge. • Entrances should face the street. • Entrances should have clearly defined walkways. Response: The entrance to the lodge is clearly defined by the front porch of the historic cabin. It is the forward most element on the site. A walkway from the sidewalk leads directly to this entrance. 8.4 Landscaping should be used to create attractive outdoor space, and screening where appropriate. Response: Planters around the historic cabin and proposed addition screen the foundation wall. Planters also screen the retaining wall along Main Street. 8.5 Building materials, fenestration, and details should be thoughtful and compatible with neighborhood character. • Balance lodge use and neighborhood character through thoughtful architectural details. • Simplicity in material application, texture, and architectural details is strongly recommended. Complex forms and materials are not appropriate. Consider the visual impact of significantly larger amounts of fenestration compared to what may be found in adjacent structures. Response: Due to its relationship to the historic cabin, the form, materials, and detailing of the proposed addition is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. P119 IV.A. 51 IX. Conclusion In summary, the applicant has submitted all of the materials requested during the pre-application conference, has responded to the applicable portions of the appropriate Standards and Guidelines, and has demonstrated the compliance of the proposed development with said standards. The applicant will respond in a timely manner to requests by any reviewing agency for additional information or clarification of any of the statements made herein. P120 IV.A. LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA 1525 SF MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA 2367 SF GARAGE FLOOR AREA 389 SF FRONT PORCH - EXEMPT 94 SF PATIO - EXEMPT 255 SF UPPER LEVEL FLOOR AREA 1313 SF EXTERIOR BALCONY 62 SF STAIR TOP FLOOR - EXEMPT 36 SF FLOOR AREA GARAGE AREA FAR TABULATION_______________________________________________________ __ OVERHANGS OVER 8'-0" DECKS ABOVE 30" EXEMPT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO.9/18/2017 12:21:07 PMA0.2 1703 FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS - EXISTINGANNABELLE CABIN300 WEST MAINASPEN, COISSUE: DATE: HPC REVIEW 09/18/17 1/8" = 1'-0"1 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"2 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"3 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN FLOOR AREA RATIO CALCULATIONS - RESIDENTIAL USE LOWER LEVEL MAIN LEVEL GARAGE 0 SF 2367 SF 139 SF BELOW GRADE FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA TOTAL WALL AREA % TOTAL WALL AREA EXPOSED 1525 SF 1918 SF 0% LOWER LEVEL APPLIED TO FAR 0 SF 196'-9" x 9'-9" EXPOSED WALL AREA 0 SF GARAGE AREA CALCULATIONS - RESIDENTIAL USE GARAGE AREA 'FREE' AREA 389 SF 250 SF GARAGE APPLIED TO FAR 139 SF UPPER LEVEL 1313 SF TOTAL FAR 3819 SF DECKS ABOVE 30" - RESIDENTIAL USE UPPER LEVEL ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA (R-6) 62 SF 3660 SF % RATIO OF DECK TO ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA 2% DECK AREA CONTRIBUTING TO FAR 0 SF P121IV.A. UPUP UP UP FLOOR AREA GARAGE AREA FAR TABULATION_______________________________________________________ __ OVERHANGS OVER 8'-0" DECKS ABOVE 30" EXEMPT MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA 3360 SF FRONT PORCH - EXEMPT 94 SF PATIO AT GRADE - EXEMPT 244 SF UPPER LEVEL FLOOR AREA 1938 SF EXTERIOR BALCONY - EXEMPT 92 SF ELEVATOR TOP FLOOR - EXEMPT 46 SF STAIR TOP FLOOR - EXEMPT 59 SF LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA 3262 SF CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO.9/18/2017 12:21:08 PMA0.3 1703 FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS - PROPOSEDANNABELLE CABIN300 WEST MAINASPEN, COISSUE: DATE: HPC REVIEW 09/18/17 2 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN FLOOR AREA RATIO CALCULATIONS - LODGE USE LOWER LEVEL MAIN LEVEL UPPER LEVEL 783 SF 3360 SF 1938 SF 1/8" = 1'-0"3 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN TOTAL FAR 6081 SF 1/8" = 1'-0"1 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN BELOW GRADE FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA TOTAL WALL AREA % TOTAL WALL AREA EXPOSED 3262 SF 3005 SF 24% LOWER LEVEL APPLIED TO FAR 783 SF 267'-1" x 11'-3" 711 SF / 3005 SF EXPOSED WALL AREA 711 SF 63'-2" x 11'-3" 24% x 3262 SF P122IV.A. UPUPUP UP LOWER LEVEL LODGE 2836 SF MECHANICAL - EXEMPT 174 SF MAIN LEVEL LODGE 2367 SF HOUSEKEEPING CLOSET - EXEMPT 74 SF LODGE STORAGE CLOSET - EXEMPT 42 SF GARAGE - EXEMPT 683 SF UPPER LEVEL LODGE 1810 SF ELEVATOR TOP FLOOR - EXEMPT 52 SF STAIR TOP FLOOR - EXEMPT 62 SF FLOOR AREA GARAGE AREA FAR TABULATION_______________________________________________________ __ OVERHANGS OVER 8'-0" DECKS ABOVE 30" EXEMPT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO.9/18/2017 12:21:09 PMA0.4 1703 NET LEASABLE/ NET LIVABLE AREASANNABELLE CABIN300 WEST MAINASPEN, COISSUE: DATE: HPC REVIEW 09/18/17 1/8" = 1'-0"1 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"2 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"3 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN NET LEASABLE/NET LIVABLE CALCULATIONS - LODGE USE LOWER LEVEL MAIN LEVEL 2836 SF 2367 SF UPPER LEVEL 1810 SF TOTAL FAR 7013 SF P123IV.A. Annabelle Lodge 18 September 2017 FIGURE GROUND MAP P124 IV.A. C:\General CADD 12\Gxd\34156B.gxd -- 08/03/2017 -- 09:35 AM -- Scale 1 : 120.000000P125 IV.A. T.O. PLY MAIN LEVEL (NEW) 7896'-6" T.O. PLY UPPER LEVEL (NEW) 111'-0" 2345 1 11'-0" 8'-0"1'-0"2'-4"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE01 02 03 04 05 03 04 06 08 07 09 10 T.O. PLATE @ GABLED ROOF 120'-0" T.O. PLATE @ FLAT ROOF 119'-0" T.O. PLATE @ DORMER 122'-4" T.O. PLY MAIN LEVEL (NEW) 7896'-6" T.O. PLY UPPER LEVEL (NEW) 111'-0" A C EBD PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE1'-0"8'-0"11'-0"01 02 03 05 04 06 07 09 05 08 01 10 T.O. PLATE @ GABLED ROOF 120'-0" T.O. PLATE @ FLAT ROOF 119'-0" CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO.9/18/2017 12:20:33 PMA3.1 1703 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSANNABELLE CABIN300 WEST MAINASPEN, CO 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EAST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"2 SOUTH ELEVATION ISSUE: DATE: HPC REVIEW 09/18/17 SHEET NOTES - BUILDING ELEVATION 01 NEW ROOF OF CABIN TO CONVEY SCALE, COLOR, & TEXTURE OF THE ORIGINAL 02 EXISTING LOG WALLS OF HISTORIC CABIN TO REMAIN 03 BOARD FORMED FOUNDATION WALL TO MATCH EXISTING FOUNDATION OF HISTORIC CABIN 04 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 05 WOOD SIDING 06 METAL CLAD WOOD WINDOWS & DOORS 07 GLASS GUARDRAIL 08 EXISTING WINDOWS IN HISTORIC CABIN TO REMAIN 09 WINDOW WALL W/METAL SLAB EDGE COVER 10 EXISTING STONE CHIMNEY TO REMAIN P126IV.A. T.O. PLY MAIN LEVEL (NEW) 7896'-6" T.O. PLY UPPER LEVEL (NEW) 111'-0" 2 3 4 51 PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE11'-0" 9'-0" 2'-4" 02 03 04 06 07 05 01 10 T.O. PLATE @ GABLED ROOF 120'-0" T.O. PLATE @ DORMER 122'-4" T.O. PLY MAIN LEVEL (NEW) 7896'-6" T.O. PLY UPPER LEVEL (NEW) 111'-0" ACEBD 11'-0" 9'-0" 2'-4"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE02 03 05 04 06 08 01 T.O. PLATE @ GABLED ROOF 120'-0" T.O. PLATE @ DORMER 122'-4" CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO.9/18/2017 12:20:34 PMA3.2 1703 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSANNABELLE CABIN300 WEST MAINASPEN, CO 1/4" = 1'-0"1 WEST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"2 NORTH ELEVATION ISSUE: DATE: HPC REVIEW 09/18/17 SHEET NOTES - BUILDING ELEVATION 01 NEW ROOF OF CABIN TO CONVEY SCALE, COLOR, & TEXTURE OF THE ORIGINAL 02 EXISTING LOG WALLS OF HISTORIC CABIN TO REMAIN 03 BOARD FORMED FOUNDATION WALL TO MATCH EXISTING FOUNDATION OF HISTORIC CABIN 04 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 05 WOOD SIDING 06 METAL CLAD WOOD WINDOWS & DOORS 07 GLASS GUARDRAIL 08 EXISTING WINDOWS IN HISTORIC CABIN TO REMAIN 09 WINDOW WALL W/METAL SLAB EDGE COVER 10 EXISTING STONE CHIMNEY TO REMAIN P127IV.A. LIGHT WELL A C 2 E 3 B 4 5 D 1 5'-2 1/2" 14'-2 1/2"17'-9 1/2"15'-0" 4'-10"1'-3"4'-0"13'-7"37'-9"7'-0"MECHANICAL LAUNDRY/ HOUSE KEEPING GUEST ROOM #5GUEST ROOM #3 GUEST ROOM #1 GUEST ROOM #2 GUEST ROOM #4 COMMON AREA UP LIGHT WELL LIGHT WELL UP EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN NEW WALL EXISTING LOG WALL WALL TYPES CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO.9/18/2017 12:19:09 PMA2.1 1703 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLANANNABELLE CABIN300 WEST MAINASPEN, CO 1/4" = 1'-0"1 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN ISSUE: DATE: HPC REVIEW 09/18/17P128IV.A. A C 2 E 3 B 4 5 D 1 5'-2 1/2" 14'-2 1/2"17'-9 1/2"15'-0" 4'-10"1'-3"4'-0"13'-7"37'-9"7'-0"2'-0"2'-0"28'-5" LIGHT WELL 5" 3'-0" SETBACK 5'-0"SETBACK5'-0 1/2"SETBACK1'-0 1/2"COMMON DINING AREA COMMON KITCHEN BUILDING MANAGEMENT LOBBY ACCESSIBLE TOILET ROOM GUEST ROOM #7 ACCESSIBLE GUEST ROOM #6 PARKING HOUSEKEEPING RAMP DN TRASH/RECYCLING LIGHT WELL RAMP STORAGE DN UP 56x60PATIO PORCH RECEPTION ACCESSIBLE ENRANCE 56x60 10'-0"8'-6"LIGHT WELL EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN NEW WALL EXISTING LOG WALL WALL TYPES CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO.9/18/2017 12:19:10 PMA2.2 1703 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLANANNABELLE CABIN300 WEST MAINASPEN, CO 1/4" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN ISSUE: DATE: HPC REVIEW 09/18/17P129 IV.A. A C 2 E 3 B 4 5 D 1 GUEST ROOM #8 GUEST ROOM #9 GUEST ROOM #10 GUEST ROOM #11 COMMON AREA TERRACE DN 14'-2 1/2"17'-9 1/2"15'-0" 4'-10"7'-0"37'-9"13'-7" 4'-0" GUEST ROOM #12 EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN NEW WALL EXISTING LOG WALL WALL TYPES CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO.9/18/2017 12:19:10 PMA2.3 1703 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLANANNABELLE CABIN300 WEST MAINASPEN, CO 1/4" = 1'-0"1 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN ISSUE: DATE: HPC REVIEW 09/18/17P130IV.A. A3.1 2 A3.11 A3.2 A3.2 2 1 A C 2 E 3 B 4 5 D 1 14'-2 1/2"17'-9 1/2"15'-0" 4'-10"4'-0"13'-7"37'-9"7'-0"01 02 03 02 CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO.9/18/2017 12:19:11 PMA2.4 1703 ROOF PLANANNABELLE CABIN300 WEST MAINASPEN, CO 1/4" = 1'-0"1 ROOF PLAN ISSUE: DATE: HPC REVIEW 09/18/17 SHEET NOTES - PLAN 01 NEW ROOF OF CABIN TO CONVEY SCALE, COLOR, & TEXTURE OF THE ORIGINAL 02 NEW STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 03 NEW FLAT ROOF P131IV.A. Annabelle Lodge 18 September 2017Perspective 1KEY:EXISTING HISTORIC SPRUCE TREEEXISTING HISTORIC SPRUCE TREEP132 IV.A. Annabelle Lodge 18 September 2017Perspective 2EXISTING HISTORIC SPRUCE TREEEXISTING HISTORIC SPRUCE TREEKEY:P133 IV.A. A C 2 E 3 B 4 5 D 1 PROPERTY LINE 90' PROPERTY LINE 90'PROPERTY LINE 100'PROPERTY LINE 100'W MAIN STREET TWO WAY TRAFFIC N SECOND STREETTWO WAY TRAFFIC2 STORY BUILDING RETAINING WALL ENCROACHES ON PROPERTY LINE ADJACENT ROOF ENCROACHES ON PROPERTY LINE SETBACK 5'-0"SETBACK5'-0 1/2"2 STORY BUILDING 1 STORY BUILDING SETBACK1'-0 1/2"(4) PARKING SPACES EXISTING PARKING ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT PATIO BENCH SEATING PEDESTRIAN AMENITY SPACE; 25% OF LOT AREA = 2250 SF CONC. RETAINING WALL W/ WOOD FENCE TO REMAIN EXISTING PLANTER LAWN LIGHT WELL EXISTING HYDRANT BUS STOP GRAVEL LIGHT WELL EXISTING PARKWAY TREE, TYP. PLANTER NEW PLANTER EXISTING TREE, TYP. EXISTING LIGHT POLE, TYP. STONE RETAINING WALL TO REMAIN TRASH/RECYCLING LOCATED INSIDE W/ ACCESS TO ALLEY GAS METER LOCATION 5'-0" 2'-3"6'-11"5'-3"NOTE: MAIN LEVEL = 7896'-6" BICYCLE PARKING CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO.9/18/2017 12:19:57 PMA1.1 1703 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLANANNABELLE CABIN300 WEST MAINASPEN, CO 1/8" = 1'-0"1 SITE PLAN ISSUE: DATE: HPC REVIEW 09/18/17P134IV.A. Annabelle Lodge 18 September 2017 NORTH Location: 300 W Main Street, Aspen CO W MAIN STREET W HOPKINS AVE W BLEEKER STREET Vicinity Map P135 IV.A. Annabelle Lodge 18 September 2017 Appendix A - Existing Conditions East Elevation North Elevation Northeast Corner North Elevation East Elevation East Elevation P136 IV.A. Annabelle Lodge 18 September 2017 Appendix A - Existing Conditions South Elevation East Elevation South Elevation South Elevation P137 IV.A. Annabelle Lodge 18 September 2017 1975 *All historic photos provided by the Aspen Historical Society. Appendix B - Historic Photographs P138 IV.A. Annabelle Lodge 18 September 2017 1978 *All historic photos provided by the Aspen Historical Society. Appendix B - Historic Photographs P139 IV.A. Annabelle Lodge 18 September 2017 2017 View from 2nd Street Appendix C - Street Elevation Photo P140 IV.A. Annabelle Lodge 18 September 2017 2017 View from Main Street Appendix C - Street Elevation Photo P141 IV.A. Annabelle Lodge 18 September 2017 2017 Appendix D - Signage P142 IV.A. Annabelle Lodge 18 September 2017 Appendix E - Extent of Demolition 1988 addition to be demolished P143 IV.A. Annabelle Lodge 18 September 2017Appendix F - Streetscape Photos300 W Main StHistoric PropertyAlleyWest 2nd Street Adjacent PropertyP144 IV.A. Annabelle Lodge 18 September 2017Appendix F - Streetscape PhotosAdjacent PropertyWest 2nd Street 300 W Main StHistoric PropertyAdjacent PropertyAdjacent PropertyAdjacent Property2nd StreetP145 IV.A. Annabelle Lodge 18 September 2017 Appendix G - Selection of Building Materials new roof of historic cabin to convey the scale, color, and texture similar to the original existing log walls of historic cabin to remain board formed foundation wall to match existing foundation wall of historic cabin standing seam metal roof - proposed addition wood siding - proposed addition P146 IV.A. Annabelle Lodge 18 September 2017 Appendix H - Historic Cabin Relocation Diagram P147 IV.A. CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the State of Colorado hereby certifies that DENNIS CHOOKASZIAN are the owner's in fee simple of the following described property: LOTS Q, R AND S, BLOCK 44, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN ADDRESS ACCORDING TO THE PITKIN COUNTY ASSESSORS OFFICE: 300 WEST MAIN ST., ASPEN, CO ENCUMBRANCES: Deed of Trust from : DENNIS CHOOKASZIAN To the Public Trustee of the County of PITKIN For the use of : PERL MORTGAGE, INC. Original Amount : $1,840,000.00 Dated : December 2, 2015 Recorded : December 11, 2015 Reception No. : 625533 This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and is furnished for informational purposes only. PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. BY: authorized signature CERTIFIED TO: SEPTEMBER 29, 2017 at 8:00 A.M. Job No. PCT25113P P148 IV.A. PROFORMA TITLE REPORT SCHEDULE A 1. Effective Date: September 29, 2017 at 8:00 AM Case No. PCT25113W 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: Proposed Insured: PROFORMA 3. Title to the FEE SIMPLE estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment is at the effective date hereof vested in: DENNIS CHOOKASZIAN 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is situated in the County of PITKIN State of COLORADO and is described as follows: LOTS Q, R AND S, BLOCK 44, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. 601 E. HOPKINS, ASPEN, CO. 81611 970-925-1766 Phone/970-925-6527 Fax 877-217-3158 Toll Free AUTHORIZED AGENT Countersigned: P149 IV.A. SCHEDULE B - SECTION 1 REQUIREMENTS THIS REPORT IS FURNISHED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY, IT IS NOT A CONTRACT TO ISSUE TITLE INSURANCE AND SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS SUCH. IN THE EVENT A PROPOSED INSURED IS NAMED THE COMPANY HEREBY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO MAKE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND/OR EXCEPTIONS AS DEEMED NECESSARY. THE RECIPIENT OF THIS INFORMATIONAL REPORT HEREBY AGREES THAT THE COMPANY HAS ISSUED THIS REPORT BY THEIR REQUEST AND ALTHOUGH WE BELIEVE ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS ACCURATE AND CORRECT, THE COMPANY SHALL NOT BE CHARGED WITH ANY FINANCIAL LIABILITY SHOULD THAT PROVE TO BE INCORRECT AND THE COMPANY IS NOT OBLIGATED TO ISSUE ANY POLICIES OF TITLE INSURANCE P150 IV.A. SCHEDULE B SECTION 2 EXCEPTIONS The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessment, charge or lien imposed for water or sewer service or for any other special taxing district. 7. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract or remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted as reserved in United States Patent recorded January 16, 1889 in Book 59 at Page 538. 8. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Ordinance No. 60, Series of 1976 by City of Aspen recorded December 9, 1976 in Book 321 at Page 51. 9. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Encroachment Agreement recorded August 24, 1988 in Book 571 at Page 653. 10. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Quit Claim Deed recorded September 2, 1999 as Reception No. 435152 and Correction Quit Claim Deed recorded November 7, 2005 as Reception No. 517193. 11. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in instrument recorded May 14, 2002 as Reception No. 467410 12. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Resolution of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission recorded January 25, 2008 as Reception No. 546081 as Resolution No. 18 Series of 2007. 13. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Resolution of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission recorded January 25, 2008 as Reception No. 546082 as Resolution No. 25 Series of 2007. 14. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Ordinance No. 33, Series of 2013 by City Council of the City of Aspen recorded December 2, 2013 as Reception No. 606033 and Termination of Covenants recorded January 8, 2014 as Reception No. 607200. 15. Deed of Trust from : DENNIS CHOOKASZIAN To the Public Trustee of the County of Pitkin For the use of : PERL MORTGAGE, INC. Original Amount : $ 1,840,000.00 Dated : December 2, 2015 Recorded : December 11, 2015 Reception No. : 625533 P151 IV.A. PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. 601 E. HOPKINS, THIRD FLOOR ASPEN, CO 81611 970-925-1766/970-925-6527 FAX TOLL FREE 877-217-3158 WIRING INSTRUCTIONS FOR ALL TRANSACTIONS REGARDING THE CLOSING OF THIS FILE ARE AS FOLLOWS: ALPINE BANK-ASPEN 600 E. HOPKINS AVE. ASPEN, CO. 81611 ABA ROUTING NO. 102103407 FOR CREDIT TO: PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC., ESCROW ACCOUNT ACCOUNT NO. 8910 354 425 REFERENCE:PCT25113W/PROFORMA P152 IV.A. September 18, 2017 City of Aspen Building Department 201 N Mill St. Garden Level Aspen, Colorado 81611 To Whom It May Concern: I hereby authorize Charles Cunniffe Architects to act as my designated and authorized representatives with respect to all land use and existing building permit applications for the property located at 300 W Main St, Aspen, Colorado 81611. Sincerely, Dennis Chookaszian P153 IV.A. CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Amy Simon, amy.simon@cityofaspen.com DATE: 9.7.17 PROJECT: 300 W. Main Street REPRESENTATIVE: Charles Cunniffe Architects DESCRIPTION: 300 W. Main is a landmarked 9,000 square foot parcel, located within the Main Street Historic District and zoned Mixed Use (MU). The historic resource on the site, a 1944 log cabin, sits in the center of the property, spanning all three townsite lots. A non-historic addition is located on a portion of lots Q and R. The owner wishes to convert the property to a lodge, a permitted use in the zone district. It is anticipated that the existing non-historic addition would be demolished, the original structure would be relocated towards the east or south-east, and a new addition would be built approximately where the current addition sits. The first land use review step will be Conceptual HPC design review, Commercial Design Review, Relocation, and Demolition review. At this meeting, HPC may also consider Special Review to increase floor area from 0.75 to 1:1, and may consider setback variations. This meeting will also include review of Pedestrian Amenity, Transportation and Parking Management, and Trash and Recycling Storage. HPC will use the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and the Commercial Design Guidelines to make their determinations. HPC will conduct the Growth Management review. This review can be consolidated with the Conceptual design review, or conducted as a separate application. The project will be eligible for some reduction in mitigation through a Change in Use of the existing structure in addition to other reductions available for new construction on a landmark site. However, the applicant should anticipate being required to provide mitigation for a number of new Full-Time Equivalents (employees) generated by the development, either through construction of new affordable housing units, buy down of existing free market units, or provision of affordable housing credits, to be determined as part of the review process. As part of the GMQS analysis, floor plans will be reviewed to determine the number of lodge pillows generated, and the project’s conformance with the requirements of lodge use. Each lodge bedroom in the development generates 2 lodging pillow requirements through GMQS. There must be a sufficient number of lodge pillow allotments available in the year the project is submitted or it will be required to be put off to a future calendar year or meet the higher development standards applied to multi-year allotments. The site contains very significant trees, therefore the Parks Department will play an integral role in the analysis of the application. Engineering, Zoning, Fire, Utilities, Sanitation District, Building, Environmental Health and Transportation will also provide important information during a Development Review Committee meeting that will occur prior to the first HPC hearing. Following Conceptual approval, staff will inform City Council of HPC’s decision, allowing them the opportunity to “Call-Up” any aspects of the design approval that they find require additional HPC review. This is a standard practice for all significant projects reviewed by HPC and P&Z. The last review step is HPC Final design (landscape, lighting and materials). A new pre-application summary will be prepared when the application is ready to proceed to that stage. Neighborhood Outreach, pursuant to Section 26.304.035, will be required as part of the public noticing for this project. P154 IV.A. Below are links to relevant documents, for your convenience: Historic Preservation Land Use Application form: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/businessnav/ApprovaltoDevelop/Land%20Use%20HPC%20Packet%20MAY %202017.pdf Land Use Code: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Business-Navigator/Get-Approval-to-Develop/Refer-to-Land-Use-Code/ HPC Design Guidelines: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/HPC/New%20Historic%20Preservation%20Guidelines.pdf Commercial Design Guidelines: https://app.box.com/s/3a0vvpgpwtdzsomb9aa9rjsfq3qx2o1b Land Use Code Section(s) 26.104.100 General Provisions, Definitions 26.104.110 Use Categories 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.412 Commercial Design Review 26.415 Historic Preservation 26.415.070 Certificate of appropriateness for a Major development 26.415.080 Demolition 26.415.090 Relocation 26.415.110 Historic Preservation Benefits 26.430 Special Review (to increase Floor Area, if proposed) 26.470 Growth Management Quota System 26.470.040 Allotment Procedures 26.470.050 Calculations 26.470.080 Affordable Housing Mitigation 26.470.090.D Administrative Change in Use of a Historic Landmark 26.470.100.A Enlargement of a Historic Landmark for Commercial, Lodge or Mixed Use Development 26.515 Transportation and Parking Management 26.575 Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements 26.710.180 Mixed Use (MU) zone district and Municipal Code Section 12.10 Space Allotment for Trash and Recycling Storage Review by: Staff for completeness and recommendations. HPC for determinations. Public Hearing: Yes. Referral Agencies: Engineering, Parks, APCHA, Environmental Health Planning Fees: $4,550 for 14 billable hours (additional/fewer hours will be billed/refunded at a rate of $325 per hour) Referral Fees: $325 for a one hour deposit with Engineering, $975 APCHA flat fee, $975 Parks flat fee, $975 Environmental Health flat fee P155 IV.A. Total Deposit: $7,800 To apply, first submit one copy of the following information: Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement. Pre-application Conference Summary (this document). Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application. Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. HOA Compliance form (Attached) List of adjacent property owners within 300’ for public hearing Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status, certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado. A scaled site plan indicating all proposed structures and features including parking, utilities, trash and recycling, and vegetation. Scaled drawings of all proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their form, including their height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the primary features of all elevations. Existing and proposed floor area, net leasable and net livable calculations. Preliminary selection of primary exterior building materials. Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the designated historic property or historic district including at least one (1) of the following: diagrams, maps, photographs, models or streetscape elevations. A written description of the proposal and an explanation of how the proposed development, and any requested variances or bonuses, complies with the review standards and design guidelines relevant to the application. Documentation showing the proposal meets all Transportation Mitigation Requirements as outlined in the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines and Mitigation Tool, available online at: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Recent-Code- Amendments/. A copy of the tool showing trips generated and the chosen mitigation measures should be included with the application. P156 IV.A. Once the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted: A complete copy of the application, including all items listed above, provided as a .pdf by email to amy.simon@cityofaspen.com. Please separate the text and drawings into different files. 12 sets of all graphics, printed at 11”x17.” Total deposit for review of the application. Applicants are advised that building plans will be required to meet the International Building Code as adopted by the City of Aspen, the Federal Fair Housing Act, and CRS 9.5.112. Please make sure that your application submittal addresses these building-related and accessibility regulations. You may contact the Building Department at 920-5090 for additional information. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested rights. P157 IV.A. P158 IV.A. P159 IV.A. P160 IV.A. P161 IV.A. P162 IV.A. P163 IV.A. P164 IV.A. P165 IV.A. P166 IV.A. = input = calculation DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION: NAME, COMPANY, ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL Minor Entering Exiting Total Entering Exiting Total Commercial (sf)0.0 sf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Free-Market Housing (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Affordable Housing (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lodging (Units)12 Units 1.71 1.29 3.00 1.93 1.79 3.72 Essential Public Facility (sf)0.0 sf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.71 1.29 3.00 1.93 1.79 3.72 Land Use Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting Commercial 2.27 0.69 0.31 4.14 0.4 0.6 Free-Market Housing 0.67 0.29 0.71 0.82 0.56 0.44 Affordable Housing 0.75 0.48 0.52 0.89 0.55 0.45 Lodging 0.25 0.57 0.43 0.31 0.52 0.48 Essential Public Facility 0.86 0.62 0.38 1.66 0.4 0.6 Net New Units/Square Feet of the Proposed ProjectProposed Land Use *For mixed-use (at least two of the established land uses) sites, a 4% reduction for AM Peak-Hour and a 14% reduction for PM Peak-Hour is applied to the trip generation. Ashley Satterfield Charles Cunniffe Architects 610 E Hyman Ave Aspen CO 81621 (970) 925-5590 ashleys@cunniffe.com Trip Generation 9/18/2017 AM Peak Average PM Peak Average Trips Generated AM Peak-Hour PM Peak-Hour TOTAL NEW TRIPS ASSUMPTIONS ASPEN TRIP GENERATION Is this a major or minor project? 300 W Main Street Annabelle Lodge Instructions: IMPORTANT: Turn on Macros: In order for code to run correctly the security settings need to be altered. Click "File" and then click "Excel Options." In the "Trust Center"category, click "Trust Center Settings", and then click the "Macro Settings" category. Beneath "Macro Settings" select "Enable all Macros." Sheet 1. Trip Generation: Enter the project's square footage and/or unit counts under Proposed Land Use. The numbers should reflect the net change in land use between existing and proposed conditions. If a landuse is to be reduced put a negative number of units or square feet. Sheet 2. MMLOS: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable under each of the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections. Points are only awarded for proposed (not existing) and confirmed aspects of the project. Sheet 3. TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project. Sheet 4. Summary and Narrative: Review the summary of the project's mitigated trips and provide a narrative which explains the measures selected for the project. Click on "Generate Narrative" and individually explain each measure that was chosen and how it enhances the site or mitigates vehicle traffic. Ensure each selected measure make sense Minor Development - Inside the Roundabout Major Development - Outside the Roundabout Helpful Hints: 1. Refer to the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for information on the use of this tool. 2. Refer to TIA Frequently Asked Questions for a quick overview. 2. Hover over red corner tags for additional information on individual measures. 3. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should be new and/or an improvement of existing conditions. A project will not receive credit for measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense in the context of project location and future use. Transportation Impact Analysis TIA Frequently Asked Questions P167 IV.A. = input = calculation 5 Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points 1 Does the project propose a detached sidewalk where an attached sidewalk currently exists? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer meet standard minimum widths? No 0 2 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width greater than the standard minimum width?No 0 3 Does the project propose a landscape buffer greater than the standard minimum width?No 0 0 4 Does the project propose a detached sidewalk on an adjacent block? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer meet standard minimum widths? No 0 5 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width on an adjacent block greater than the standard minimum width?No 0 6 Is the proposed landscape buffer on an adjacent block greater than the standard minimum width?No 0 0 7 Are slopes between back of curb and sidewalk equal to or less than 5%?Yes 0 8 Are curbs equal to (or less than) 6 inches? Yes 0 9 Is new large-scale landscaping proposed that improves the pedestrian experience? Properties within the Core do not have ample area to provide the level of landscaping required to receive credit in this category. No 0 10 Does the project propose an improved crosswalk? This measure must get City approval before receiving credit. No 0 0 11 Are existing driveways removed from the street? NA 0 12 Is pedestrian and/or vehicle visibility unchanged by new structure or column?Yes 0 13 Is the grade (where pedestrians cross) on cross-slope of driveway 2% or less?Yes 0 14 Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian access points from the ROW? This includes improvements to ADA ramps or creating new access points which prevent pedestrians from crossing a street. No 0 15 Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian or bicyclist interaction with vehicles at driveway areas?No 0 0 16 Is the project's pedestrian directness factor less than 1.5? Yes 0 17 Does the project propose new improvements which reduce the pedestrian directness factor to less than 1.2? A site which has an existing pedestrian directness factor less than 1.2 cannot receive credit in this category. No 0 18 Is the project proposing an off site improvement that results in a pedestrian directness factor below 1.2?* No 0 19 Are traffic calming features proposed that are part of an approved plan (speed humps, rapid flash)?*No 0 0 20 Are additional minor improvements proposed which benefit the pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff? No 0 21 Are additional major improvements proposed which benefit the pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff? No 0 0 0PedestriansSubtotalAdditional Proposed ImprovementsTOTAL NUMBER OF TRIPS MITIGATED:Pedestrian RoutesTraffic Calming and Pedestrian NetworkDriveways, Parking, and Access ConsiderationsMMLOS Input Page Subtotal SubtotalSidewalk Condition on Adjacent BlocksSidewalk Condition on Project FrontageSubtotal Instructions: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable to each measure under the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections. Subtotal Subtotal Pedestrian Total* P168 IV.A. Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points 22 Is a new bicycle path being implemented with City approved design? No 0 23 Do new bike paths allow access without crossing a street or driveway?No 0 24 Is there proposed landscaping, striping, or signage improvements to an existing bicycle path?No 0 25 Does the project propose additional minor bicycle improvements which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?No 0 26 Does the project propose additional major bicycle improvements which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?No 0 0 Bicycle Parking27 Is the project providing bicycle parking? Yes 5 5 5 Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points 28 Is seating/bench proposed?NA 0 29 Is a trash receptacle proposed?NA 0 30 Is transit system information (signage) proposed? NA 0 31 Is shelter/shade proposed?NA 0 32 Is enhanced pedestrian-scale lighting proposed? NA 0 33 Is real-time transit information proposed? NA 0 34 Is bicycle parking/storage proposed specifically for bus stop use? NA 0 35 Are ADA improvements proposed?NA 0 0 36 Is a bus pull-out proposed at an existing stop? NA 0 37 Is relocation of a bus stop to improve transit accessibility or roadway operations proposed?NA 0 38 Is a new bus stop proposed (with minimum of two basic amenities)? NA 0 0 0TransitBasic AmenitiesSubtotal Subtotal Enhanced AmenitiesSubtotal Subtotal Bicycles Total* Transit Total*BicyclesModifications to Existing Bicycle PathsP169 IV.A. Category Measure Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT Reductions Will an onsite ammenities strategy be implemented? No Which onsite ammenities will be implemented? Will a shared shuttle service strategy be implemented? Yes What is the degree of implementation?Low What is the company size?Small What percentage of customers are eligible?100% 3 Nonmotorized Zones Will a nonmotorized zones strategy be implemented? No 0.00% 1.38% Category Measure Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT Reductions Will a network expansion stragtegy be implemented? NA What is the percentage increase of transit network coverage? What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips? Will a service frequency/speed strategy be implemented? NA What is the percentage reduction in headways (increase in frequency)? What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips? What is the level of implementation? Will a transit access improvement strategy be implemented? No What is the extent of access improvements? 7 Intercept Lot Will an intercept lot strategy be implemented?No 0.00% 0.00% Category Measure Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT Reductions Will there be participation in TOP?No What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a transit fare subsidy strategy implemented?Yes What percentage of employees are eligible?100% What is the amount of transit subsidy per passenger (daily equivalent)? 100% Is an employee parking cash-out strategy being implemented? No What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a workplace parking pricing strategy implemented? No What is the daily parking charge? What percentage of employees are subject to priced parking? Is a compressed work weeks strategy implemented? No What percentage of employees are participating? What is the workweek schedule? Is an employer sponsered shuttle program implemented? No What is the employer size? What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a carpool matching strategy implemented?No What percentage of employees are eligble? Is carshare participation being implemented?No How many employee memberships have been purchased? What percentage of employees are eligble? Is participation in the bikeshare program WE-cycle being implemented? No How many memberships have been purchased? What percentage of employees/guests are eligble? Is an end of trip facilities strategy being implemented? No What is the degree of implementation? What is the employer size? Is a self-funded emergency ride home strategy being implemented? No What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a carpool/vanpool priority parking strategy being implemented? No What is the employer size? What number of parking spots are available for the program? Is a private employer shuttle strategy being implemented? No What is the employer size? What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a trip reduction marketing/incentive program implemented? No What percentage of employees/guests are eligible? 3.01% 1.38% 4.35% 1. 22% work trips represents a mixed-used site (SF Bay Area Travel Survey). See Assumptions Tab for more detail. 21 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 Participation in TOP Transit Fare Subsidy Employee Parking Cash-Out Workplace Parking Pricing Compressed Work Weeks Employer Sponsored Vanpool Carpool Matching Carshare Program Self-funded Emergency Ride Home Carpool/Vanpool Priority Parking Private Employer Shuttle Trip Reduction Marketing/Incentive Program End of Trip Facilities Cross Category Maximum Reduction, Neighborhood and Transit Global Maximum VMT Reductions TDM Input Page 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Commute Trip Reduction Programs StrategiesOnsite Servicing Shared Shuttle Service Neighborhood/Site Enhancements Strategies0.00% 1.38% Network Expansion Service Frequency/Speed Transit Access Improvement Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category 13.80% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Bikeshare Program 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category Maximum Reduction Allowed in CategoryTransit System Improvements Strategies1 2 4 5 6 8 9 10 Instructions TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should be new and/or an improvement of existing conditions. A project will not receive credit for measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense in the context of project location and future use. P170 IV.A. DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION: NAME, COMPANY, ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL Peak Hour Max Trips Generated MMLOS TDM Total Trips Mitigated PM 3.7 5 0.16 5.16 0.00 The project's pedestrian directness factor is less than 1.5. See the attached diagram. Bicycle parking will be provided on the north side of the site. Refer to the Architectural Site Plan included in the drawing portion of this application. TDM Explain the proposed shared shuttle service strategy in the space below. The use of hotel or other customer service vehicles to shuttle employees can maximize the use of on-site resources while reducing SOV trips. The successful project will creatively consider the use of necessary business vehicles for shuttle purposes. For example, a health club with a guest shuttle could provide employee transfers to a transit center or park and ride. Note, the provision of a hotel shuttle alone does not qualify for this measure. A hotel shuttle is provided for the facility to transfer guests to and from the airport, intercept lot, and any other requested destination. Project Description In the space below provide a description of the proposed project. The Annabelle Lodge property currently consists of a log cabin, completed in 1944, and an addition to the original structure, completed in 1988. The original cabin, which is approximately 1,400 sf in size, is identified on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. The proposed project calls for demolition of the 1988 addition, relocation of the historic cabin within the site, and the construction of a new addition to the historic cabin. MMLOS Include any additional information that pertains to the MMLOS plan in the space provided below. Click on the "Generate Narrative" Button to the right. Respond to each of the prompts in the space provided. Each response should cover the following: 1. Explain the selected measure. 2. Call out where the measure is located. 3. Demonstrate how the selected measure is appropriate to enhance the project site and reduce traffic impacts. 4. Explain the Enforcement and Financing Plan for the selected measure. 5. Explain the scheduling and implementation responsibility of the mitigation measure. 6. Attach any additional information and a site map to the narrative report. Ashley Satterfield Charles Cunniffe Architects 610 E Hyman Ave Aspen CO 81621 (970) 925-5590 ashleys@cunniffe.com Summary and Narrative: Narrative: 9/18/2017 Annabelle Lodge 300 W Main Street Trip Generation SUMMARY Trip Mitigation NET TRIPS TO BE MITIGATED P171 IV.A. Monitoring and Reporting Pedestrian Directness Factor (See callout number 9 on the MMLOS sheet for an example) Provide a monitoring and reporting plan. Refer to page 17 in the Transportation Analysis Guidelines for a list of monitoring plan requirements. Components of a Monitoring and Reporting Plan should include (1) Assessment of compliance with guidelines, (2) Results and effectiveness of implemented measures, (3) Identification of additional strategies, and (4) Surveys and other supporting data. A survey to the city staff will be issued on an annual basis. This simple survey will determine the level of use and effectiveness of the TDM measures on reducing SOV trips by employees. An annual report will be submitted to the Transportation Department after survey data is collected and organized. The MMLOS measures will be paid for by the applicant. TDM measures will also be paid for by the applicant. Scheduling and Implementation Responsibility of Mitigation Measures Provide an overview of the scheduling and implementation responsibility for the proposed transportation mitigation measures. All MMLOS measures will be completed during the construction phase of the project. They will be part of the plan set submitted to the City of Aspen Building Department for Engineering Review. The applicant understands that issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy is contingent upon satisfactory installation of the MMLOS improvements, as reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department. TDM measures will also be completed during the construction phase of the project. Provide an overview of the Enforcement and Financing plan for the proposed transportation mitigation measures. Slopes Between Back of Curb and Sidewalk 2% Slope at Pedestrian Driveway Crossings Bicycle Parking Enforcement and Financing The Annabelle Lodge provides bus passes at no cost for all employees who live down valley. Include any additional information that pertains to the TDM plan in the space provided below. Enter Text Here MMLOS Site Plan Requirements Include the following on a site plan. Clearly call out and label each measure. Attach the site plan to the TIA submittal. Explain below the transit fare subsidy strategy. The successful project will provide subsidized/discounted daily or monthly public transit passes for the RFTA valley system. These passes can be partially or wholly subsidized by the project, with additional points being provided for larger subsidies. Many entities use revenue from parking to offset the cost of such a project. P172 IV.A. Annabelle Lodge 18 September 2017Pedestrian Directness Factor: 1.3Access PointWalking Distance: 88’-5”P173 IV.A. Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners. Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or data obtained on this web site. This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the margins such that they no longer line up on the labels sheet. Print actual size. From Parcel: 273512441006 on 09/13/2017 Instructions: Disclaimer: http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com P174 IV.A. GIERTZ JAMES R & TAMARA J KIAWAH ISLAND, SC 29455 144 FLYWAY DR SEVEN SEAS INVESTMENT LLC WILMETTE, IL 60091 1120 MICHIGAN AVE BRAFMAN STUART & LOTTA BEA TRST CHEVY CHASE, MD 20815 5630 WISCONSIN AVE #401 CARINTHIA CORP ASPEN, CO 81611 45 E LUPINE DR COLORADO MTN NEWS MEDIA CARSON CITY, NV 89702 PO BOX 1927 CHISHOLM EDITH S ASPEN, CO 81611 205 W MAIN ST CHISHOLM HEATHER M ASPEN, CO 81611 205 W MAIN ST STEVENSON KAREN H ASPEN, CO 81611 205 W MAIN ST 212 N SECOND ST LLC TAMPA, FL 33613 509 GUISANDO DE AVILA #201 ELKINS LESLIE KEITH TRUST HOUSTON, TX 77002 1001 FANNIN #700 RISCOR INC DALLAS, TX 75219 3838 OAK LAWN AVE #1000 CROWLEY SUE MITCHELL REV TRUST DUBLIN, OH 43017 6000 RIVERSIDE DR #A366 233 WEST BLEEKER LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 400 E MAIN ST #2 VANCE STEPHEN M ASPEN, CO 81611 625 E MAIN ST #102B NEWTON BARBARA ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 9410 STEVENS BRUCE ASPEN, CO 81611 214 W BLEEKER ST STEVENS LESLEY ASPEN, CO 81611 214 W BLEEKER ST KETTELKAMP TRUST PUEBLO, CO 81008 3408 MORRIS AVE LADA COMMUNITY PROPERTY TRUST LAS VEGAS, NV 89109 2860 AUGUSTA DR GLICKMAN ADAM SAN JUAN PUERTO RICO 00907-3122, 644 FERNANDEZ JUNCOS AVE #301 DISTRICT VIEW PLAZA MIRAMAR NEWKAM PATRICK C ASPEN, CO 81611 211 W MAIN ST EDGEWATER PROPERTIES LLC OMAHA, NE 68022 18081 BURT ST ALLAN ANDREW S DENVER, CO 80218 154 MARION ST PESIKOFF DAVID HOUSTON, TX 77098 1811 NORTH BLVD KING LOUISE LLC BASALT, CO 81621 PO BOX 1467 CLICK JANE ASPEN, CO 81611 333 W MAIN ST #2A PENSCO TRUST COMPANY WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33417 5114 OKEECHOBEE BLVD #203 NANOOK RIDGE LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 324 W HOPKINS AVE #B GILDENHORN MICHAEL S BETHESDA, MD 20816 5008 BALTON RD WINER CAROL G BETHESDA , MD 20817 6740 SELKIRK DR P175 IV.A. LORENTZEN AMY L HERMOSA BEACH , CA 90254 125 22ND ST ROSENTHAL DIANNE ASPEN, CO 81612-7311 PO BOX 10043 BOND RICHARD CAREY NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130 320 JULIA ST LAMBERT HENRY M NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130 320 JULIA ST TYROL APARTMENTS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 200 W MAIN ST TYROLEAN LODGE LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 200 W MAIN ST PIONEER PARTNERS LTD ASPEN, CO 81611 617 W MAIN ST MARTIN SCOTT M ASPEN, CO 81611 PO BOX 51 SAND KATHERINE M ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 51 GUNN ROBERT W FAMILY TRST MARBLEHEAD, MA 01945 409 OCEAN AVE GROVER FREDRICK W & PAULA J WEXFORD, PA 15090 399 MARSHALL HEIGHTS DR MAYER KEVIN ASPEN, CO 81611 222 W HOPKINS AVE #2 GROSVENOR DENIS TAOS, NM 875716922 209 CAMINO DE LA MERCED # C FCB LLC SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615-6622 PO BOX 6622 GASTON JOHN & KATHERINE GREENWICH, CT 06831 16 BRYNWOOD LN GREENASPEN LLC KEY BISCAYNE, FL 33149 30 ISLAND DR ASPEN HOUSE LLC CHICAGO, IL 60601 225 N COLUMBUS DR #100 TAD PROPERTIES LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 9978 BLEVINS J RONALD & PHYLLIS ASPEN, CO 81611 310 W BLEEKER ST 320 W BLEEKER LLC AUSTIN, TX 78703 1717 W 6TH ST # 470 GUNNING RALPH ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 11912 ASPEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ASPEN, CO 81611 311 W MAIN ST GUNNING JANINE L ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 11705 PRICE DOUGLAS CABIN JOHN, MD 20818 PO BOX 220 MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 605 W MAIN ST # 2 CRETE ASSOCIATES LP BRYN MAWR, PA 19010 1062 E LANCASTER AVE #30B HEINEMAN S MARLENE DALLAS, TX 753810323 PO BOX 810323 BROWDE KRISTEN PRATA CHAPPAQUA, NY 10514 604 QUAKER RD TEMPKINS HARRY & VIVIAN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139 605 LINCOLN RD #301 CHAMBERS PETE CABIN JOHN, MD 20818 PO BOX 220 P176 IV.A. SILVERSTEIN PHILIP & ROSALYN BRONX, NY 10463 25 KNOLLS CRESCENT APT 81 JACOBY FAMILY LP VERO BEACH, FL 32960 700 20TH ST KARP MICHAEL PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 1630 LOCUST ST #200 SHEEHAN WILLIAM J & NANCY E FRANKFORT, IL 60423 10 GOLF VIEW LN RICKEL DAVID LANDSDALE, PA 19446 275 GOLDENROD DR SNYDER GARY ELKINS PARK, PA 19027 8324 BROODSIDE RD BOOKBINDER FISHDANCE & DELANEY LLC GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81503 164 LITTLE PARK RD TWIN COASTS LTD BOCA RATON, FL 33432 433 PLAZA REAL #275 333 WEST BLEEKER LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 2408 331 W BLEEKER LLC HOUSTON, TX 77019 2727 ALLEN PKY #1400 TOLER MELANIE S TRUST ASPEN , CO 81611 327 W BLEEKER STREET DH ASE LLC WILMINGTON, DE 19808 2711 CENTERVILLE RD # 400 320 WEST MAIN LLC NAPERVILLE, IL 60563 2020 CALAMOS CT LEVY ROBERT I STUART, FL 34994 2099 NW PINE TREE WY ROMANUS RAYMOND CALUMET CITY, IL 60409 19 RIVER OAKS DR 220 WEST MAIN PARTNERS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 730 E COOPER AVE SPERAW ENDEAVORS LLC SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 PO BOX 6575 TACO 2 LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 220 W MAIN ST #202 WEST MAIN VENTURES ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 11977 ASPEN MAIN OFFICE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 220 W MAIN ST ASPEN CONDOS ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 311 W MAIN ST WEST SIDE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 234 W HOPKINS AVE GARET CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 400 E MAIN ST #2 INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 233 W MAIN ST BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC BOCA RATON, FL 33431 4960 CONFERENCE WY N #100 JEWISH RESOURCE CENTER CHABAD OF ASPEN ASPEN, CO 81612 435 W MAIN ST HERRON APARTMENTS CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 333 W MAIN ST SHADOWVIEW CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 320 W HOPKINS AVE ASPEN A CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 308 W HOPKINS AVE ASPEN MEDICAL CENTER CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA W MAIN ST P177 IV.A. JOSEPH RUSSELL C & ELISE E HOUSTON, TX 77019 3682 WILLOWICK RD 330 WEST BLEEKER ST LLC WASHINGTON, DC 20007 1000 POTOMAC ST NW #102 DOUBLE D CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 300 W BLEEKER ST A & H LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 332 W MAIN ST # 101 (A) TATE ELIZABETH & CHARLES SAINT GEORGE, UT 84790 1967 PINNACLE CIR 332 W MAIN ST LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 110 NEALE AVE BRIEN ALICE ASPEN, CO 81611 332 W MAIN ST P178 IV.A. Dennis Chookaszian dennis@chookaszian.com 847-778-2971 300 West Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 Sept 15, 2017 Dennis Chookaszian P179 IV.A. P180 IV.A. P181 IV.A. Memorandum From: Mike Horvath Civil Engineer II Engineering Department City of Aspen To: Amy Simon Historic Preservation Community Development Department City of Aspen Date: November 7, 2017 RE: 300 W Main St Conceptual Review Engineering Comments These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the project packet submitted for purpose of the DRC meeting and are required at detailed review submittal. Public Improvements: 1. Sidewalk along 2nd street must have a 5’ buffer. Sidewalk design must be vetted with Parks and Engineering Departments with sidewalk location in existing driplines. 2. All sidewalks must be replaced and in compliance with COA Engineering Design Standards and ADA regulations including street access ramps. 3. All adjacent curb and gutter must be replaced as part of project including gutter at alley crossing. Please include rebar in gutter at alley crossing. Stormwater 1. Site will be required to treat the water quality capture volume and release to the City storm water system per Table 1.1 of URMP. Conveyance and capacity to City system must be verified. Parking 1. Permanent encroachment will be revoked due to the negative effects it has on the ROW design. Please remove all parking from ROW. Utilities 1. No utilities shown on site plan. a. New water service location and sizing with fire calculations must be provided. No water main is located in 2nd street, property must tap off Main St. Tap location needs to be vetted with Parks and Engineering Department with location of existing trees. P182 IV.A. b. Electrical capacity must be verified at tie in location. If new transformer is required, then new transformer must be located on property with appropriate easement. P183 IV.A. ACSD Requirements-300 W. Main St.-Annabelle Lodge 11-14-17 Service is contingent upon compliance with the District’s rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance establishments. Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells. Elevator shafts drains must flow thru o/s interceptor An ACSD approved Oil and Grease interceptor (NOT a trap) is required for all food processing establishments. Locations of food processing shall be identified prior to building permit. Old service line connections must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements and before any soil stabilization methods are attempted. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above or below ASCD main sewer lines. The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and requirements once detailed building and utility plans are available. P184 IV.A. EXHIBIT Ar — NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RE: 300 W. Main Street Public Hearing: December 13, 2017, 4:30 PM Meeting Location: City Hall, City Council Chambers 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 81611 Project Location: 300 W. Main Street Legal Description: Lots CL R and S, Block 44, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, PID#2735-124-41-006 Description: The applicant requests approval to demolish a portion of the existing structure, relocate the historic log cabin on the site in a south and east direction, and build a new basement and addition. The property is to be used as a lodge. Land Use Reviews: Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Demolition, Relocation, Special Review and Variations Decision Making Body: Historic Preservation Commission Applicant: Dennis Chookaszian, 1100 Michigan Avenue, Wilmette, IL 60091 More Information: For further information related to the project, contact Amy Simon at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2758, amy.simon@cityofaspen.com. \\\m\ \ B. a a�^x�.� irv� �i�aFr�4^ �f'�..,.�5 a";jP+.c 1, ti1c��3 al c +ljj,hra' ,,5 a � '�F.v i J >• �...aT1�f�'°}�.-'Y �jJ �R,✓r•r �i1f 4��`�. "YT.r � rt. L '� it r�ir.i/ 4�i SSFs '^a �.a t� [ .{* x �' r 1 'S�+�'" a{7,Ti. d4d. �"�s�(.t ah.9, TT �.��'�s �w. 't° ,Kyl✓. �zri'4� f��y a�C,,�, �v'r""'l x7v`rn,-•.a. �1"�x3..s�*�I',.>�.x.�ff��+G!Fr '.Ld`,`j,;�.Cy x6J S,tl^p,�4t�'f {'ry'rsy. a'?r. ' v :."1rr.Ht•J6 :. tij ,�'L'."` S ? 4`�2 a- "v,KCi +'Vty +L'ri *:- PROPERTYl1NE S r, s((,"-;2vrloSSs°y J - - ACCESSIBLE EMRANCE'�,y�e 9 wY]yl I �TER F r+„ TERRACE V TwEyL 51 At ,4w m .�G7i sR 1 � as rrl > � xk�,.• � "$ � ���" ��F ?��,�� -.l ati`�a•P. � 'q '793�.i' - s `w" tip _n (�u .'IP - "".'`�C'�'�Mit+ y� � `.`ftp ��`• x" ! e � •��( I �s '`? ry t )2. _.}jy,> -.I• �; PROPERTYJNE W.MAN STREET '1 4 R4R 0 4 8 16 w I mR w w d U N N • e z � z N N W W <f (� 41 71 A X, oo � f \ r a. ( OID yru I I Lrf rnl �1 I u F• i Y r Q 013 J _h 6 m� ■© '_ 00'N3J v r <8: NIVW1m u ° V piggK NI9b 31l]q139dNNb' os r a p t � ---------- ---------------------------- — I I I I I I , I I d I I i I � I 1 I 4 Q I ------------ § I i - I lil I s I I I � � I ___ I .N I - I n� I ; _ __ I , I � 5 iI a I + J w J § U 4. I i I .© ❑ �' 00'N3dSV �z 3 N18NlV IBM g OCR •� u toxR WE a5 = o N b'� 31138b'NNb' f P 4 2 1r _2C ) r�i r Sr 1 4�At c Rg4�1 1 i I ! �\ --------- ----- - ----------------- r �.I 5 t !t � 1 t i n •': 1 yyy3 a C 6 J � 0 I I W i Z 4 i tJ i •: c r.'1 NI ■o ` 03'N3dSv z w S ^ �¢_ VW 153M WE wi __� N19b':D 31138b'NNb' I L a � T ago QQ Q Q Q a IIS I 9 I I' E b ------- -- ---- Q 4 2 z S Il ; B 0 tl l J t w ILJ Y w � J (r i PUBLIC NOTICE Date : December 13 , 2017 Time : 4 : 30 PM Place : City Hall , 130 S . Galena St City Council Chambers Purpose : Dennis Chookaszian , 1100 Michigan Ave . ; Wilmette , IL 60091 owner, requests HPC approval to demolish a portion of existing structure, relocate the historic log cabin on the site in a south & east direction , & build a new basement & addition .The property is to be used as aJodge . Conceptual review, Demolition , Relocation ,Special Review and Variations requested . For more information :429-2758 . E HIBIT AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060(E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 366 W(rsr MAIN my-aa.T ,Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: c�1113 13 ,20L STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ). I, lz.(C*( ftweZrn / 4MJL( CvIJNIFFLE Arlcs4ingKt (name, please print) being or representink 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 (E)of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication 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. 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 1'7 day of uoUemf OV, , 20 17, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. 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 fifteen (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 owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. 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 summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. 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 County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, PDs that create more than one lot, and new Planned Developments are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text 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 an 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. However, 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. Signature The foregoing"Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this eLpt day of tJCNUA'o•r , 201'},by R i GIS �+av ccl, WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL TONT ROSE BRADFORD My commission expires: III at Ao'd0 NOTARY PUBLIC.STATE OF COLORADO Notary IdentMc tio,1120074030273 NH Commission E%Pires 1/1912020 Notary Public ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPYOFTHEPUBLICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 W W N '� f •I'LL$-� o a N N Z Z N N X K W W • Iy 5 y . .J 11hLl/< 1 i � a Af po yI a d DD b EXHIBIT AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 300 W• MA•"� cl ¢� Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 2017 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the My of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: V Publication 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. 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 day of , 20 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. 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 fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S.ymail,to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the propertysubject>ito the development application. The names and addresses of iz�property:owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they more than sixty (60) days riot to the date of the public hearing. Aappeared-no, of the-own'ersjand governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. 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 summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) EXHIBIT AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE • REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 366 w0f- tIAIN 91lp- -r , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: bLcich130z- 13 12017 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, glcH &J6'6k / 6Mfz-tr-5 to NIPFL� Ar-_oITL- ' (name, please.print) being or represe t nii g 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 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication 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. 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 12 day of /Jo�J;M���l� , 20 17, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. 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 fifteen (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 owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. 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 summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) • Mineral Estate Owner Notice. 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 County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, PDs that create more than one lot, and new Planned Developments are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text 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 an 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. However, 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. Signature �QtM- • The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this etp day of 20 1-:�,by--K i C),— Qbmv CeJr4, WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL FNotaTONI ROSE BRADFORD My commission expires: ► 19 AOAO ry RY PUBLIC-STATE OF COLORADO Identification#200719/02 0 �1 Commission Expires 1119/2020 L^� Notary Public ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPYOF THE PUBLICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 • '°• t� `4 /r: n of�����If�}w '+� '- ,. `� +rk �;� � eta '� ,� ` �- YI(� f �t `,,.i� u�� lt�„f•• w�y�r�rfr .Jrr� ' � � J i��'�' }1 � V - r� �.e- ase 'Y J e+� 1 ��h ! �r =•-w.j'.yi.K�,. Ylo 'i �-rr��-•�'�^ski 3d� "�'x"+S'is W n•+ s --n ,� It'..��,, apt '�:+s:�.�>,.� .ti:.. .'k�Y'Sc�i��'���Y`$•a " .. '&� 't T Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius From Parcel: 273512441006 on 11/27/2017 % TK I N COUNT ' Instructions: This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the margins such that they no longer line up on the labels sheet. Print actual size. Disclaimer: Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners. Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or data obtained on this web site. http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com GIERTZ JAMES R 8 TAMARA J SEVEN SEAS INVESTMENT LLC BRAFMAN STUART 8.LOTTA BEA TRST 144 FLYWAY DR 1120 MICHIGAN AVE 5630 WISCONSIN AVE#401 KIAWAH ISLAND,SC 29455 WILMETTE,IL 60091 CHEVY CHASE,MD 20815 CARINTHIA CORP COLORADO MTN NEWS MEDIA CHISHOLM EDITH S 45 E LUPINE DR PO BOX 1927 205 W MAIN ST ASPEN,CO 81611 CARSON CITY, NV 89702 ASPEN,CO 81611 CHISHOLM HEATHER M STEVENSON KAREN H- 212 N SECOND ST LLC 205 W MAIN ST 205 W MAIN ST 509 GUISANDO DE AVILA#201 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 TAMPA, FL 33613 ELKINS LESLIE KEITH TRUST RISCOR INC CROWLEY SUE MITCHELL REV TRUST 1001 FANNIN#700 3838 OAK LAWN AVE#1000 6000 RIVERSIDE DR#A366 HOUSTON,TX 77002 DALLAS,TX 75219 DUBLIN,OH 43017 233 WEST BLEEKER LLC VANCE STEPHEN M NEWTON BARBARA 400 E MAIN ST#2 625 E MAIN ST#1028 PO BOX 9410 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 STEVENS BRUCE STEVENS LESLEY KETTELKAMP TRUST 214 W BLEEKER ST 214 W BLEEKER ST 3408 MORRIS AVE ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 PUEBLO,CO 81008 LADA COMMUNITY PROPERTY TRUST GLICKMAN ADAM NEWKAM PATRICK C 2860 AUGUSTA DR 644 FERNANDEZ JUNCOS AVE#301 211 W MAIN ST LAS VEGAS,NV 89109 - DISTRICT VIEW PLAZA MIRAMAR ASPEN,CO 81611 SAN JUAN PUERTO RICO 00907-3122, EDGEWATER PROPERTIES LLC ALLAN ANDREW S PESIKOFF DAVID 18081 BURT ST 154 MARION ST 1811 NORTH BLVD OMAHA,NE 68022 DENVER,CO 80218 HOUSTON,TX 77098 KING LOUISE LLC CLICK JANE PENSCO TRUST COMPANY PO BOX 1467 333 W MAIN ST#2A 5114 OKEECHOBEE BLVD#203 BASALT,CO 81621 ASPEN,CO 81611 WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33417 NANOOK RIDGE LLC GILDENHORN MICHAEL S WINER CAROL G 324 W HOPKINS AVE#B 5008 BALTON RD 6740 SELKIRK DR ASPEN,CO 81611 BETHESDA,MD 20816 BETHESDA,MD 20817 LORENTZEN AMY L ROSENTHAL DIANNE BOND RICHARD CAREY 125 22ND ST PO BOX 10043 320 JULIA ST HERMOSA BEACH,CA 90254 ASPEN,CO 81612-7311 NEW ORLEANS,LA 70130 LAMBERT HENRY M TYROL APARTMENTS LLC TYROLEAN LODGE LLC 320 JULIA ST 200 W MAIN ST 200 W MAIN ST NEW ORLEANS,LA 70130 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 PIONEER PARTNERS LTD MARTIN SCOTT M SAND KATHERINE M 617 W MAIN ST PO BOX 51 PO BOX 51 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 - GUNN ROBERT W FAMILY TRST GROVER FREDRICK W&PAULA J MAYER KEVIN 409 OCEAN AVE 399 MARSHALL HEIGHTS DR 222 W HOPKINS AVE#2 MARBLEHEAD,MA 01945 WEXFORD,PA 15090 ASPEN,CO 81611 GROSVENOR DENIS FCB LLC GASTON JOHN&KATHERINE 209 CAMINO DE LA MERCED#C PO BOX 6622 16 BRYNWOOD LN TAOS,NM 875716922 SNOWMASS VILLAGE,CO 81615-6622 GREENWICH,CT 06831 GREENASPEN LLC ASPEN HOUSE LLC TAD PROPERTIES LLC 30 ISLAND DR 225 N COLUMBUS DR#100 PO BOX 9978 KEY BISCAYNE,FL'33149 CHICAGO, IL 60601 ASPEN,CO 81612 BLEVINS J RONALD&PHYLLIS 320 W BLEEKER LLC GUNNING RALPH 310 W BLEEKER ST 1717 W 6TH ST#470 PO BOX 11912 ASPEN,CO 81611 AUSTIN,TX 78703 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION GUNNING JANINE L MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC 311 W MAIN ST PO BOX 11705 605 W MAIN ST#2 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 PRICE DOUGLAS CRETE ASSOCIATES LP HEINEMAN S MARLENE PO BOX 220 1062 E LANCASTER AVE#30B PO BOX 810323 CABIN JOHN,MD 20818 BRYN MAWR, PA 19010 DALLAS,TX 753810323 BROWDE KRISTEN PRATA TEMPKINS HARRY&VIVIAN CHAMBERS PETE 604 QUAKER RD 605 LINCOLN RD#301 PO BOX 220 CHAPPAQUA,NY 10514 MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139 CABIN JOHN,MD 20818 SILVERSTEIN PHILIP&ROSALYN JACOBY FAMILY LP KARP MICHAEL 25 KNOLLS CRESCENT APT 81 700 20TH ST 1630 LOCUST ST#200 BRONX,NY 10463 VERO BEACH, FL 32960 PHILADELPHIA,PA 19103 SHEEHAN WILLIAM J&NANCY E RICKEL DAVID SNYDER GARY 10 GOLF VIEW LN 275 GOLDENROD DR 8324 BROODSIDE RD FRANKFORT, IL 60423 LANDSDALE, PA 19446 ELKINS PARK,PA 19027 BOOKBINDER FISHDANCE&DELANEY LLC TWIN COASTS LTD 333 WEST BLEEKER LLC 164 LITTLE PARK RD 433 PLAZA REAL#275 PO BOX 2408 GRAND JUNCTION,CO 81503 BOCA RATON, FL 33432 ASPEN,CO 81612 331 W BLEEKER LLC TOLER MELANIE S TRUST DH ASE LLC 2727 ALLEN PKY#1400 327 W BLEEKER STREET 2711 CENTERVILLE RD#400 HOUSTON,TX 77019 ASPEN ,CO 81611 WILMINGTON,DE 19808 320 WEST MAIN LLC LEVY ROBERT I ROMANUS RAYMOND 2020 CALAMOS CT 2099 NW PINE TREE WY - 19 RIVER OAKS DR NAPERVILLE, IL 60563 STUART, FL 34994 - CALUMET CITY, IL 60409 220 WEST MAIN PARTNERS LLC SPERAW ENDEAVORS LLC TACO 2 LLC 730 E COOPER AVE PO BOX 6575 220 W MAIN ST#202 ASPEN,CO 81611 SNOWMASS VILLAGE,CO 81615 ASPEN,CO 81611 WEST MAIN VENTURES ASPEN MAIN OFFICE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN CONDOS ASSOC PO BOX 11977 220 W MAIN ST COMMON AREA ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 311 W MAIN ST ASPEN,CO 81611 WEST SIDE CONDO ASSOC GARET CONDO ASSOC INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC 234 W HOPKINS AVE 400 E MAIN ST#2 233 W MAIN ST ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC JEWISH RESOURCE CENTER CHABAD OF At HERRON APARTMENTS CONDO ASSOC 4960 CONFERENCE WY N#100 435 W MAIN ST 333 W MAIN ST BOCA RATON, FL 33431 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 SHADOWVIEW CONDO ASSOC ASPEN A CONDO ASSOC ASPEN MEDICAL CENTER CONDO ASSOC 320 W HOPKINS AVE COMMON AREA COMMON AREA ASPEN,CO 81611 308 W HOPKINS AVE W MAIN ST ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 JOSEPH RUSSELL C&ELISE E 330 WEST BLEEKER ST LLC DOUBLE D CONDO ASSOC 3682 WILLOWICK RD 1000 POTOMAC ST NW#102 300 W BLEEKER ST HOUSTON,TX 77019 WASHINGTON, DC 20007 ASPEN,CO 81611 A&H LLC TATE ELIZABETH&CHARLES WHALEN JOSHUA L&KATHRYN M 332 W MAIN ST#101 (A) 1967 PINNACLE CIR 2256 ASH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 SAINT GEORGE, UT 84790 DENVER,CO 80207 BRIEN ALICE 332 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611