Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.hpc.20180214
AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING February 14, 2018 4:30 PM City Council Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. 12:00 SITE VISITS A. Please meet at the front door of 533 E. Main. II. 4:30 INTRODUCTION A. Roll call B. Draft Minutes for January 17th & 24th 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 III. OLD BUSINESS A. 300 W. Main Street- Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Demolition, Relocation, Special Review and Variations, CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, APPLICATION WITHDRAWN IV. 4:40 NEW BUSINESS A. 4:40 104 S. Galena and 533 E. Main, St. Mary Catholic Church- Final Major Development and Final Commercial Design Review, PUBLIC HEARING B. 5:50 Summary of State Historic Preservation Conference V. 6:15 ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 1 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. 11.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JAN UARY 17, 2018 Chairperson Greenwood called the meeting to order at 4:33 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Jeffery Halferty, Willis Pember, Nora Berko, Roger Moyer, Richard Lai, Scott Kendrick. Absent was Bob Blaich. Staff present: James R. True, City Attorney Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Berko said that she is going to have to leave early. Mr. Pember commented that WPA got best of Houzz for 2017 awarded by Houzz magazine. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT: None. PROJECT MONITORING: None. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon said she is sorry for occupying so much of the board's time this month. She thanked them for the special meeting tonight and she will see everyone next week for the regular meeting as well. She is horribly remiss in forgetting to offer HPC members a chance to go to the state historic preservation conference, which is two weeks away. She said that staff goes every year to Denver and they usually have board members attend. They offer a variety of lectures and tours so please let her know and she can cover registration and hotel. She mentioned that Ms. Greenwood and Ms. Berko have been in the past and they do offer AIA credit sessions, etc. Mr. Lai said he would like to go, but has accommodations. Ms. Berko asked for the dates and Ms. Simon said it is Wednesday the 31't through Saturday and you can go for one day or multiple days. Mr. Pember asked if there was a limit to commission members going and Ms. Simon said she would see how many people are interested and she would speak to Ms. Garrow about how many people they can manage. Ms. Greenwood stated for the record that Mr. Halferty entered the meeting. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. CALL UPS: None. OLD BUSINESS: None. NEW BUSINESS: Aspen Pedestrian Mall Project APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Mike Albert of Design Workshop, Darla Callaway of Design Workshop and Tina Bishop 1 P1 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JAN UARY 17, 2018 Mr. Albert stated that the purpose of the meeting this evening is to present a few alternatives for the way forward. The alternatives have been shaped by inventory, analysis and public outreach. They will allow for dialogue and questions from board members after presenting three design alternatives focused on above grade improvements. They want to take the best attributes of each plan and put them together into one. At the end, they will share the public engagement outcomes. As of today, they are in the second of five phases; the conceptual plan. They would like feedback on the Ki Davis fountain, the crab apple trees, the south Mill improvements and on the strengthening and new connection to Durant. The project goals are to maintain historic integrity and character of the mall while upgrading the infrastructure, improve storm water, replace utilities, retain the mall as an urban park, increase the mall's accessibility and engage public and business owners so the mall can be the best benefit in the future to everyone. The results from the public surveys have guided the concepts we are presenting tonight. A lot of people think the fire pit and the Ki Davis fountain should be rethought along with the Sister Cities plaza. They asked if the mall's design should retain the color, texture, pattern and paving maintained and people strongly agreed. People also requested adding furniture and additional water features as well as at grade plantings. Ms. Callaway said the infrastructure doesn't meet current standards for storm water. She continued to explain the current issues and what they plan to do regarding the infrastructure. She explained that it is a real mixed bag regarding utilities when they were looked at underground. She talked at length about moving the utilities to different areas, such as, up against the storefronts or into the alleyways and replacing the bricks on the mall. Mike Albert took over presenting each alternative to the board and explained the historic character of the mall and the idea behind the 1976 construction. He mentioned that the prospectus was conducted in accordance with nationally recognized standards for culturally recognized landscapes. The mall was designed as a distinctive grid with four linear spaces. All alternatives remove the concrete retaining walls and barrier at the southwest corner of Cooper near Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory. Alternative 1— Stay the Course— most closely aligns to what is there on the mall today. This is mostly in the reestablishment of the trees along south Mill Street. At the corner of Hyman and north Mill, they are proposing the least impactful crosswalk. The crabapples are to be removed, boxed and salvaged and then brought back. The outdoor dining would stay underneath the trees like it is today. Along Hyman, things will appear like they are today, except the location of outdoor dining, which contemplates some dining in the middle and along the sides. The water level in the Ki Davis fountain will be brought up to the edge. There will be peripheral bike racks added. Along Cooper and Sister Cities, there would be an improvement to the playground of a nature inspired theme. There would be a removal of the fire pit that is located near Ralph Lauren as well. Alternative 2 — Community Activate — maintaining a similar strategy to what is there today, but invites people to linger longer. This would have a concrete intersection that signals to vehicles to slow down. 2 P2 11.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JAN UARY 17, 2018 The node and dancing fountain will be maintained and the crabapples would be boxed, removed and brought back. They would concentrate all outdoor dining to the middle and would make clear north and south crossings. Some people say they can't walk around the Ki Davis fountain, so this contemplates moving the curb line to the east a few feet to be able to walk on all sides of the fountain since Galena is a one way. They would also implement a seating bench on the backside of the fountain. The playground at Cooper and Sister Cities would be an imagination playground and the existing restrooms are maintained. They would remove the fire pit, but would install a low water table (18-24 inches high) and provide a sense of white noise. They would also add some seasonal plantings and bike racks. Alternative 3 — Capturing Potential - The south Mill space is the area that has changed the most over time so most of the improvements are concentrated there. The Dancing fountain would be repaired. The outdoor dining would be detached from the building, but they would maintain the center aisle. The main difference would be replacing all crabapples with a non -fruit bearing crab apple tree to steer away the bears. The Ki Davis would be rebuilt similar to option 1 and they would raise the water level. At Cooper and Sister Cities plaza, there is a desire for additional restroom space so they want to achieve a stronger connection to the park. This creates a new opening to the mall and they would add a new water feature; a misting fog. On both sides would be the playground, games court and a pavilion for adults. The restrooms would be located to the far south end. Along the middle, the path would remain open. This would be a flexible playground where kids can create their own adventure. Mr. Albert said they have reached out and had a lot of community engagement, which includes: CCLC, City Council work sessions, online surveys, stakeholder meetings, etc. He showed survey results on the screen. Mr. Moyer asked about ADA and if they will have a surface that moves through the existing bricks for people in wheelchairs and women in high heels etc. Ms. Callaway said they would be looking for an in - kind replacement of the brick and addressed in the jointing and durability of the brick. Mr. Moyer asked about the seating being placed in the center and whether that would be too much messy vitality. Ms. Callaway said they have received a lot of mixed feedback about this subject and dining in the center received the least favorability from the public. Mr. Halferty asked about the budget and if there is an exorbitant cost involved in relocating the bathroom that Mr. Pember designed. Mr. Thompson said that they do not have a range at this time until they choose a specific direction to move in and there will be many meetings on this. There are many ways to finance this and they need to weigh all options. Ms. Callaway said this will be a multiyear project so they need to make decisions as a community as to how to move forward and what times of year the work will be done, etc. Mr. Halferty said he really likes the last alternative as far as the Durant connection and asked if they could you potentially do this in the other schemes as well. Mr. Albert said yes. Mr. Woods reminded everyone that they aren't just picking one alternative, they want to combine the best parts of all plans according to what people like. Mr. Pember asked them to explain the perception of Wagner Park and it not being what people want. He said it is shocking to him. Mr. Woods explained that the original mall design had no intentional 3 P3 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JAN UARY 17, 2018 connection to Wagner Park and he noted that Mr. Pember widened that connection and the new team wants to embrace Wagner more since it has grown exponentially as a town square area. Mr. Pember said that HPC values honing in on the details and the process of discovery. He said they are adamantly opposed to "historic-ish". Ms. Bishop said they have a 68-page site analysis book. She says they did look at all original drawings and although they were DID level drawings, the mall was actually built to those drawings. They did site measurements and found that the cross sections were built exactly as drawn. The drawings were from April 1976 and show the original building and the original playground, which is all in the packet. At the time the mall was built, Wagner Park was more of a green open space and wasn't what it has evolved into today. Please be comforted by the fact that we did very detailed and thorough historical research. Mr. Pember said he would have liked to have seen the analysis in the packet. Mr. Thompson said it was presented to HPC last fall, but they would be happy to give that to him again to see. Mr. Pember said the City Council minutes should have been included in the packet also. He asked for a summary of what City Council had to say. Ms. Callaway said they are going to synthesize all comments they've heard from all boards and will bring back to present to HPC as a preferred conceptual design. Mr. Albert said there are a couple of areas that do not have consensus yet, but the minutes can be provided if that's what is needed. Mr. Pember asked if they can describe the groups who are steak holders and decision makers. Mr. Albert said there is a core team and the City of Aspen partners. The steak holders came from our team going door to door on the mall getting people involved. The steak holder meetings consist of 25-30 individuals. We don't want to stop there, we are also getting high traffic online with 70-80 participants more coming in. Mr. Pember asked if the Ski Co is involved or if ACRA is involved. Mr. Albert said yes, Mr. Klanderud has been to every meeting. Mr. Pember asked about Ruggerfest, Jazzfest & Food & Wine and if those big players are involved and Ms. Callaway said those players are coming to stakeholder meetings and they can get a list so Mr. Pember can see for himself. He asked about the clock tower being nuked and Mr. Albert said the clock tower stays in option 1 and 2, but would be removed in option 3. Ms. Greenwood said that she feels in certain areas of the mall, the space is doing too much and is too crowded. She likes the historical element being retained, but the pattern of use on Mill Street could be better designed to take congestion off of that corner. The Wheeler corner and the fountain are very busy and she feels the playground and restrooms are congested so she likes option 3. She thinks the dining should stay the same and not be in the center as it is visually disruptive. She doesn't feel that congestion is solved in options 1 and 2. Ms. Bishop reminded everyone that ideas from each option are interchangeable. Mr. Lai agrees with keeping the dining to the sides and he likes the idea of separating the bathrooms. He applauds the staff and consultants in the way they approach the design and the process. Community involvement is a strong element and he feels fortunate to be here originally 50-60 years ago and by happenstance to be here now to see it redone. As an architect and planner, he looks at the trees and plants on the mall as something that can be done easily to have labels on the trees and plants, etc. to 4 P4 11.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JAN UARY 17, 2018 provide an educational aspect. He said he is an old dog with a bone regarding the fire pit. He understands the concerns as wasteful and the police complaints, but to him; being here in Aspen, he feels they should consider having a firepit that is wood only or controlled more. People like to gather around a warm fire. There is something welcoming about it. There are also long thoroughfares throughout the mall to give numerical scores to where activities are to decide and see a pattern come up, whether linear or nodal and decide where to add more activity. Consider the independence node, it could use some type of activity and decrease the activity along Mill. Overall, he is super impressed with what has been done. Mr. Kendrick likes the idea of opening up access to Wagner Park, but is concerned with the cost of moving the bathrooms, but does think it's helpful. Regarding alternative 3, he feels there needs to be a clear delineation between the street and the mall. He would like to see a different material or pattern and doesn't like the painted crosswalk. In terms of the Ki Davis fountain, he asked about the historical details. Ms. Bishop said the fountain came before the sculpture and is considered an original contributing feature to the mall. He is not sure how much he wants to see it changed and he doesn't like the mid -way mall seating. He asked if any of the designs are going to be more impactful for businesses than the others and Ms. Callaway said that all options have equal impact. Ms. Simon clarified that this is the second update on the mall and the next step is to go to council. This is an important moment to identify likes and dislikes regarding historic preservation. On February 28tn, they will check in and move to a conceptual review hearing. Ms. Simon was at the City Council work session and she said it was hectic. There was a lot of dislike expressed for the Ki Davis fountain and the use of energy on the fire pit. Mr. Woods said that City Council liked option 3 for the most part. The one common theme heard is that Mill street is the least loved the way that it is. Ms. Simon said the other thing she wanted to remind everyone about is that the mall was designated a historic landmark last April. There has been a lot of investigation into the replacement of the bricks and this seems like the time to say your comfort level with the bricks. She also said that they need to understand the physical impacts moving the dining would have on altering the surface of the mall. She said she hopes that everyone understands all implications and uses this time to comment before the opportunity is lost. Ms. Greenwood said that she hopes the attention to detail to the bricks is important. Mr. Thompson mentioned they are running out of brick so if we were to replace them, we would need to have a huge stock pile. Ms. Greenwood thinks they need a new solution for this and disagrees with replacing the brick. Mr. Lai mentioned that it's two different things to see the brick on the ground and looking at a sample. He suggests having a sample area to see the new brick on the ground and look at different specimens. Mr. Kendrick asked if they have looked at ways to integrate the original brick into the new design. Ms. Callaway said they know there is not enough brick supply to be able to use what is there today and those bricks do not meet ADA standards. She said they aren't there in the process to that level of detail yet. 5 P5 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JAN UARY 17, 2018 Ms. Greenwood said again that they need to rethink their thinking and come up with ways to incorporate the old brick so the impact and historic aspect maintains itself because that is not happening in the proposed designs. Mr. Pember mentioned the public polling demographics. He was thinking of the older generation and their thoughts about the City of Aspen serving those who live here and the tourists being the groups to accommodate. He didn't think the people who live down valley and work in Aspen should have such a weighted opinion because those people aren't spending time in downtown Aspen on a nightly basis. He feels that the surveys are heavily skewed and this stuck out to him. The mall has a completely different character in the evening. It's not insignificant and it's a huge part of life here in Aspen. You have to be careful what lens you are looking at this problem through and it is all predicated on the users. Pay attention to the flip side of existence here; it is important. Ms. Berko exited the meeting. Mr. Albert made one important clarification. The survey question asked people to click anything that applied to them. He said 111 people took the online survey and 78 of those people live in Aspen. They set up the survey for this exact criticism. He feels that they did get a good idea of how each person feels. The community benefits by people living down valley. The business people would love to make people linger longer and make the mall the vital place that we want it to be. Regarding the restrooms, there is a mentality that it stays in place or that it stays in place until it's life is deemed over or it is determined that now is the right time. It's a financial investment and what is practical, etc. We would love to hear that if it is the right spot 50 years from now, terrific. Mr. Pember continued to talk about the attributes of the restroom building and said it is not just a bathroom. He went on to say the trees need to be thinned out because they attract bears and it doesn't seem to pop on the radar of any of these surveys. He said no one seems to care. Mr. Woods said that is not true. He said he heard loud and clear from the public that people like the flavor of a park in the community. Mr. Pember said that is not his choice, but he is not going to win any arguments against popular opinion. He suggested picking up the Ki Davis fountain and moving it for better flow. He also feels that the Durant connection is weak and said if they fix that, they will do a great service to the way the mall works. He is astonished at how they got from the RFP to the situation here today. He doesn't feel that there was a very broad group of disciplines invited to look at this RFP and no architects and very little emphasis on design and he finds this regrettable. He feels there should have been a design RFP. Ms. Greenwood agrees that there was no design follow through with an architect involved in the community as part of the solution. Mr. Rice said that when he and Mr. Woods were writing the RFP, they wanted to keep it simple regarding infrastructure, etc. He said when they went out and started presenting it to the public, it's what people were asking for. The design aspects came from listening to the public. Mr. True exited the meeting. Mr. Lai said he agrees with Mr. Pember on virtually everything. The discussion reminded him of a couple of practical things as well. What he is missing on the mall besides a bathroom are water fountains. 1.1 W. 11.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JAN UARY 17, 2018 Ms. Greenwood said she doesn't think those are very sanitary and he needs a water bottle for the water taps. He said he misses the old ambiance of times when Aspen was more accessible to younger people when you could hear students practicing around the opera house. He said he had a professor at Princeton who always insisted that every project had a night lighting diagram. This is something he would urge the design group to really study and have a consultant on. Mr. Moyer said that the overall concept is quite good in his opinion. The idea of this "messy vitality" needs to be looked at very seriously and be reconsidered. He thanked everyone and said they have done a good job. Mr. Pember suggested to the design team that they develop more narratives about the life in the mall because people understand narratives and stories to help sell their product. Ms. Bishop mentioned that she has a couple of items to clarify. She mentioned that the Ki Davis fountain has a name and it is called "Interplay" and the second thing is that at the Wagner node, someone said the pavement was never built, but yes it was. It is in aerial photographs from 1980 so she just wanted to point that out. Ms. Callaway said they want the right approach and direction from Council regarding artwork on the mall and wants the art to be determined by its own committee because it's a big discussion. MOTION: Mr. Moyer moved to adjourn, Mr. Pember seconded at 6:48 p.m. Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk 7 P7 11.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JAN UARY 24, 2018 Chairperson Greenwood called the meeting to order at 4:32 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Jeffery Halferty, Nora Berko, Roger Moyer, Willis Pember, Scott Kendrick and Richard Lai. Absent was Bob Blaich. Staff present: James R. True, City Attorney Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Moyer moved to approve, Mr. Pember seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer gave Ms. Simon a handout and has to do with mineral wool as opposed to fiberglass. He said when it gets wet, it doesn't shrink and self-destruct, it's like a wool sweater and keeps working. In the historic world with old houses, this material allows them to breath. This handout talks about why to use it and the benefits. He said sometimes the old goodies still work better than the new products and is organic. Ms. Berko thanked Ms. Simon for organizing the church visit. She said it was really fun and very impressive. DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT: None. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon will be sending around emails about the conference in Denver. She said so far that Mr. Lai, Mr. Halferty and Ms. Berko are planning to attend and asked if anyone else would like to go and to let her know by tomorrow morning. In terms of carpooling, Ms. Simon is going down Wednesday morning and coming back Friday around 3:00 p.m. if anyone wants to ride along. Monday night is a work session with City Council about HPC benefits and she has emailed the memo to everyone and hopes everyone is satisfied with how it is being presented to Council. Mr. Halferty joined the meeting. Ms. Simon said they can't have more than three board members show up to the work session so it is not considered a meeting. Mr. True said that three people are considered a meeting so he said no more than two people can attend or if they want to have more members attend, they can notice it as a public meeting. Ms. Simon said she doesn't want to do that so Ms. Greenwood and Mr. Halferty will attend and the others can watch on the webcast. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Simon did issue one for the Mesa store property. Roland and Broughton are moving into this building and they decided not to build the addition that HPC approved. They are still doing the preservation work that they promised and are doing an interior remodel, but not 0.1 11.B. the addition. It's very expensive and they have decided that the existing building can accommodate their staff. The log cabin on Main Street has withdrawn their application and will come back with a minor review with face lift type of improvements. Ms. Berko asked about the Boomerang. Ms. Simon said their only option at this point to pursue is to pick up the building permit that's been under review for some time. They have eight weeks until their rights to build are gone so it remains to be seen if they will take action. They owe 800,000 in permit fees just to pick it up. She mentioned that she and Mr. Kanipe have been in the building numerous times and the building has remained sound. PUBLIC NOTICE: None. CALL UPS: None. MOTION: Mr. Moyer motioned to continue 533 W. Hallam to March 14t", Ms. Berko seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PROJECT MONITORING: 420 E. Hyman Ave. Amy Simon Ms. Simon stated that this is a project that involves demolition and replacement of the building on the Hyman mall where CB Paws and Zocolito are located. It came through the review process several years ago and it could not be built under the current code because it was grandfathered under the previous moratorium regulations. The main floor is commercial and the second floor is a mix of commercial and affordable housing as well as a free market apartment on the top. It exceeds the size of the uses that are allowed downtown now. It is currently in for building permit and they ran into a problem with the zoning review. They have gone through a series of adjustments and some were interior or so modest that Ms. Simon and Mr. Pember, who is project monitor, approved together. As a way to shed some square footage, they are asking to more deeply recess the street facing door than what was originally approved by HPC. There are two street facing doors on the ground level on Hyman, which are both approved to be recessed three feet. One of them is a secondary access and the upper level of the building is now asking to be approximately nine feet back. They have sited guidelines in the packet which are applicable and the guidelines do ask for recessed entries, but something more in the 3-4-foot range is what the pattern typically is downtown. They feel this will create a darkened space and is not typical so they are not recommending approval. Brian Weiss of Charles Cunniffe Mr. Weiss handed out a site plan to the board showing adjacent buildings and not every recessed entry on Hyman is shown, but the ones most similar to what they are proposing. Due to permit review issues, we are proposing to recess further. One door will access the basement and one will access the second floor. Some entry ways on that street are recessed significantly more and some not so much, but with what they are proposing, he feels there is a context on the street and doesn't think it would be an outlier or that much different in terms of the surroundings. He feels this is feasible and hopes that HPC accepts it. Mr. Kendrick asked how wide the entry way is. Mr. Weiss said it is 4 ft. 10 finish to finish. It widens a bit once you get past it and is on the side of the street with the sun. Mr. Kendrick said the only example given that really relates is that of Escobar. H.B. Ms. Simon said it's possible that not everyone has the south elevation in their packet. Ms. Greenwood said she needs to see a better drawing. Ms. Berko said she doesn't understand why the public has to absorb this dark space. Mr. Weiss said the 40 square feet would get distributed among all uses. Brian this solution solves multiple issues, one of which was a square footage issue and one was an egress issue. No extra doors can enter into it so we are proposing to separate the stairs and the doors in the basement can be open whichever way we want. In tandem, it solves a square footage issue and makes Jim Pomeroy more approving of the basement space and the stair being commercial. Now it's open for the basement and there are no questions. This helps in terms of FAR calculations. Ms. Berko noted that the separation of stairs could happen at the approved space and then you would have to find your 40 ft. somewhere else. Mr. Weiss said if HPC did not approve this and the door would need to remain where it is currently approved, he would need to revisit this with Denis and he imagines that the vestibule that would be resulting, would become a non -unit space and be distributed amongst the rest of the building. That's what he believes, but hasn't confirmed that yet. Mr. Halferty asked if the store front nook display is driving the depth of the two doors and Mr. Weiss said yes, in a way it is. Mr. Pember asked what the basement use is. Mr. Weiss said it's commercial, the second floor is affordable housing and the third floor is free market residential. Ms. Greenwood asked what the door material was and how it related to the other doors of the front fagade. Mr. Weiss said it is in line with them and is steel framed. Part of that reason is that the alley side has to be fire rated. Ms. Greenwood asked what the relationship is to the door to the commercial space and the window and the door to get to the stairwell. She asked if it was all the same design concept. Mr. Weiss said yes, it was all the same material type and concept. She can't get a good reading on it from the elevations at all and doesn't have a clue what he is asking to take away from a design standpoint. Mr. Halferty mentioned a section line drawn through and asked if Mr. Weiss has a new proposed section. Mr. Weiss said they just did an overlay onto the permit drawings. Mr. Halferty asked if Mr. Weiss understands why it's confusing to the board because of the shadows and rendering lines due to sketching over the approved plan. It's a little bit difficult and confusing. Mr. Weiss said he understands. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. Ms. Greenwood said the board probably put some time into the fagade and it's really important to the public and there is a certain rhythm to the fagade and design as well as openings and doors. What they are proposing makes a puncture in the building which creates a positive/negative space, which seems odd with the size of the building. She thinks they should stick to the original approvals where consideration was given to the cadence of windows and doors. P10 11.B. Ms. Berko said she supports staff's recommendations and echoes Ms. Greenwood's comments. She said from the drawings, it feels like an alley entrance, not a main public entrance and since it's a brand new building, she wants to stick to what is required. Mr. Halferty also feels the proposal is difficult to understand. He conceptually understands it, but how it's presented doesn't make a lot of sense. Regarding the examples that were handed out, he feels that some are successful and some are daunting and dark. He said that the Escobar entrance and the Paragon entrance are confusing spaces and it's hard to understand their access. It's a challenging issue regarding egress and building code, but feels that it has not been researched or presented well. He said it's a very important fa4ade due to its location. Mr. Lai said the presentation had him really confused and he thinks he should have invested a little more time in the presentation and concurs with the majority of the board. The inference here would be at odds with the fairly uniform fagade treatment facing the mall and would like some reconsideration. Mr. Moyer concurs to stay with the original approval and not change anything. Mr. Kendrick agreed that this is too far of a departure from the original approval. He doesn't think it is something that would work and doesn't feel that most of the examples are relatable except Escobar, which is too dark and too deep. He doesn't want to see more dark Mr. Pember said he was remembering the renderings now of the original approval and said it had a nice fagade and nice contribution to the malls. He said he is afraid the solution will come back worse than this proposal. The addition of a second door in that vestibule creates a lot of complications and doesn't seem like something Denis or Jim Pomeroy will easily dismiss. This creates a more private entrance by pushing it back further, is the way he reads it. The struggle is getting two doors in there, not so much the FAR. Ms. Berko said the concern is with the visual impact on the mall. Ms. Simon said they always try to avoid problem solving, but she wondered if the board be interested in a door that is not solid with some sort of architectural metal work that still qualifies the space as unenclosed, but could be up in the plane that they were expecting. It might create the definition. The problem is that they cannot fully enclose and heat this space where the new recess is shown and this could be a compromise. It would be where the door was approved, but instead of it being a full metal door, it would be a grate of some kind. She's not positive this would solve the issue, but it's an option. Ms. Greenwood said it's not a terrible solution. Mr. Weiss agreed and said they need to have the two doors separating the stairs. He said he would need to speak with Denis in terms of exiting and how he would feel about this type of solution. Ms. Greenwood asked what the door was. Mr. Weiss said it was a glass door with a metal store front system that is 10 ft. tall. Ms. Greenwood said they need to see more detail of this and the monitor needs to show us. Ms. Simon agreed and asked if they would be open to herself and Mr. Pember looking at a different grate type of door with an openness. Ms. Greenwood said absolutely and thinks it's a very good solution. P11 11.B. Mr. Kendrick said his concern is that it won't be solving anything in terms of keeping weather out so it will most likely be blocked open the whole time. Ms. Greenwood agreed. Mr. Halferty recommended that in the new rendering, that he show an east or west side elevation so that it depicts the door is propped open or closed. Ms. Greenwood asked for a show of hands for who wants to stick with the original approvals. Ms. Simon said that they will not approve this change and that Mr. Weiss can come back to her and Mr. Pember with another idea. Mr. Moyer moved to adjourn, Mr. Kendrick seconded at 5:25 p.m. Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk P12 W.A. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 533 E. Main, St. Mary Catholic Church— Final HPC Major Development and Final Commercial Design Review, PUBLIC HEARING DATE: February 14, 2018 SUMMARY: St. Mary Catholic Church requests Final approval for a remodel of their front entry porch, a social hall addition to accommodate events and other church needs, site improvements, and an update to trash and utility areas. The property is a designated landmark and is located in the Commercial Core Historic District. The project went through a lengthy Conceptual review process in 2015/2016 primarily due to disagreement about the placement and design of the above grade portion of the new social hall. While the vast majority of the social hall will be located below grade, a roughly 1,000 square foot pavilion is to be built on the west side of the church. HPC granted Conceptual approval for "Option B," illustrated on the following page, in March 2016, however Council called up the decision, remanded the project back to HPC and the board concluded that "Option A," Council's preference, was more appropriate. After HPC Conceptual approval the project was reviewed by City Council for affordable housing mitigation and vested rights. HPC Final is the last land use consideration needed for the project. Since HPC Conceptual, for a number of reasons, the applicant decided to prioritize an interior remodel which is underway and expected to be completed in June. The interior remodel did not require HPC approval. Staff worked with the applicant through permit review and has allowed minor restoration and repair work to proceed on the exterior of the church. The project is now viewed as a two phase effort. Phase 1 is the interior remodel and re -design of the non -historic porch on the front of the building. All aspects of the social hall addition will be considered Phase 2. Council has agreed to a modest extension of the period of Vested Rights for Phase 2 so that the applicant will have five years to apply for a building permit regardless of any changes that may occur to the land use code during that period. This review is subject to the design guidelines in place at the time of application in 2015. Following is a staff evaluation of the project. Approval with conditions is recommended. APPLICANT: The Archdiocese of Denver/St. Mary's Church, represented by Charles Cunniffe Architects. ADDRESS: 104 S. Galena and 533 E. Main Street, Lots A -I, Block 93, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. PARCEL ID: 2737-073-31-801. ZONING: CC, Commercial Core. 1 P13 W.A. 3.9.2016 Option A, GRANTED CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL 3.9.2016 Option B FINAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Redevelopment of this site is subject to Major Development and Commercial Design Review, a two-step process requiring approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. HPC's 2016 Conceptual approval is binding in regards to the location and form of the addition 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. Final review focuses on landscape plan, lighting, fenestration, and selection of new materials. The applicable design guidelines are attached as Exhibit A and are found in the 2015 Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and the 2007 Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines; Commercial Core Historic District chapter. The guideline versions to be applied were determined by what was in effect at the time the Conceptual application was submitted, in August 2015. Again, the scope of work to be considered now by HPC includes the front entry to the church, the social hall addition, and site improvements. 2 P14 W.A. Front Entry The church originally had no protected entry, as shown in the image to the right. The existing porch is the third or fourth version of a sheltered entry that has existed on the building. In 2016, the applicant initially proposed to remove the current entry porch and develop a new design, however it has been decided that improvements can be made to the existing feature. The porch canopy is to remain in place, but the existing metal shingles will be replaced with wood shingles. The entire church was originally roofed with wood shingles. Restoration of that material on the original structure is not currently in the budget and raises some structural challenges. The soffit of the porch roof will be altered to expose more of the historic entry doors. The entry stairs are to be reconfigured so that the porch stoop can be accessed from the east and west, as it is now, and also directly towards Main Street. The existing masonry wrapped porch columns will be replaced with pairs of squared wood timbers and the handrails are to be replaced. A new pendant light is to be added above the entry doors. Staff finds the applicant's proposal to be appropriate in that it causes no new alteration to the building or damage to historic masonry and the proposal is simple and distinguishable as an alteration to the historic structure. An image of the current entry porch is shown at left. Staff does recommend HPC discuss whether the new stairs should in fact wrap around the base of the porch or whether the stairs facing east, west and P15 IV.A. north should die into the porch posts, which might be considered to be a somewhat more traditional configuration. Staff recommends staff and monitor review and approve more detailed drawings of the proposed front hand rails to ensure that they are "of this time" yet still sensitive to the scale and character of historic detailing found on the church. Flanking the front porch, the applicant proposes to restore two fixed windows to double hung windows. This restoration work is appropriate. Cut sheets of the new windows require review and approval prior to building permit issuance. Social Hall addition The design and placement of the above grade pavilion associated with social hall was discussed at length during Conceptual Review. Staff finds the Final proposal to be consistent with the approval to date. One adjustment that has been made is that the trash enclosure was previously to sit on the east side of the pavilion and has now been shifted to the back of the space, directly along the alley. The pavilion is primarily glass on the north elevation, facing Main Street. The resulting transparency reduces the visual impact of the addition. Where brick is introduced on this fagade it is in the form of a perforated screen wall. (Please note that the screen wall is interpreted by Zoning to be a fence, limited to 6 feet in height. A modification will likely need to be reviewed by staff and monitor so that the wall is considered to be integral to the pavilion structure and can proceed in a form similar to the proposal.) There are two aspects of the addition which staff finds warrant discussion; 1) the applicant must verify that horizontal mullions on the north face of the addition align with horizontal mullions or other elements on the church structure and 2) the way in which the connector attaches to the historic structure requires detailed review to avoid unnecessary irreversible damage to the masonry. These topics are addressed through conditions of approval. Additionally, a specific brick sample must be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor as part of Phase 2 permit review. HPC has typically preferred a brick which relates to the color of the historic masonry but has a more crisp profile or different dimension. Staff finds that the addition meets the historic preservation guidelines related to compatibility. Many of the Commercial Design Review guidelines in Exhibit A address the development of buildings and storefronts fronting a sidewalk and are not applicable to this project. The decision to place most of the new social hall space below grade is sensitive to historic preservation concerns. Site improvements The social hall addition requires some modifications to the open yard on the west side of the church. Minor walkway reconfigurations are needed, new egress stairwells to the basement will be added and there will be new site lighting and landscape plantings, all detailed in the application. Staff finds no conflict with the design guidelines. Historic lilacs along Main Street and the alley are to be preserved to the extent possible. 4 P16 IV.A. The social hall addition will include a new trash and recycling enclosure and the relocation of the existing transformer further west of its current alley -side location. The applicant expects to maintain the existing conditions for the trash and transformer until such time that the addition is built. The HPC may: • approve the application, • approve the application with conditions, • disapprove the application, or • continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC approve the application with the following conditions: 1. Prior to submittal for building permit, restudy the front porch so that the stairs facing east, west and north die into the posts instead of wrapping around the corners, for review and approval by staff and monitor. 2. The revisions to the porch steps pointing towards Main Street may require the approval of an encroachment license by Engineering. 3. Prior to submittal for building permit, provide more detailed drawings of the proposed front porch hand rails for review and approval by staff and monitor. 4. Prior to submittal for building permit, provide cut sheets of the new windows on the north fagade for review and approval by staff. 5. Prior to submittal for building permit, provide a proposed modification to the screen wall on the north side of the pavilion which complies with height limits. The modification requires review and approval by staff and monitor. 6. Prior to submittal for building permit, verify that horizontal mullions on the north face of the addition align with horizontal mullions or other elements on the church structure, for review and approval by staff and monitor. 7. Prior to submittal for building permit, more detail on the way in which the connector attaches to the historic structure require requires review and approval by staff and monitor to avoid unnecessary irreversible damage to the masonry. 8. Prior to submittal for building permit, a specific brick sample must be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor as part of Phase 2 permit review. HPC has typically preferred a brick which relates to the color of the historic masonry but has a more crisp profile or different dimension. 5 P17 W.A. 9. The possible relocation of the transformer further west along the alley, and improvements to the existing driveway, such as installation of a grass paver surface, may require additional input or approvals by City Departments such as Engineering and Parks. 10. Any commitments, such as bicycle racks and trip reduction measures, made in the TIA/MMLOS submitted for HPC Conceptual Review and not completed as part of the recent sidewalk improvements may be required as part of any building permit related to Phase 2 of this project. 11. Per Council Ordinance #12, Series of 2017, no later than fourteen (14) days following Final Major Development approval by the Historic Preservation Commission, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to Chapter 26.308, Vested Property Rights. Pursuant to § 26.304.070(A), Development Orders, such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of five (5) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 104 S. Galena Street and 533 E. Main Street, St. Mary's Catholic Church, Lots A -I, Block 93, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the Development Order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this Ordinance of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this Ordinance. The vested rights granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review. The period of time permitted by law to exercise the right of referendum to refer to the electorate this Section of this Ordinance granting vested rights; or, to seek judicial review of the grant of vested rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as set forth above. The rights of referendum described herein shall be no greater than those set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. EXHIBITS: HPC Resolution #_, Series of 2018 A. Relevant Design Guidelines. B. Application. C. HPC Conceptual approval resolution (later revised to approved "Option A" rather than "Option B." D. City Council Growth Management and Vested Rights approval ordinance V W.A. Exhibit A, Relevant Design Guidelines Historic Preservation Guidelines 1.1 Preserve original fences. q Replace only those portions that are deteriorated beyond repair. Replacement elements should match the existing fence. 1.9 Maintain the established progression of public -to -private spaces when considering a rehabilitation project. q This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk, proceeding along a "semi-public" walkway, to a "semi -private" porch or entry feature and ending in the "private" spaces beyond. q Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry. Meandering walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree. q Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style. Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles. 1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic structures. q The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material and sod, and not covered with paving, for example. 1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. q Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replacement of damaged, aged or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department. q If a tree must be removed as part of the addition or alteration, replace it with species of a large enough scale to have a visual impact in the early years of the project. 1.12 Preserve and maintain historically significant planting designs. q Retaining historic planting beds, landscape features and walkways is encouraged. 1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context of the site. q Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term impact of mature growth. q Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent. q Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials. 1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures are inappropriate. q Do not plant climbing ivy or trees too close to a building. New trees should be no closer than the mature canopy size. q Do not locate plants or trees in locations that will obscure significant architectural features or block views to the building. q It is not appropriate to plant a hedge row that will block views into the yard. 1.15 Minimize the visual impacts of site lighting. q Site lighting should be shielded to avoid glare onto adjacent properties. Focus lighting on walks and entries, rather than up into trees and onto facade planes. 1.16 Preserve historically significant landscape designs and features. q This includes the arrangement of trees, shrubs, plant beds, irrigation ditches and sidewalks in the public right-of-way. 7 P19 W.A. 5.5 If porch replacement is necessary, reconstruct it to match the original in form and detail. q Use materials that appear similar to the original. q While matching original materials is preferred, when detailed correctly and painted appropriately, alternative materials may be considered. q Where no evidence of the appearance of the historic porch exists, a new porch may be considered that is similar in character to those found on comparable buildings. Keep the style and form simple. Also, avoid applying decorative elements that are not known to have been used on the house or others like it. q When constructing a new porch, its depth should be in scale with the building. q The scale of porch columns also should be similar to that of the trimwork. q The height of the railing and the spacing of balusters should appear similar to those used historically as well. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. q A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. q An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. q An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. q An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. q An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. q A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. q The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials. COMMERCIAL, LODGING AND HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN OBJECTIVES AND GUIDELINES, COMMERCIAL CORE HISTORIC DISTRICT- FINAL REVIEW (Replaces Chapter 13 of the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines) 6.36 The detailed design of the building faVade should reflect the traditional scale and rhythm of the block. This should be achieved using all of the following: q The fenestration grouping q The modeling of the fagade q The design framework for the first floor storefront q Variation in architectural detail and/or the palette of fagade materials 6.40 Maintain the repetition of similar shapes and details along the block. q Upper story windows should have a vertical emphasis. In general, they should be twice as tall as they are wide. 8 P20 IV.A. q Headers and sills of windows on new buildings should maintain the traditional placement relative to cornices and belt courses. 6.42 The general alignment of horizontal features on building fronts should be maintained. q Typical elements that align include window moldings, tops of display windows, cornices, copings and parapets at the tops of buildings. q When large buildings are designed to appear as several buildings, there should be some slight variation in alignments between the facade elements. 6.50 Window area along the first floor shall be a minimum of 60% of exterior street facade area when facing principal street(s). 6.53 Side and rear building faVades should be designed and articulated to reduce the apparent scale of the building and create visual interest. 6.59 High quality, durable materials should be employed. q The palette of materials proposed for all development should be specified and approved as part of the general and detailed development approvals process, including samples of materials as required. 6.60 Building materials should have these features: q Convey the quality and range of materials seen historically q Reduce the scale and enhance visual interest q Convey human scale q Have proven durability and weathering characteristics within this climate 6.61 The palette of materials used for new buildings within the core should reflect the predominantly masonry (brickwork and natural stonework) palette of this area. 6.62 A building or additions to a building should reflect the quality and the variation traditionally found in these materials within the central commercial core. 6.63 Where contemporary materials are used they shall be: q High quality in durability and finish q Detailed to convey a human scale q Compatible with a traditional masonry palette 6.65 Paving and landscaping should be designed to complement and enhance the immediate setting of the building and area. 14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that used traditionally. q The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be approved by the HPC. q All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence. 14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting. q Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upward will not be permitted. q Shield lighting associated with service areas, parking lots and parking structures. q Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by controlling the length of time that exterior lights are in use late at night. q Do not wash an entire building facade in light. q Avoid placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper walls of buildings. q Avoid duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that light the same area. 14.8 Minimize the visual impact of light spill from a building. 9 P21 W.A. • Prevent glare onto adjacent properties by using shielded and focused light sources that direct light onto the ground. The use of downlights, with the bulb fully enclosed within the shade, or step lights which direct light only on to walkways, is strongly encouraged. • Lighting shall be carefully located so as not to shine into residential living space, on or off the property or into public rights -of -way. 14.14 Minimize the visual impacts of service areas as seen from the street. • When it is feasible, screen service areas from view, especially those associated with commercial and multifamily developments. • This includes locations for trash containers and loading docks. • Service areas should be accessed off of the alley, if one exists. 14.15 Minimize the visual impacts of mechanical equipment as seen from the public way. • Mechanical equipment may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does not create a negative visual impact. • Mechanical equipment or vents on a roof must be grouped together to minimize their visual impact. Where rooftop units are visible, provide screening with materials that are compatible with those of the building itself. • Screen ground -mounted units with fences, stone walls or hedges. • A window air conditioning unit may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does not create a negative visual impact. • Use low -profile mechanical units on rooftops so they will not be visible from the street or alley. Also minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Use smaller satellite dishes and mount them low to the ground and away from front yards, significant building facades or highly visible roof planes. • Paint telecommunications and mechanical equipment in muted colors that will minimize their appearance by blending with their backgrounds. 14.16 Locate standpipes, meters and other service equipment such that they will not damage historic facade materials. • Cutting channels into historic facade materials damages the historic building fabric and is inappropriate. Do not locate equipment on the front facade. • If a channel must be cut, either locate it on a secondary facade, or place it low on the wall. 10 P22 W.A. RESOLUTION #_ (SERIES OF 2018) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION GRANTING FINAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND FINAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR 533 E. MAIN STREET, LOTS A -I, BLOCK 93, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Parcel ID: 2737-073-31-801 WHEREAS, on June 6, 2017, the Community Development Department received an application from The Archdiocese of Denver/St. Mary Catholic Church, represented by Charles Cunniffe Architects and Stan Clauson Associates for the following land use review approvals: Final Major Development and Final Commercial Design review; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Application and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.304, Common Development Review Procedures, and Section 26.304.060.B.4, Modification of Review Procedures, all necessary land use reviews, as identified herein, have been combined to be considered by the Historic Preservation Commission at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director; and, WHEREAS, such combination of review procedures was done to ensure clarity of review, was accomplished with all required public noticing provided as evidenced by an affidavit of public noticing submitted to the record, and the public was provided a thorough and full review of the proposed development; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the Application at a duly noticed public hearing on February 14, 2018, during which time the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were requested and heard by the Historic Preservation Commission; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February 14, 2018, the Historic Preservation Commission approved Resolution #_, Series of 2018, by a _ to _ vote, granting approval with the conditions listed hereinafter. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Historic Preservation Commission hereby grants Final Major Development and Final Commercial Design Review approval with the following conditions: 1. Prior to submittal for building permit, restudy the front porch so that the stairs facing east, west and north die into the posts instead of wrapping around the corners, for review and approval by staff and monitor. Historic Preservation Commission Resolution #_, Series 2018 Page 1 of 3 P23 W.A. 2. The revisions to the porch steps pointing towards Main Street may require the approval of an encroachment license by Engineering. 3. Prior to submittal for building permit, provide more detailed drawings of the proposed front porch hand rails for review and approval by staff and monitor. 4. Prior to submittal for building permit, provide cut sheets of the new windows on the north fagade for review and approval by staff. 5. Prior to submittal for building permit, provide a proposed modification to the screen wall on the north side of the pavilion which complies with height limits. The modification requires review and approval by staff and monitor. 6. Prior to submittal for building permit, verify that horizontal mullions on the north face of the addition align with horizontal mullions or other elements on the church structure, for review and approval by staff and monitor. 7. Prior to submittal for building permit, more detail on the way in which the connector attaches to the historic structure require requires review and approval by staff and monitor to avoid unnecessary irreversible damage to the masonry. 8. Prior to submittal for building permit, a specific brick sample must be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor as part of Phase 2 permit review. HPC has typically preferred a brick which relates to the color of the historic masonry but has a more crisp profile or different dimension. 9. The possible relocation of the transformer further west along the alley, and improvements to the existing driveway, such as installation of a grass paver surface, may require additional input or approvals by City Departments such as Engineering and Parks. 10. Any commitments, such as bicycle racks and trip reduction measures, made in the TWMMLOS submitted for HPC Conceptual Review and not completed as part of the recent sidewalk improvements may be required as part of any building permit related to Phase 2 of this project. 11. Per Council Ordinance #12, Series of 2017, no later than fourteen (14) days following Final Major Development approval by the Historic Preservation Commission, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to Chapter 26.308, Vested Property Rights. Pursuant to § 26.304.070(A), Development Orders, such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of five (5) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 104 S. Galena Street and 533 E. Main Street, St. Mary's Catholic Church, Lots A -I, Block 93, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the Development Order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this Ordinance of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this Ordinance. Historic Preservation Commission Resolution #_, Series 2018 Page 2 of 3 P24 W.A. The vested rights granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review. The period of time permitted by law to exercise the right of referendum to refer to the electorate this Section of this Ordinance granting vested rights; or, to seek judicial review of the grant of vested rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as set forth above. The rights of referendum described herein shall be no greater than those set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department and the Historic Preservation Commission are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. Section 3• This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 14th day of February, 2018. Approved as to form: James R. True, City Attorney Attest: Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Approved as to content: Gretchen Greenwood, Chair Historic Preservation Commission Resolution #_, Series 2018 Page 3 of 3 P25 STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES INC landscape architecture. planning. resort design 412 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 t.970/925-2323 f.970/92o-1628 info@scaplanning.com www.scaplanning.com 10 November 2017 Ms. Amy Simon Historic Preservation Officer City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street, 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 RE: St. Mary / Supplemental Submission - Final HPC Final Maior Development Dear Amy: On behalf of our client, St. Mary Catholic Church and the Archdiocese of Denver, please accept the enclosed architectural plans supplementing the Final Major Development application submitted to you on 2 June 2017. The revised architectural plans are submitted in response to feedback from the Community Development Department which provided that the plans initially submitted with the application in June were not consistent with conceptual approvals. While the modifications to the plans submitted in June were entirely related to meeting Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements for the steel and glass connector to the pavilion from the west facade of the church, the revised plans are fully consistent with conceptual approvals and describe proposed material finishes of these elements. The enclosed plans also illustrate the historically appropriate changes to the main entry of the church. These changes have been discussed with you and in some cases, such as the restoration of the side entry doors, have already been approved. Following is a review of the most pertinent supplemental plans: Sheet No. 2, Proposed Canopy North and East Elevation The proposed enhancements to the entry will cause no additional impacts to the historic fagade of the church. The existing canopy is proposed to be re -roofed utilizing wood shingles, an historically appropriate roofing material which will replace the existing metal roof on the canopy. The interior structure of the canopy has been reduced to allow for greater visibility while under the canopy of the stained-glass transom window depicting the 100th anniversary of the parish. Finally, as previously approved by you, the plans illustrate how the side doors on both the eastern and western ends of the church will be restored to historic conditions by refinishing and repainting the doors and replacing the polycarbonate in the transom with glass. Sheet No. 3, Enlarged Front Porch Plans The entry stairs will be reconfigured to allow for access on three sides, greatly improving ingress and egress to the church. The revised stair configuration has been approved by the Engineering Department and is more consistent with how the church was originally accessed which provided a direct connection to Main Street. These enhancements will complement the previously completed pedestrian improvements made adjacent to the entry as required by the interior remodel of the church. Sheet No. 7, Proposed North Elevation P26 W.A. Ms. Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer City of Aspen Community Development Department Supplemental Submission - Final HPC Final Major Development 10 November 2017 Page 12 In addition to the re -roofing of the canopy and the reconfiguration of the entry stairs, _ the brick columns supporting the canopy will be replaced with lighter timber columns, reducing the mass of the entrance canopy. The outer double hung windows will be restored to functioning windows, as originally intended. Previously, these windows had been converted into glazed niches that held non -historic statuary. Sheet No. 9, Approved West Elevation In conformance with conceptual approval, the approved pavilion will be accessed through a newly created door and enclosed steel and glass connection. The doors will match existing doors present in the church. To allow emergency egress from the subgrade parish hall, a new egress stair will be added to the south of the steel and glass connection. Sheet No. 12, Approved Site Plan The footprint of the pavilion on Sheet No. 12 is the same configuration as approved at conceptual. The Final HPC application submitted on 2 June 2017 featured a modified site plan that provided a fully compliant ADA access from the church to the pavilion. This fully compliant connection necessitated additional modifications to the approved pavilion on the western end. The Community Development Department deemed these modifications to be inconsistent with the conceptual approval. The site plan included here provides a glass and steel connection that, while not fully ADA compliant, is within acceptable tolerances as provided by the City of Aspen Chief Building Official. The pavilion meets all applicable courthouse view planes. Following discussions with the Community Development Department, the pavilion has been raised one (1) foot to accommodate an appropriate access gradient. No other modifications have been made to the approved site plan other than minor enhancements including integrated benches, landscape areas, and materiality development, in the form of a perforated brick screen, which is more fully reviewed on Sheet Nos. 17 and 20. Sheet No. 17, Pavilion Elevations The elevations of the pavilion shown are consistent with the conceptual approval. The north elevation, which is the most visible elevation, features steel and glass for much of the connecting element. The glass wall will enable views through the site while also providing a light and an unimposing connection to the pavilion. The pavilion features a perforated brick screen on the western end which adds texture and visual interest while continuing the notion of transparency. The introduction of texture allows the pavilion to stand by itself, privileging the historic resource. Subtle integrated benches will allow outdoor seating for parish functions. The west and east elevations will be minimally visible. • Sheet No. 20, Material Study Material samples will be provided at the public hearing. • Sheet 21, Exterior Lighting Proposed lighting fixtures are shown and the location the fixtures is to be used illustrated through photographs. The proposed fixtures will meet all applicable City of Aspen lighting standards and replace the rather utilitarian fixtures currently in use. P27 W.A. Ms. Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer City of Aspen Community Development Department Supplemental Submission - Final HPC Final Major Development 10 November 2017 Page 13 We look forward to presenting the attached plans to the HPC. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Very truly yours, Patrick S. Rawley, AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachments P28 W.A. LAND USE APPLICATION HISTORIC PRESERVATION FINAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT St. Mary Catholic Church / Archdiocese of Denver 2 June 2017 Location: 533 E. Main Street, Aspen, Colorado (PID# 273707331801) :A3Y NG C*ojmcH ELEVATOR AZVMrN SOVAL 14ALL VWrKY Et a10T-EE MOV" NG REOTORY An application for Historic Preservation Final Major Development for an addition to the existing church for special events and other parish functions. Represented By: STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATESiNc - landscape architectureplanning. resort design 412 North Mill Street Aspen. Colorado S16it t.97o19z5•2323 f.970/920-1628 info®scaplanning.com w .scaplanning.com P29 W.A. TABLE OF CONTENTS ■ Project Overview, Code Response, and Historic Preservation Design Guideline Response ■ Attachment 2 - Land Use Application ■ Attachment 3 - Dimensional Requirements Form ■ Attachment 4 - Vicinity Map, Property Description, and Visual Description of Site Context ■ Attachment 5 - Existing Conditions Survey ■ Attachment 6 - Architectural Plans & Renderings ■ Attachment 7 -Transportation Impact Analysis ■ Attachment 8 - Proof of Ownership ■ Attachment 9 - Letter of Authorization ■ Attachment 10 - Homeowner Association Compliance Policy ■ Attachment 11 - Previous Approvals • Attachment 12 - Property Owners within 300' ■ Attachment 13 - Pre -Application Conference Summary St. Mary Catholic Church / Historic Preservation Final Major Development 533 E. Main Street, Aspen (PID# 273707331801) P30 W.A. PROJECT OVERVIEW This application is submitted for Historic Preservation Final Major Development in connection with the expansion and modification of certain exterior features of St. Mary Catholic Church (the "Church"). The Church proposes to complete this project in two phases. Phase One will involve the modification of the front steps of the Church which will improve circulation and more closely approximate historic conditions of the steps. Phase One also involves the modification of the lighting provided adjacent to the Main Street entrance as well as to the entrance located off the alley. Phase Two will involve providing additional meeting space for regular parish activities and occasional special events. The additional space contemplated in Phase Two will be located partially above grade, to the west of the historic Church, with a majority of development being located in a below grade parish hall. The Church is situated on the corner of Main Street and Hunter Street within the Commercial Core zone district of the City of Aspen and is also located the Main Street Historic District. This application is prepared in conformance with pre -application conference summary dated 23 May 2017. Conceptual Major Development, Special Review for parking, and Viewplane Exemption was approved by the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission on 8 June 2016 by Resolution # 19, Series of 2016. The Conceptual Approval was granted following the City Council conducted call-up review of an initial HPC approval which approved the above grade portions of the addition to the Church to be located adjacent to Main Street. The proposed development presented in this application has been slightly modified from Conceptual approval. The trash and utility enclosure has been reoriented to provide better accessibility and functionally. The trash and utility enclosure is still located immediately off the alley, behind the proposed above grade portion of the parish meeting space, and complies with applicable code requirements. Growth Management and Vested Rights for an Essential Public Facility was approved by City Council on 8 May 2017 by Ordinance # 12, Series of 2017. Ordinance # 12 conditioned that, two (2) years after a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) for the parish hall expansion is issued, an employee audit would be conducted showing the current FTE head count at that time. If additional employees beyond the 3.575 FTEs represented by the Church as the current staffing of the parish are identified, mitigation would be required to be provided at the rate the Municipal Code stipulated at the time of Growth Management approval. Ordinance # 12 also conditioned that, following. HPC Final Major Development approval and the issuance of a Development Order, Vested Property Rights will be valid for a period of five (5) years. The Church plays a unique role in the Community. Beyond being a living touchstone to Aspen's mining, ranching, and early resort development days, with many current parishioners coming from families that were integral to the development of Aspen, the Church also provides many community based functions, the most visible being the annual St. Patrick's Day celebration. The creation of a largely subgrade parish social hall will provide badly needed space to current parish programs, which consist of, but are not limited to, religious education classes, various parish meetings, AA and AI -anon meetings, the Aspen Homeless Shelter, and occasional special speaking engagements. The Church currently consists of the historic 10,950 SF church, the historic 3,160 SF rectory, and a 2,254 SF garage/parish employee housing unit. Due to the limited space and the active parish calendar, parish events are often forced to be held in less than ideal circumstances; religious education classes held in the hallway and constant setup and take down to get ready for the next event. The additional space will provide approximately 9,000 SF of new meeting space, of which only 1,000 SF of new floor area will be added in the above grade addition. The Church has worked to design a project that meets City goals with respect to redeveloping a historic building and that provides for the important civic uses pursued by the parish. St. Mary Catholic Church / Historic Preservation Final Major Development 533 E. Main Street, Aspen (PID# 273707331801) 1 1 Page P31 W.A. Land Use Code Responses 26.415.070. Development involving designated historic property or property within a historic district. No building, structure or landscape shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or a property located within a Historic District until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review. An application for a building permit cannot be submitted without a development order. This application for Historic Preservation Final Major Development for a designated historic property located with the Main Street Historic District is submitted to the City of Aspen Community Development Department for completeness review and to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) in accordance with established procedures for review and approval. 4. Final development plan review. a) An application for a final development plan shall include: (1) The general application information required in Section 26.304.030. (2) Final drawings of all proposed structures(s) and/or addition(s) included as part of the development at 1/4" =1.0' scale. (3) An accurate representation of all major building materials to be used in the development, depicted through samples or photographs. (4) A statement, including narrative text or graphics, indicating how the final development plan conforms to representations made or stipulations placed as a condition of the approval of the conceptual development plan. This application for Historic Preservation Final Major Development contains the required materials for a final development plan review. In addition to the architectural plans, which will include accurate representations of all major building materials, physical samples will be made available to the HPC for their inspection at the public hearing. 26.575.20 Calculations and Measurements A. Purpose. This section sets forth methods for measuring floor area, height, setbacks, and other dimensional aspects of development and describes certain allowances, requirements and other prescriptions for a range of structural components, such as porches, balconies, garages, chimneys, mechanical equipment, projections into setbacks, etc. The definitions of the terms are set forth at Section 26.104.100 —Definitions. The Church is located in the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District of the City of Aspen. Staff has provided that the Church is a civic use and is therefore permitted a floor area ratio of 2.75:1 or up to 74,250 SF of floor area. The existing floor area is approximately 16,365 SF and the proposed new floor area is approximately 19,000 SF, making the total development well below the maximum possible. There are no setback requirements applicable to this property and no minimum public amenity or open space required. C. Measuring Net Lot Area. A property's development rights are derived from Net Lot Area. This is a number that accounts for the presence of steep slopes, easements, areas under water, and similar features of a property. St. Mary Catholic Church / Historic Preservation Final Major Development 533 E. Main Street, Aspen (PID# 273707331801) 2 1 Page P32 W.A. The Church property consists of 27,00 SF. No steep slopes, easements, areas under water, or other similar features exist on the site. D. Measuring Floor Area. In measuring floor areas for floor area ratio and allowable floor area, the following applies: 1. General. Floor area shall be attributed to the lot or parcel upon which it is developed. In measuring a building for the purposes of calculating floor area ratio and allowable floor area, there shall be included all areas within the surrounding exterior walls of the building. When measuring from the exterior walls, the measurement shall be taken from the exterior face of framing, exterior face of structural block, exterior face of straw bale, or similar exterior surface of the nominal structure excluding sheathing, vapor barrier, weatherproofing membrane, exterior -mounted insulation systems, and excluding all exterior veneer and surface treatments such as stone, stucco, bricks, shingles, clapboards or other similar exterior veneer treatments. The existing Church contains 16,365 SF of floor area. Proposed additional floor area, which is generally contained in the small above grade portion of the proposed development, is 1,000 SF. Total floor area will be 17,365 SF. E. Measuring Setbacks. There are no setback requirements applicable to this property F. Measuring Building Heights. 1. For properties in the Commercial Core (CC), Commercial (Cl), Commercial Lodge (CL), Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Service Commercial Industrial (SCI) Zone Districts, the height of the building shall be the maximum distance between the ground and the highest point of the roof top, roof ridge, parapet, or top -most portion of the structure. The heights of the existing structures located on the property are not being modified. The proposed above grade portion of the parish hall will be 17' 1 " from main level to top of roof. The above grade portion of the parish hall meets the applicable Courthouse 1 and 2 view planes and the height is consistent with the maximum height reviewed by HPC at Conceptual approval. G. Measuring Site coverage. Site coverage is typically expressed as a percentage. When calculating site coverage of a structure or building, the exterior walls of the structure or building at ground level should be used. When measuring to the exterior walls, the measurement shall be taken from the exterior face of framing, exterior face of structural block, or similar exterior surface of the nominal structure excluding sheathing, vapor barrier, weatherproofing membrane, exterior -mounted insulation systems, and excluding all exterior veneer and surface treatments such as stone, stucco, bricks, shingles, clapboards or other similar exterior veneer treatments. Porches, roofs or balcony overhangs, cantilevered building elements and similar features extending directly over grade shall be excluded from maximum allowable site coverage calculations. Not applicable. 26.630.040 Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. Review Procedures B. Approved Trip Reduction Measures. Trip reduction measures, also known as Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Multi -Modal Level of Service (MMLOS) measures, which are approved and implemented for a development pursuant to the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines shall be maintained for the life of the development. All requirements shall be incorporated in the project's Development Agreement. St. Mary Catholic Church / Historic Preservation Final Major Development 533 E. Main Street, Aspen (PID# 273707331801) 31Page P33 W.A. The Church has previously submitted a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) at Conceptual review. A copy of this TIA has been made a part of this application. The TDM and MMLOS measures identified in the TIA fully mitigate generated trips created by the proposed development. These measures included providing new sidewalks, improving the pedestrian safety of the existing curb cut which provides access to the property, as well as providing bicycle parking. These measures will be incorporated into the proposed development. 26.710.140 Commercial Core (CC). A. Purpose. The Commercial Core (CC) serves as the highest intensity commercial area, fulfilling the policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan geared towards a strong and sustainable local and visitor economy, a diversity of commercial opportunities and the maintenance of Aspen's historic character. The CC zone provides for the use of land for retail, service, commercial, and institutional purposes within mixed -use buildings oriented to local and tourist populations. The balance of uses is designed to enhance the business and commercial character in the historic core of the City and provide commercial opportunities proximate to multi -modal transit infrastructure. This mix of uses creates economic, cultural social vitality, St. Mary Catholic Church is a vital and cherished civic use compatible with the intent of the CC zone district. The proposed development has been sensitively sited to ensure the Historic Church remains the most prominent structure on the site. The proposed development will serve to support the functions of the parish which provides many community oriented services and will meet the space needs of a very active parish community. (5) Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted by right in the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District: The existing and proposed uses are permitted uses of the CC Zone District. C. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District. The dimensional standards and allotments provided in this section for commercial and mixed -use developments are the maximum allowable for the zone and may not be achieved for all developments. Site constraints, historic resources, on -site mitigation and replacement requirements, and other factors may prevent development from achieving some or all of the maximum allowable dimensional standards. 1. Minimum Gross Lot Area (square feet): No requirement. 2. Minimum Net Lot Area per dwelling unit (square feet): No requirement. 3. Minimum lot width (feet): No requirement. 4. Minimum front yard setback (feet): No requirement. 5. Minimum side yard setback (feet): No requirement. 6. Minimum rear yard setback (feet): No requirement 7. Minimum utility/trash/recycle area: Pursuant to Chapter 12.06. Trash and utility area has been reoriented to provide better accessibility. The trash and utility area meets minimum requirements per Environmental Health. 8. Maximum height (feet): Twenty-eight (28) feet. The proposed above grade portion of the new development is 17' 1 ". Existing height on the other structure located on the property will not be modified. St. Mary Catholic Church / Historic Preservation Final Major Development 533 E. Main Street, Aspen (PID# 273707331801) 4 1 Page P34 IV.A. 9. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot (feet): No requirement. 10. Public amenity space: Pursuant to Section 26.412. Not applicable. 11. Floor area ratio (FAR): The following FAR schedule applies to uses cumulatively up to a total maximum FAR of 2.25:1. The Church is located in the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District of the City of Aspen. Staff has provided that the Church is a civic use and is therefore permitted a floor area ratio of 2.75:1 or up to 74,250 SF of floor area. The existing floor area is approximately 16,365 SF and the proposed new floor area is 17,365 SF, making the total development well below the maximum possible. There are no setback requirements applicable to this property and no minimum public amenity or open space required. 12. Maximum lodge unit size (square feet): 1,500. When units are comprised of lock -off units, this maximum shall apply to the largest possible combination of units. Not applicable. 13. Net Livable Area (square feet): Not applicable. 14. Commercial/residential ratio: When development includes mixed -uses, the total residential net livable area shall be no greater than 65% of the total above -grade commercial net leasable and lodge net livable area on the same parcel. Not applicable. St. Mary Catholic Church / Historic Preservation Final Major Development 533 E. Main Street, Aspen (PID# 273707331801) 5 1 Page P35 W.A. Historic Preservation Design Guideline Responses 1.1 Preserve original fences. Replace only those portions that are deteriorated beyond repair. Replacement elements should match the existing fence. The proposed project will preserve any fencing that is considered historically significant to the site, when possible, notably the existing low wrought iron fence. Repairs or replacement of fencing will consider the historical significance of the fence prior to doing such repairs/replacement. Repairs will only occur when necessary and will be done to match existing conditions. 1.9 Maintain the established progression of public -to -private spaces when considering a rehabilitation project. • This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk, proceeding along a "semi public" walkway, to a "semi -private" porch or entry feature and ending in the "private" spaces beyond. • Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry. Meandering walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree. • Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style. Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles. The historic hierarchy of spaces will be maintained in the proposed project. Access is clearly gained to the project from the public sidewalk off of Main Street. A reconfigured front stairway will be provided in Phase One that will improve accessibility and more closely approximate historic conditions. The proposed landscaping as well as the architecture will direct visitors to the primary entrance or to an existing secondary entrance, which provides elevator access off of the semi -private courtyard on the west side of the church. The main walkway is perpendicular from Main Street. A reconfigured front stairway will be provided in Phase One that will improve accessibility and more closely approximate historic conditions. Internal walkways do not meander and terminate at gathering spaces or secondary entrances. Materials used for the walkways will be similar to those used historically. The width of the walkways will be a minimum of 6 feet and exceed the standards set by ADA. 1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic structures. • The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material and sod, and not covered with paving, for example. The proposed landscape design will be appropriate for the project site and will maintain historically significant landscaping on the site. The landscape design will provide an appropriate context for the historic buildings. The proposed design will not be overly complex or over textured and privileges the historic resource. 1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. St. Mary Catholic Church / Historic Preservation Final Major Development 533 E. Main Street, Aspen (PID# 273707331801) 11Page P36 W.A. • Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replacement of damaged, aged or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department. • If a tree must be removed as part of the addition or alteration, replace it with species of a large enough scale to have a visual impact in the early years of the project. The proposed project will preserve and maintain mature landscaping, particularly the large trees off of Main Street, the trees off of Hunter Street, and the lilacs located to the north of the western lawn. These trees will be protected to avoid damage. Approval to remove any damaged, aged, or diseased trees will be requested, when necessary. 1.12 Preserve and maintain historically significant planting designs. • Retaining historic planting beds, landscape features and walkways is encouraged. No historically significant landscape have been identified on the Property. 1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context of the site. • Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term impact of mature growth. • Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent. • Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials. Proposed revisions or additions to the landscaping will be consistent with the historic context of the site. The selection of plant material will consider mature size to minimize any negative long-term impact. Exotic plants, if utilized, will be reserved for small accent areas. The proposed project does not propose to cover any grassy areas with gravel, rock, or paving materials. 1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures are inappropriate. • Do not plant climbing ivy or trees too close to a building. New trees should be no closer than the mature canopy size. • Do not locate plants or trees in locations that will obscure significant architectural features or block views to the building. • It is not appropriate to plant a hedge row that will block views into the yard. The existing lilacs, located along Main Street to the north of the western lawn, will remain. No additional hedgerows have been proposed and no additional plant material will interfere with or block the view of the historic building. Steps will be taken to insure the integrity of the structure is evident. Climbing vines will not be included in the proposed design. St. Mary Catholic Church / Historic Preservation Final Major Development 533 E. Main Street, Aspen (PID# 273707331801) 2 1 P a g e P37 IV.A. 1.15 Minimize the visual impacts of site lighting. • Site lighting should be shielded to avoid glare onto adjacent properties. Focus lighting on walks and entries, rather than up into trees and onto facade planes. New lighting is proposed for the main entrance and the entrance off of the alley. This lighting will meet all outdoor lighting standards. No driveway lighting nor uplighting is proposed. 1.16 Preserve historically significant landscape designs and features. • This includes the arrangement of trees, shrubs, plant beds, irrigation ditches and sidewalks in the public right-of-way. No historically significant landscape have been identified on the Property. 5.5 If porch replacement is necessary, reconstruct it to match the original in form and detail. • Use materials that appear similar to the original. • While matching original materials is preferred, when detailed correctly and painted appropriately, alternative materials may be considered. • Where no evidence of the appearance of the historic porch exists, a new porch may be considered that is similar in character to those found on comparable buildings. Keep the style and form simple. Also, avoid applying decorative elements that are not known to have been used on the house or others like it. • When constructing a new porch, its depth should be in scale with the building. • The scale of porch columns also should be similar to that of the trim work. • The height of the railing and the spacing of balusters should appear similar to those used historically as well. Not applicable. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. • A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. • An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. • An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. • An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. The proposed above grade portion of the parish hall will be designed in a manner that St. Mary Catholic Church / Historic Preservation Final Major Development 533 E. Main Street, Aspen (PID# 273707331801) 31Page W.A. maintains one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building. The proposed above grade portion of the parish hall will not reference historic styles that have no relevance in Aspen. No portion of the addition will cover historically significant features on the historic resource. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. • A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. The proposed above grade portion of the parish hall will be recognizable as a product of its own time while being visually compatible with the historic features of the historic resource. Form, materials, and fenestration will be considered when relating the new design to the historic resource. The location of the connecting walkway from the church to the above grade portion of the parish hall was stipulated by the HPC. COMMERCIAL, LODGING AND HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN OBJECTIVES AND GUIDELINES, COMMERCIAL CORE HISTORIC DISTRICT- FINAL REVIEW (Replaces Chapter 13 of the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines) 6.36 The detailed design of the buildingfagade should reflect the traditional scale and rhythm of the block. This should be achieved using all of the following: • The fenestration grouping • The modeling of the fagade • The design framework for the first floor storefront • Variation in architectural detail and/or the palette of fagade materials The building facade of the above grade portion of the parish hall will reflect the traditional scale and rhythm of the block by considering the points listed above. This aspect of the project is set well to the rear of the property, in a location stipulated by the HPC. 6.40 Maintain the repetition of similar shapes and details along the block. • Upperstory windows should haveavertical emphasis. In general, they should be twice as tall as they are wide. Headers and sills of windows on new buildings should maintain the traditional placement relative to cornices and belt courses. The proposed project will maintain the repetition of similar shapes and details on the historic resource as seen along the block. The proposed project will maintain the original window openings, when possible. 6.42 The general alignment of horizontal features on building fronts should be maintained. St. Mary Catholic Church / Historic Preservation Final Major Development 533 E. Main Street, Aspen (PID# 273707331801) 41Page P39 IV.A. • Typical elements that align include window moldings, tops of display windows, cornices, copings and parapets at the tops of buildings. • When large buildings are designed to appear as several buildings, there should be some slight variation in alignments between the fagade elements. The proposed project will maintain the general alignment of horizontal features on the historic resource building front including, but not limited window moldings, cornices, and copings. 6.50 Window area along the first floor shall be a minimum of 60% of exterior street fagade area when facing principal street(s). The proposed project does not propose to change or add any new windows along the first floor street fapade. 6.53 Side and rear building facades should be designed and articulated to reduce the apparent scale of the building and create visual interest. The proposed project does not propose to change the side or rear building fagade of the historic resource. 6.59 High quality, durable materials should be employed. • The palette of materials proposed for all development should be specified and approved as part of the general and detailed development approvals process, including samples of materials as required. The proposed project will employ high quality, durable materials. The proposed materials for development will be specified and approved. Sample materials will be provided when required. 6.60 Building materials should have these features: • Convey the quality and range of materials seen historically • Reduce the scale and enhance visual interest • Convey human scale • Have proven durability and weathering characteristics within this climate The proposed project materials will convey the quality and range of materials seen historically, will feature reduced scale to enhance visual interest, will convey human scale, and will have proven durability and weathering characteristics within this climate. 6.61 The palette of materials used for new buildings within the core should reflect the predominantly masonry (brickwork and natural stonework) palette of this area. The proposed project materials palette will reflect the predominantly masonry palette of this area. 6.62 A building or additions to a building should reflect the quality and the variation traditionally found in these materials within the central commercial core. St. Mary Catholic Church / Historic Preservation Final Major Development 533 E. Main Street, Aspen (PID# 273707331801) 51Page M IV.A. The proposed addition will reflect the quality and the variation traditionally found in these materials within the central commercial core. 6.63 Where contemporary materials are used they shall be: • High quality in durability and finish • Detailed to convey a human scale • Compatible with a traditional masonry palette When contemporary materials are proposed, the proposed project will use materials that are high quality in durability and finish, detailed to convey human scale, and are compatible with the traditional masonry palette. 6.65 Paving and landscaping should be designed to complement and enhance the immediate setting of the building and area. Proposed paving and landscaping in the proposed project will complement and enhance the immediate setting of the building and site. 14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that used traditionally. • The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be approved by the HPC. • All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence. Lighting fixtures will complement the architecture and will be recognizable as being a product of their time. All exterior lighting will have low level luminescence. 14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting. • Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upward will not be permitted. • Shield lighting associated with service areas, parking lots and parking structures. • Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by controlling the length of time that exterior lights are in use late at night. • Do not wash an entire building facade in light.Avoid placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper walls of buildings. • Avoid duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that light the same area. New lighting is proposed for the main entrance and the entrance off of the alley. This lighting will meet all outdoor lighting standards. No landscape or path lighting will be installed in Zone A unless otherwise approved by the HPC. No driveway lighting nor uplighting is proposed. 14.8 Minimize the visual impact of light spill from a building. St. Mary Catholic Church / Historic Preservation Final Major Development 533 E. Main Street, Aspen (PID# 273707331801) 61Page P41 W.A. • Prevent glare onto adjacent properties by using shielded and focused light sources that direct light onto the ground. The use of downlights, with the bulb fully enclosed within the shade, or step lights which direct light only on to walkways, is strongly encouraged. • Lighting shall be carefully located so as not to shine into residential living space, on or off the property or into public rights -of -way. The proposed project will minimize the visual impact of light spill from the building. Glare onto adjacent properties will be prevented by the careful location of appropriately selected light sources. 14.14Minimize the visual impacts of service areas as seen from the street. • When it is feasible, screen service areas from view, especially those associated with commercial and multifamily developments. • This includes locations for trash containers and loading docks. • Service areas should be accessed off of the alley, if one exists. The proposed project will place mechanical equipment in the most discrete location possible. Mechanical equipment will be located on the ground and off the alley where it can be screened whenever possible. The service area has been approved by Environmental Health. 14.15 Minimize the visual impacts of mechanical equipment as seen from the public way. • Mechanical equipment may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does not create a negative visual impact. • Mechanical equipment or vents on a roof must be grouped together to minimize their visual impact. Where rooftop units are visible, provide screening with materials that are compatible with those of the building itself. • Screen ground -mounted units with fences, stone walls or hedges. • A window air conditioning unit may only be installed on an alley facade, and only if it does not create a negative visual impact. • Use low -profile mechanical units on rooftops so they will not be visible from the street or alley. Also minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Use smaller satellite dishes and mount them low to the ground and away from front yards, significant building facades or highly visible roof planes. • Paint telecommunications and mechanical equipment in muted colors that will minimize their appearance by blending with their backgrounds. The proposed project will place mechanical equipment in the most discrete location possible. Mechanical equipment will be located on the ground where it can be screened using fences, stone walls, or hedges whenever possible. In the very unlikely event that equipment is placed on the rooftop, it will be placed on the alley fapade St. Mary Catholic Church / Historic Preservation Final Major Development 533 E. Main Street, Aspen (PID# 273707331801) 71Page P42 W.A. and will be grouped together to minimize their visual impact. Mechanical equipment will be vented through the roof rather than a wall and any surface mounted conduit will not be placed on the historic resource. 14.16 Locate standpipes, meters and other service equipment such that they will not damage historic facade materials. • Cutting channels into historic facade materials damages the historic building fabric and is inappropriate. Do not locate equipment on the front facade. • If a channel must be cut, either locate it on a secondary facade, or place it low on the wall. The proposed project will not locate standpipes, meters or any other service equipment such that they damage the historic resource. Service equipment will not be placed on the front fapade. The proposed project does not propose to cut channels into any aspect of the historic fagade. St. Mary Catholic Church / Historic Preservation Final Major Development 533 E. Main Street, Aspen (PID# 273707331801) 81Page P43 W.A. City of Aspen Community Development Department Aspen Historic Preservation Lend Use Packet ATTACHMENT 2 - Historic Preservation Land Use Application PROJECT: Naive: St. Mary Catholic Chruch Location: 533 E. Main Street, Aspen, Colorado City and Townsite of Aspen Block 93, Lot A-1 (Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED} 273707331801 Applicant: Name: Archdiocese of Denver Address: c/o Fr. John Hilton, 533 E. Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone#: 303-918-7908 Fax#: E-mail: frhilton@stmaryaspen.org Name: Patrick S. Rawley, AICP, ASLA Address: 412 N. Mill Street, Aspen, CO 81611 Phone#: 970-925-2323 Fax#: F-mail: patrick@scaplanning.com TITE OT APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): ❑ Historic Designation ❑ Relocation (temporary, on ❑ Certificate of No Negative Effect ❑ or off -site) ❑ Certificate of Appropriateness ❑ Demolition (total demolition) ❑ -Minor Historic Development ❑ -M,jor Historic Development ❑ Ifisloric Landmark Lot Split ❑ -Conceptual Ilistoric Development ® -Final Historic Development ❑ -Substantial Amendment EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) St. Mary Catholic Church is a landmarked property. PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Applicant seeks HPC Final Major Development for an addition for special events and other church needs. City of Aspen 1130 S. Galena Street.1 (970) 920 S090 Historic La P44 Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016 W.A. ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: St. Mary Catholic Church Addition Applicant: Father John Hilton on behalf of The Archdiocese of Denver Location: 104 S. Galena St./533 E. Main St. Zone District: Commercial Core/Historic District Lot Size: 27,000 SF Lot Area: 27,000 SF (For the purpose of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high-water mark, easement, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: N/A Proposed: N/A Number of residential units: Existing: 2 Proposed: 2 Number of bedrooms: Existing: 5 Proposed: 5 Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): N/A DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing: 16,365 SF Allowable: 74,250 SF Proposed 17,365 SF Principal bldg. height: Existing: N/A Allowable: N/A Proposed N/A Access. Bldg. height: Existing: 0 Allowable: 28 ft. Proposed 25'-2" On -Site parking: Existing: 3 Required: 3 Proposed 3 Site coverage: Existing: N/A Required: N/A Proposed_ N/A Open Space: Existing: N/A Required: N/A Proposed N/A Front Setback: Existing: N/A Required N/A Proposed N/A Rear Setback: Existing: N/A Required: N/A Proposed N/A Combined F/F: Existing: N/A Required N/A Proposed N/A Side Setback: Existing: N/A Required: N/A Proposed N/A Side Setback: Existing: N/A Required N/A Proposed N/A Combined Sides: Existing: N/A Required N/A Proposed N/A Distance between Bldgs. Existing: N/A Required: N/A Proposed N/A Existing: N/A Required: N/A Proposed: N/A Existing non -conformities or encroachments: The south end of the existing church building encroaches into the alley R.O.W. by 0.75 ft. and the north entrance porch roof/steps encroach into the Main Street. Variations requested: N/A P45 'v•A• Attachment 4 Vicinity Map ' �1 I,ente1 2B5 .'11•� S� 231 210 i 415 . 223 A sFb n V15JIOI qM . p�f; Canter ralkllig - [i3(3LJ3 J Will G(h 1.11HII 1.o11lfm I IIIG Mnl- 1 t7rllldfl Ldr ly ubrilyFHaza Quddlnll f 485 (' f '.Y• .111 ' 101 f5 PLACE O1k IUD I f (:,1•,i - �B4 Smlkti!f11R!j 9r Old I the I .. F'lao 42s AspenFt11 }fotlarlll / 102 1015111110u't� P;nl. r 7_ h1gfN S7 city F ,'olAspen IN 1i12 -" 1`64d9il 11.1 150 937 132 415 ,1Repa(Irtr�nl _ fim 435 100 toi , 1021P1 L! AsFan !i11 �Ean� :-•1�11UII �@ Aspen ; C Ity 1�I .:unn�•1 53J 1''arl. 119 530 532 201 203 205 2 ". 2Dt 211 515 \ 217 219 30 432 510 514 Mn ,N S r 606 625 631 100 117 T 600 I ]i� 119 632 120 70H 710 714 716720 �. T �91 \ 615 62aEm 205 lib Subject Site Final Historic Preservation Final Major Development St. Mary Catholic Church / 533 E. Main Street, Aspen P46 2/9/2017 Parcel Detail W.A. Pitkin County Assessor Parcel Detail Information Assessor Property Search I Assessor Subset Ouei-y I Assessor Sales Search Clerk & Recorder Reception Search I Treasurer Tax Search Search GIS Map I GIS Help Basic Building Characteristics I Value Summary Parcel Detail I Value Detail I Sales Detail I Residential/Commercial Improvement Detail Owner Detail I Land Detail I Photographs Tax Area Account Number Parcel Number Property Type 2016 Mill Levy 001 E- R013942 273707331801�j DPT EXEMPT IL 32.473 - j Primary Owner Name and Address kRCHDIOCESE OF DENVER 1300 S STEELE ST DENVER, CO 80210 Additional Owner Detail Business Name ST MARYS CATHOLIC CHURCH Legal Descr>ipflon Subdivision: CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Block: 93 Lot: A -I SAINT MARYS CATHOLIC CHURCH Location Physical Address: 104 S GALENA ST ASPEN Subdivision: CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN_ Land Acres: 0.000 Land Sq Ft: 27,000 http:/twww.pitkinassessor.org/assessor/Parcel.asp?AccountNumber=RO13942 P47 1/3 W.A. Parcel Detail 2016 Property Value Summary Actual Value 17 Assessed Value Land-IF8,000,000F 1,310,080 Improvements: F 7,405,000 1,212,640 Total: IF 15,405,000 2,522,720 Sale Date: Sale Price: Additional Sales Detail Basic Building Characteristics Number of Residentia 13 Number of Comm/Ind Buildings: 0 Residential Building Occurrence 0 Characteristics FINISHED BSMT: 5,390 FIRST FLOOR: 5,484 Total H 110,874 Property Class: EXEMPT CHURCH -IMPS Actual Year Built: 1892 Effective Year Built: 111985 Bedrooms: 0 Baths: F277 Quality of Co IGOOD F- Exterior ICOMMON BRK Interior Wall: JIBASE Floor: BASE Heat Type: JJHT WTR BB Heating Fuel: IGAS Roof Cover: METAL Roof Structure: GABLE/HIP Neighborhood: 11CITY OF ASPEN EXEMPT Top of Page Assessor Database Search Options http://www.pitkinassessor.org/assessor/Parcel.asp?AccountNumber=R013942 2/3 P48 W.A. u 0 san+:a«a s uu uu«s s �. v.e �w cw� v arr ua�>s i.n aun� n n W 3NIS31VIOOSSY Nosnvio NVJS d m O 3 M• W.A. a ggig s �r±oms o LC 5 lL 0 U E cc U U 2` N Q g s Rig s s;§sm �S I i I i I I .......... I I I I I 8 I I I I I i I i � I L-_.--.__.. F r.. Jul "J F gg _sy �•'\ gg Fri? 3��e�u gg F�� - 2��.- � e ®t�i4 net. diP> I Y.I I§p I I gig� m I M I �Zs�We� ao goo o s �RO`4S� a2� 6'623Q;S gS Pamp GRow��e h P50 Attachment 'IV -A. COMMITMENT for TITLE INSURANCE issued by I) TITLE COMPANY Iof the rockies as agent for WESTCOR LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Reference: Commitment Ordered By: Patrick Rawley Stan Clauson Associates Inc 412 North Mill Street Aspen, CO 81611 Phone: 970-925-2323 Fax:970-920-1628 email: patrick@scaplanning.com Commitment Number: 0705130-C Inquiries should be directed to: Title Company of the Rockies 132 W. Main Street, Suite B Aspen, CO 81611 Phone: (970) 920-9299 Fax: (970) 920-5352 email: Reference Property Address: 104 South Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 SCHEDULE A 1. Effective Date: January 29, 2017, 7:00 am Issue Date: February 10, 2017 2. Policy (or Policies) to be issued: ALTA Owner's Policy (6-17-06) Policy Amount: Amount to be Determined Premium: Amount to be Determined Proposed Insured: A Buyer to be Determined 3. The estate or interest in the Land described or referred to in this Commitment is: Fee Simple and Title to said estate or interest is at the Effective Date vested in: The Archdiocese of Denver 4. The Land referred to in this Commitment is located in the County ofPitkin, State of Colorado, and is described as follows: Lots A,B,C,D,E,F,G,Hand I, Block 93, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Alta Cononinnent - 2006 P51 W.A. Commitment No. 0705130-C COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE B - SECTION I REQUIREMENTS Schedule B-I Requirements THE FOLLOWING ARE THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE COMPLIED WITH: Item (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. Item (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record, to wit: 1. Deed from The Archdiocese of Denver to A Buyer To Be Determined. NOTE: Duly executed real property transfer declaration, executed by either the Grantor or Grantee, to accompany the Deed mentioned above, pursuant to Article 14 of House Bill No. 1288-CRA 39-14-102. 2. Evidence satisfactory to the Company or its duly authorized agent that all dues and/or assessments levied by the Homeowners Association have been paid through the date of closing. 3. Evidence satisfactory to the Company or its duly authorized agent either (a) that the "real estate transfer taxes" imposed by Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979), and by Ordinance No. 13, (Series of 1990), of the City of Aspen, Colorado have been paid, and that the liens imposed thereby have been frilly satisfied, or (b) that Certificates of Exemption have been issued pursuant to the provisions thereof. THE COMPANY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CONDUCT AN ADDITIONAL SEARCH OF THE RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER FOR PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO FOR JUDGMENT LIENS, TAX LIENS OR OTHER SIMILAR OR DISSIMILAR INVOLUNTARY MATTERS AFFECTING THE GRANTEE OR GRANTEES, AND TO MAKE SUCH ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AS IT DEEMS NECESSARY, AFTER THE IDENTITY OF THE GRANTEE OR GRANTEES HAS BEEN DISCLOSED TO THE COMPANY. NOTE: THIS COMMITMENT IS ISSUED UPON THE EXPRESS AGREEMENT AND UNDERSTANDING THAT THE APPLICABLE PREMIUMS, CHARGES AND FEES SHALL BE PAID BY THE APPLICANT IF THE APPLICANT AND/OR ITS DESIGNEE OR NOMINEE CLOSES THE TRANSACTION CONTEMPLATED BY OR OTHERWISE RELIES UPON THE COMMITMENT, ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES AND SCHEDULES OF RATES ON FILE WITH THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE. Alta Co»nailment - 2006 P52 Schedule B-I Requirements W.A. Commitment No. 0705130-C Schedule B-11 Exceptions CONINHTMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE B -SECTION II EXCEPTIONS Schedule B of the policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following matters unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company. Any loss or damage, including attorney fees, by reason of the matters shown below: 1. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the Public Records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said Land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. 2. Easements or claims of easements, not shown by the Public Records. 3. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land. 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, fast appearing in the Public Records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof, but prior to the date of the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records. 7. Any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar or copper, or any valid mining claim or possession held under existing laws, as reserved by M. G. Miller, County and Probate Judge of Pitkin County, Colorado, in the Deed to Edward Downey recorded October 24, 1887, in Book 59 at Page 55. 8. Notice of Historic Designation recorded January 13, 1975,in Book 295 at Page 515. 9. Resolution No. 2 (Series of 1993) A Resolution of the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Vesting The Site Specific Final Development Plan for St. Mary's Church recorded March 1, 1993, in Book 704 at Page 874. 10. Encroachment Agreement between the City of Aspen and Saint Mary's Catholic Church, Diocese of Denver recorded July 1, 1993, in Book 716 at Page 622. 11. Resolution No. 41 (Series 2000) Resolution of the Aspen Preservation Commission Approving an Application for Conceptual Development and Variances from the Residential Design Standards for St. Mary's Church recorded September 5, 2000, at Reception No. 446665. 12. Revocable Encroachment License recorded December 8, 2000, at Reception No. 449522. 13. Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions and obligations as contained in Resolution No. 57 (Series 2000) Resolution of the Aspen Preservation Commission Approving an Application for Final Alta Connninnent - 2006 Schedule B-II Exceptions P53 W.A. Commitment No. 0705130-C Schedule B-H Exceptions (continued) Review of a Significant Development for St. Mary's Church recorded February 1, 2001, at Reception No. 451129. 14. Ordinance 54 (Series 2000) Ordinance of the Aspen City Council recorded June 25, 2001, at Reception No. 455760. 15. Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions and obligations as contained in Accessory Dwelling Unit Deed Restriction recorded March 9, 2001, at Reception No. 452236. 16. Resolution 9 8 ( Series of 2016 ) Of The Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Granting Conceptual Major Development, Special Review, Growth Management And View Plane Approval For 533 E. Main Sheet, Lots A -I, Block 93, City Of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. Alta Connninnent - 2006 P54 Schedule B-II Exceptions (continued) W.A. Note 1: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 3-5-1, Paragraph C of Article VU, requires that "Every Title entity shall be responsible for all matters which appear of record prior to the time of record ng whenever the Title entity conducts the closing and is responsible for recording or filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction which was closed." (Gap Protection) Note 2: Exception No. 4 of Schedule B, Section 2 of this Commitment may be deleted from the Owner's Policy to be issued hereunder upon compliance with the following conditions: A. The Land described in Schedule A of this commitment must be a single-family residence, which includes a condominium or townhouse unit. B. No labor or materials may have been fiimished by mechanics or materialmen for purpose of construction on the Land described in Schedule A of this Commitment within the past 13 months. C. The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against unfiled mechanic's and materiahmen's liens. D. Any deviation from conditions A though C above is subject to such additional requirements or Information as the Company may deem necessary, or, at its option, the Company may refuse to delete the exception. E. Payment of the premium for said coverage. Note 3: The following disclosures are hereby made pursuant to §10-11-122, C.R.S.: (i) The subject real property may be located in a special taxing district; (ii) Acertifiicate of taxes due listing each taxing jurisdiction shall be obtained from the County Treasurer or the County Treasurer's authorized agent; and (iii) Information regarding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor. Note 4: If the sales price of the subject property exceeds $100,000.00, the seller shall be required to comply with the disclosure or withholding provisions of C.R.S. §39-22-604.5 (Non-resident withholding). DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS Note 5: Pursuant to C.R.S. §10-11-123 Notice is hereby given: (a) If there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased or otherwise conveyed from the surface estate then there is a substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas, other minerals, or geothermal energy in the property, and (b) That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owner's permission. Note 6: Effective September 1, 1997, C.R.S. §30-10-406 requires that all documents received for recording or filing in the clerk and recorder's office shall contain a top margin of at least one inch and a left, right and bottom margin of at least one-half inch the clerk and recorder may refuse to record or file any document that does not conform. Note 7: Our Privacy Policy: We will not reveal nonpublic personal customer information to any external non-affiliated organization unless we have been authorized by the customer, or are required by law. Note 8: Records: Regulation 3-5-1 Section 7 (N) provides that each title entity shall maintain adequate documentation and records sufficient to show compliance with this regulation and Title 10 of the Colorado Revised Statutes for a period of not less than seven (7) years, except as otherwise permitted by law. Note 9: Pursuant Regulation 3-5-1 Section 9 (F) notice is hereby given that "A title entity shall not earn interest on fiduciary funds unless disclosure is made to all necessary parties to a transaction that interest is or has been earned. Said disclosure must offer the opportunity to receive payment of any interest earned on such fimds beyond any administrative fees as may be on file with the division. Said disclosure must be clear and conspicuous, and may be made at any time up to and including closing." Be advised that the closing agent will or could charge an Administrative Fee for processing such an additional services request and any resulting payee will also be subjected to a W-9 or other required tax documentation for such purpose(s). Be further advised that, for many transactions, the imposed Administrative Fee associated with such an additional service may exceed any such interest earned. Therefore, you may have the right to some of the interest earned over and above the Administrative Fee, if applicable (e.g., any money over any administrative fees involved in figuring the amounts earned). Note 10: Pursuant to Regulation 3-5-1 Section 9 (G) notice is hereby given that "Until a title entity receives written instructions pertaining to the holding of fiduciary funds, in a form agreeable to the title entity, it shall comply with the following: 1. The title entity shall deposit funds into an escrow, trust, or other fiduciary account and hold them in a fiduciary capacity. 2. The title entity shall . use any funds designated as "earnest money " for the consummation of the transaction as evidenced by the contract to buy and sell real estate applicable to said transaction, except as otherwise provided in this section. If the transaction does not close, the title entity shall: a. Release the earnest money funds as directed by written instructions signed by both the buyer and seller; or b. Ifacceptable written instructions are not received, uncontested funds shall be held by the title entity for 180 days from the scheduled date of closing, after which the title entity shall return said funds to the payor. 3.In the event of any controversy regarding the funds held by the title entity (notwithstanding any termination of the contract), the title entity shall not be required to take any action unless and until such controversy is resolved. At its option and discretion, the title entity may: a. Await any proceeding; or b. Interplead all parties and deposit such funds into a court ofcompetent jurisdiction, and recover court costs and reasonable attorney and legal fees; or c. Deliver written notice to the buyer and seller that unless the title entity receives a copy of a summons and complaint or claim (between buyer and seller), containing the case number of the lawsuit or lawsuits, within 120 days of the title entity's written notice delivered to the parties, title entity shall return the funds to the depositing party." P55 Statements W.A. Title Company of the Rockies Disclosures All documents received for recording or filing in the Clerk and Recorder's office shall contain a top margin of at least one inch and a left, right and bottom margin of at least one half of an inch. The Clerk and Recorder will refuse to record or file any document that does not conform to the requirements of this section. Pursuant to C.R.S.30-10-406(3)(a). The company will not issue its policy or policies of title insurance contemplated by this commitment until it has been provided a Certificate of Taxes due or other equivalent documentation from the County Treasurer or the County Treasurer's authorized agent: or until the Proposed Insured has notified or instructed the company in writingto the contrary. Pursuant to C.R.S. 10-11-122. No person or entity that provides closing and settlement services for a real estate transaction shall disburse finds as a part of such services until those Funds have been received and are available for immediate withdrawals as a matter of right. Pursuant to C.R.S. 38-35-125(2). The Company hereby notifies the proposed buyer in the current transaction that there may be recorded evidence that the mineral estate, or portion thereof, has been severed, leased, or otherwise conveyed from the surface estate. If so, there is a substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in the oil, gas, other minerals, or geothermal energy in the subject property. Such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owner's permission. Pursuant to C.R.S. 10-11-123. If this transaction includes a sale of property and the sales price exceeds $100,000.00, the seller must comply with the disclosurehvithholding requirements of said section. (Nonresident withholding) Pursuant to C.R.S. 39-22-604.5. Notice is hereby given that: The subject property may be located in a special taxing district. A Certificate of Taxes due listing each taxing jurisdiction shall be obtained from the County Treasurer or the County Treasurer's authorized agent. Information regarding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board of County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor. Pursuant to C.R.S. 10-11-122. Notice is hereby given that: Pursuant to Colorado Division of Insurance Regulation 8-1-2; "Gap Protection" -When this Company conducts the closing and is responsible for recording or filing the legal documents resulting from the transaction, the Company shall be responsible for all matters which appear on the record prior to such time or recording or filing; and "Mechanic's Lien Protection" - If you are the buyer of a single family residence, you may request mechanic's lien coverage to be issued on your policy of Insurance. If the property being purchased has not been the subject of construction, improvements or repairs in the last six months prior to the date of this commitment, the requirements will be payment of the appropriate premium and the completion of an Affidavit and Indemnity by the seller. If the property being purchased was constricted, improved or repaired within six months prior to the date of this commitment the requirements may involve disclosure of certain financial information, payment of premiums, and indemnity, among others. The general requirements stated above are subject to revision and approval by the Company. Pursuant to C.R.S. 10-11-122. Notice is hereby given that an ALTA Closing Protection Letter is available, upon request, to certain parties to the transaction as noted in the title commitment. Pursuant to Colorado Division of Insurance Regulation 8-1. Nothing herein contained will be deemed to obligate the Company to provide any of the coverages referred to herein unless the above conditions are fully satisfied. P56 Attachment' , 10 February 2017 Ms. Amy Simon Historic Preservafiion Officer, Gity of Aspen 130 S. Gglena Street Aspen,: CO 81611 Re- Authorization fio Submit Land Use Appliculions IV.A. Attachment 10 Homeowner Association ComplianGe Policy All land use applications within the City of Aspen are required to include a Honaeownner Association Compliance Form (this form) certifying the scope of work included in the land use application complies with all applicable covenants and homeowner association policies. The certification must be sipped by Nie property owt)er of Attorney t'epresenfirrp the property owner. Name: St. Mary Catholic Church, Archdiocese of Denver Property Owne C t") Email: frhilton@stmaryaspen.org Phone No.: 970-926-7399 Address o Property 633 P. Main Street, Aspen, CO 81611 (subject o application I certify as follows: (pick one) This property is not subject to a homeowners association or other form of private covenant. Q This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the Improvements proposed in this land use application do not require approval by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application have been approved by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. understand this policy and I understand the City of Aspen does not interpret, enforce, or manage the applicability, meaning or effect of private covenants or homeowner association rules or bylaws. I understand that this document is a public document. Owner signature: /� c� date: / Owner printed name: Fr. John Hilton, Pastor, St. Mary Catholic Church or, Attorney signature: Attorney printed name: date: Attachment 12 W.A. KANDYCOM INC ASPEN PLAZA LLC ROTHBLUM MARCIA QTIP MARITAL TRUST 766 SINGING WOOD DR PO BOX 1709 40 E 80TH ST #PH 26A ARCADIA, CA 91006 ASPEN, CO 81612 NEW YORK, NY 10075 ROTHBLUM PHILIP ALH HOLDING CO 204 S GALENA ST LLC 40 E 80TH ST #PH 26A 435 E MAIN ST 2001 N HALSTED #304 NEW YORK, NY 10075 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 60614 HUNTER SQUARE LLC JURINE LLC CANTINA BUILDING LLC PO BOX 2 PO BOX 2 PO BOX 1247 SONOMA, CA 95476 SONOMA, CA 95476 ASPEN, CO 81612 CITY OF ASPEN PUBLIC FACILITIES AUTH 517 EAST HOPKINS ASPEN LLC GODIVA HOLDINGS LLC 130 S GALENA ST 2001 N HALSTED #304 435 E MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 60614 ASPEN, CO 81611 SL PROPERTY LLC BORCHERTS HOLDE H REV TRUST BORCHERTS ROBERT H REV TRUST 2606 STATE ST 1555 WASHTENAW 1555 WASHTENAW DALLAS, TX 75204 ANN ARBOR, MI 48104 ANN ARBOR, MI 48104 BROUGH STEVE & DEBORAH EMPHASYS SERVICES CO CITY OF ASPEN 599 TROUT LK DR 1925 BRICKELL AVE BLDG D, PENTHSE 11 130 S GALENA ST SANGER, CA 93657 MIAMI, FL 33129 ASPEN, CO 81611 BULKELEY RICHARD C & JULIE J DORAN RALPH WTF LLC 600 E MAIN ST #401 2600 WOODWARD WAY 3506 LAUREL LEDGE LN ASPEN, CO 81611 ATLANTA, GA 30305 AUSTIN, TX 787314046 LARSON MARIA M MARCHETTI FAMILY LLC GRIMES DAVID L PO BOX 8207 1526 FOREST DR 3510 BROMLEY WOODS LN ASPEN, CO 81612 GLENVIEW, IL 60025 GREENSBORO, NC 27410 RKJR PROPERTIES LTD LEBARRE FAM LLC SMITH JAMES F & N LINDSAY 5934 ROYAL LN #250 7518 MIDDLEWOOD ST 600 E MAIN ST #302 DALLAS, TX 75230 HOUSTON, TX 77063 ASPEN, CO 81611 KAHANEK FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LTD MAESTRANZI ALEXA LEE TRUST MANN KATHLEEN A REV TRUST 2727 ALLEN PKWY # 1500 1736 PARK RIDGE PT PO BOX 1455 HOUSTON, TX 77019 PARK RIDGE, IL 60068 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 P59 W.A. VAN WALRAVEN EDWARD C REV TRUST PO BOX 1455 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 NR HOLDING CO 580 MALLORY WY CARSON CITY, NV 89701 HICKS GILBERT W & PATSY K 3674 WOODLAWN TERRACE PL HONOLULU, HI 96822 MARASCO EMILY A 21701 FLAMENCO MISSION VIEJO, CA 92692 STARMER MARY JOSEPHINE 12738 W 84TH DR ARVADA, CO 80001 MCGAFFEY FAMILY & CO NO C LLC 2465 NOB HILL AVE NORTH SEATTLE, WA 98109 MARSH HUGH 631 E MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 HOLLAND AND HART PO BOX 8749 DENVER, CO 80201 MYSKO ASPEN HOLDINGS 615 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 HINDERSTEIN FAM REV TRUST 4415 HONEYMOON BAY RD GREENBANK, WA 98253 COPPOCK RICHARD P SHERMAN CAPITAL COMPANY 600 E MAIN ST #407 5840 E JOSHUA TREE LN ASPEN, CO 81611 PARADISE VALLEY, AZ 85253 GILKERSON LINDA REV TRUST LAMB DON REV TRUST 1449 E 56TH ST 1449 E 56TH ST CHICAGO, IL 60637 CHICAGO, IL 60637 ASPEN LEGACY LLC MARASCO BERNARD R 17740 E HINSDALE AVE 320 DAKOTA DR FOXFIELD, CO 80016 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 MARASCO FAMILY TRUST MARASCO RAE O TRUST 653 261 /2 RD 653 261 /2 RD GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 GENE MCCUTCHIN LTD II KAPLAN & CO LLC PO BOX 802043 300 S POINTE DR # 1105 DALLAS, TX 753802043 MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139 117 SOUTH SPRING STREET HOLDINGS LLC SLS LLC PO BOX 81016 117 S SPRING ST #201 SAN MARINO, CA 91118 ASPEN, CO 81611 THOMAS KATHRYN HOVERSTEN PHILIP & LOUISE 631 E MAIN ST 2990 BOOTH CREEK DR ASPEN, CO 81611 VAIL, CO 81657 CONCEPT 600 LLC BIG HOPKINS LLC 5048 CAMINO DEL LAZO 421 N BEVERLY DR #300 TUCSON, AZ 85750 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 BRAND BUILDING LLC BLAU JEFF T 205 S GALENA ST 60 COLUMBUS CR 19TH FL ASPEN, CO 81611 NEW YORK, NY 10023 BRAND 13 LLC LEVY ASPEN RESIDENCE TRUST 623 E HOPKINS AVE 5959 COLLINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140 '•1 W.A. WALL JANET REV TRUST ASPEN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ALPINE BANK ASPEN 205 S GALENA ST 420 E HOPKINS AVE PO BOX 10000 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 PITKIN COUNTY PITKIN COUNTY CAPITAL LEASING CORP BANKERS MORTGAGE CORP 123 EMMA RD #204 530 E MAIN ST 1616 ORCHARD AVE BASALT, CO 81621 ASPEN, CO 81611 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501 BASS CAHN 601 LLC HORSEFINS LLC STEWART TITLE CO PO BOX 4060 601 E HOPKINS AVE 1980 POST OAK BLVD STE 900 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 HOUSTON, TX 77056 KREVOY SUSANNE SEP PROP TRUST OSA TRUST ERNEMANN ANDREW & ASHLEY 2311 LA MESA DR 2311 LA MESA DR 39 POLECAT DR SANTA MONICA, CA 90402 SANTA MONICA, CA 90402 ASPEN, CO 81611 HENDERSON JAMES C KUCK KATHERINE M LESTER JIM 4880 HARLEM RD 4880 HARLEM RD 395 SOUTH END AVE #29N GALENA, OH 43021 GALENA, OH 43021 NEW YORK, NY 10280 LEWITES JORDAN SMITH GARY W BOHNETT MARSHA ANN TRUST 2728 MCKINNON ST #1317 800 W 5TH ST #606 10780 NAVAJO WY DALLAS, TX 75201 AUSTIN, TX 78703 OREGON CITY, OR 97045 DANIELS SIMON B HENRY WILLIAM STONE REV TRUST FAREY SIOBHAN C 431 E HYMAN AVE 3382 TURNBURY DR 7903 CURTIS ST ASPEN, CO 81611 RICHFIELD, OH 44286 CHEVY CHASE, MD 20815 STAPLE GREGORY C 530 HOPKINS LLC MARIPOSA REAL ESTATE II LLC 7903 CURTIS ST 530 1/2 E HOPKINS 500 S POINTE DR # 240 CHEVY CHASE, MD 20815 ASPEN, CO 81611 MIAMI, FL 331397318 AUSTIN LAWRENCE CONNER LLC CICUREL CARY LUCKYSTAR LLC 532 E HOPKINS AVE 2615 N LAKEWOOD PO BOX 7755 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 60614 ASPEN, CO 81612 WILSON FAMILY TRUST ORR KEITH MURPHY GEORGE W 101 FOUNDERS PL #201 4545 N STATE LINE PO BOX 4146 ASPEN, CO 81611 TEXARKANA, TX 75503 ASPEN, CO 81612 P61 W.A. OP LLC 424 PARK CIR 416 ASPEN, CO 81611 OBP LLC 101 FOUNDERS PL #104 ASPEN, CO 81611 CRUMMER KLEIN TITLE TRUST 1305 N BEVERLY DR BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 BALLINGER ELIZABETH F 102 FOUNDERS PL #102 ASPEN, CO 81611 KLEIN JAMES J & SALLIE R PO BOX 12022 ASPEN, CO 81612 DONAHUE ELIZABETH 102 FOUNDERS PL #2302 ASPEN, CO 81611 311 ASPEN LLC 2317 PENNSYLVANIA AVE WILMINGTON, DE 19806 BOMBA LAURIE A REV TRUST 5601 HIGH DR MISSION HILLS, KS 66208 GALANTER YALE & ELYSE 101 N SPRING ST #3301 ASPEN, CO 81611 MARTINEZ RITA 101 N SPRING ST #3104 ASPEN, CO 816111518 VECTOR ENTERPRISES LLC BOSELY MARY ANNE REV TRUST 0490 ASPEN OAK DR PO BOX 26 ASPEN, CO 81611 WOODY CREEK, CO 81656 G & G CORPORATE OFFICES LLC NGS LLC 2520 S GRAND AV # 114 101 FOUNDERS PL #109 GLENWOOD SPGS, CO 81601 ASPEN, CO 81611 CAMPBELL JAMES D LARK INGALIL E PO BOX 404 PO BOX 404 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 SEYFFERT STEVEN J HANDLEY DENNIS 102 FOUNDERS PL #201 102 FOUNDERS PL #202 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 SMITH H W III HUNTER ALEXANDER PO BOX 10914 PO BOX 1638 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 SINTA SCOTT GWM PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 2872 PO BOX 4146 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 GOLDFEIN MICHAEL R TRUST GOLDFEIN PAMELA J TRUST 1724 BRAESIDE LN 1724 BRAESIDE LN NORTHBROOK, IL 60062 NORTHBROOK, IL 60062 WELSCH SUSAN F REVOC TRUST RAMOS WALTHER JR & MARJORIE R 101 N SPRING ST #201 133 TALL TREES DR ASPEN, CO 81611 BALA CYNWYD, PA 19004 FESUS FAMILY TRUST ATWOOD STANFORD H & PAMELA S LVG TR PO BOX 9197 16125 GREENWOOD LN ASPEN, CO 81612 MONTE SERENO, CA 95030 PEARSON DOUG DOCKEN ANDREW 101 N SPRING ST #3105 101 N SPRING ST #106 ASPEN, CO 816111518 ASPEN, CO 81611 P62 W.A. ARENELLA BETH & FRANK III 101 N SPRING ST #107 ASPEN, CO 81611 GRAHAM NARELDA 101 N SPRING ST #203 ASPEN, CO 81611 LAZAR FAMILY TRUST 5342 ALDEA AVE ENCINO, CA 91316 LEONARD FAMILY TRUST 999 LA PAZ RD SANTA BARBARA, CA 931081022 OBERMEYER 204 LLC 2727 ALLEN PKWY STE1400 HOUSTON, TX 77019 LINDENAU SCOTT A REV TRUST 501 RIO GRANDE PL #104 ASPEN, CO 81611 ARENELLA BETH & FRANK J III 100 OBERMEYER PL # 101 ASPEN, CO 81611 DAO OANH KIM 430 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 GRW RIO GRANDE PROPERTY LLC 11653 E BERRY AVE ENGLEWOOD, CO 801114156 TSE HOLDINGS LLC 601 RIO GRANDE PL #120 ASPEN, CO 81611 SHAPIRO FREDERIC M & SUSAN 101 N SPRING ST #3108 ASPEN, CO 81611 SATTLER SANDRA A 101 N SPRING ST #3204 ASPEN, CO 81611 SUMNER VERONICA 101 N SPRING ST 43109 ASPEN, CO 81611 CURETJORDAN 101 N SPRING ST #205 ASPEN, CO 81611 BASSI PETER & BARBARA FAMILY TRUST COHEN NANCY C REV TRUST 18 CHANNEL VISTA 31275 NORTHWESTERN HWY #208 NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657 FARMINGTON HILLS, MI 48334 MOSCOE THOMAS D 445 GRAND BAY DR #607 KEY BISCAYNE, FL 33149 PARDEE JAMES LEE III REV LIV TRST PO BOX 4153 ASPEN, CO 816124153 TGS LLC PO BOX 1913 ASPEN, CO 81612 FELDMANJONATHAN 100 OBERMEYER PLACE DR #102 ASPEN, CO 81611 NGUYEN MICHAEL TAM 430 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 FORTIER TIMOTHY 601 RIO GRANDE PL #102 ASPEN, CO 81611 PAM LLC PO BOX 4446 ASPEN, CO 81612 P63 SMITH GAILEN B FAMILY TRUST 625 E MAIN ST #102B ASPEN, CO 81611 BIG BOY LLC 205 S MILL ST#301A ASPEN, CO 81611 UNIT 109 OP LLC 501 RIO GRANDE PL #107 ASPEN, CO 81611 MILNE SHEILA PO BOX 8286 ASPEN, CO 81612 UNIT 106 OP LLC 205 S MILL ST #301A ASPEN, CO 816112497 MAROLT ENTERPRISES LLC PO BOX 8705 ASPEN, CO 81612 JOSA LLC 601 RIO GRANDE #110 ASPEN, CO 81611 W.A. LCC ASPEN HOLDINGS LLC SCHENKELBERG LLC K & J ENTERPRISES LLC PO BOX 1550 140 VISTA GRANDE 601 RIO GRANDE PL #119A ASPEN, CO 81612 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81507 ASPEN, CO 81611 OBERMEYER PLACE RENTAL GRP LLC DIXIE DOG VENTURES LLC FURTHUR CANCUN LLC 115 AABC 1690 HOMESTAKE DR PO BOX 2199 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 BRUNSWOLD KIRK LANE TAMMIE ARTIM LLC 601 RIO GRANDE PL #118 601 RIO GRANDE PL #118 PO BOX 30106 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 NEW YORK, NY 10011 KIMPLE 2004 TRUST OLITSKY TAMAR & STEPHEN CARVER RUTH A 3505 TURTLE CREEK BLVD #PH2OA PO BOX 514 116 S ASPEN ST DALLAS, TX 75219 GWYNEDD VALLEY, PA 19437 ASPEN, CO 81611 OBERMEYER PLACE CONDO 620 E HOPKINS CONDO ASSOC GALENA PLAZA CONDO ASSOC COMMON AREA COMMON AREA 420 E MAIN ST 210 N MILL ST #201 620 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 BRAND BUILDING CONDO ASSOC SPRING STREET CONDO ASSOC CONCEPT 600 CONDO ASSOC 205 S GALENA ST 117 S SPRING ST #202 600 E MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 601 EAST HOPKINS CONDO ASSOC COMMON AREA 601 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 DLH CAPITAL LLC 5956 SHERRY LN #1500 DALLAS, TX 75225 214 WEST COOPER LLC 6 NE 63RD ST #220 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 HAUSER MARY JANE 1540 BOHNS POINT RD WAYZATA, MN 55391 TROYER TROUSDALE TOWNHOMES CONDO DML REALTY LLC COMMON AREA PO BOX 305 611 E HOPKINS AVE CHAVIES, KY 41727 ASPEN, CO 81611 RIO GRANDE PARTNERS 88 LLC 1008 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 HUTCHESON LAURA TRUST 98 SAN JACINTO BLVD # 1009 AUSTIN, TX 78701 CALHOON THOMAS C 315 LAVACA ST AUSTIN, TX 787013036 PR ASPEN HOLDINGS LLC 3334 E COAST HWY #442 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 WARK RICKEY E & CYNTHIA ANN 45 N WILLOW CT ASPEN, CO 81611 WAGAR RICHARD H PO BOX 9063 ASPEN, CO 81612 P64 W.A. HUNTER & HOPKINS PROF BUILDING COND( ISIS THEATRE CONDO ASSOC COMMON AREA COMMON AREA 600 E HOPKINS AVE 406 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ISIS GROUP CONNER CABINS & LOFTS CONDO ASSOC 2301 N MERIDIAN AVE COMMON AREA MIAMI, FL 33140 530 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 PENEL LLC TRACY KATHLEEN 655 MADISON AVE 11TH FLR 625 E MAIN ST 4202 NEW YORK, NY 10065 ASPEN, CO 81611 STUDIO SIX LLC PO BOX DID ASPEN, CO 81612 625 MAIN ASPEN LLC 420 E MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 SPRING BUILDING CONDO ASSOC 632 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 BAD LLC 35850 S WOODLAND RD CHAGRIN FALLS, OH 44022 426 EAST MAIN LLC 623 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 EMCAR LLC 655 MADISON AVE 11TH FL NEW YORK, NY 10065 HOPKINS DEV LLC 345 PARK AVE 33RD FLR NEW YORK, NY 10154 HOPKINS BARN LLC 623 E HOPKINS ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN BLOCK 99 CONDO ASSOC 532 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 M & G CONDO ASSOC 426 E MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN FILM 110 E HALLAM ST #102 ASPEN, CO 81611 625 MAIN INVESTMENTS LLC 407 S HUNTER ST #3 ASPEN, CO 81611 ROY ADAM C & SARAH G 625 E MAIN ST#203 ASPEN, CO 81611 CAREM LLC 655 MADISON AVE 11TH FL NEW YORK, NY 10065 RUDIN MICHAEL & SABRINA 345 PARK AVE NEW YORK, NY 10154 HOPKINS CABIN LLC 623 E HOPKINS ASPEN, CO 81611 MAIN STREET LANDLORD LLC 625 E HOPKINS ASPEN, CO 81611 P65 W.A. Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius From Parcel: 273707331801 on 05/30/2017 I 1'KIN 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 '.. W.A. - - = P67 T. 71T 133?J1S NIHW '3 ££S �_x _ � Ho�jnH3 3I1OHiVO )., IJVW '1S ©© _LL U. 'u � z =Z a o aC 60 oQ <W =� sQ CD to LU Z LU ap -,ug a egg o U iNmN g LU co �< 2" UCR N Of CO 2W U0 Z U O Q U Q 75 U) � < - 133?J1S NIHW '3 ££S Z v « ` _ � Ho�jnH3 3I1OHiVO J.ZI` VW '1S xw ERIC u'ua 'u < LL w o i M. 00'N3dSV a 71TT. M zoo^ A3?llS NIVW'3££S IE© _ _ Ho�jnH3 3I1OHiVO J.ZI` VW '1S oua ERIC )z§ \j \ \\\\ o m� mm _w: Hod/H3 311OHiVO �dVV''E MA / \ 1; § ) h G\\§ ! ! E \ � § 0 � 0 E k 0 0 E \ \ 3 P71 jd. Al 133?J1S NIHW '3 ££S ERIC _z_� Ho�If1H3 3I1OHlbO J.�IbW '1S oua 'u a ^ LL P73 00'N3dSV a 71TA. M z o A3?JIS NIVW'3££S IE© _ E _ � Ho�jnH3 3I1OHiVO )., IJVW '1S x w oua Z O Q w J W Of O Z Z � o UJ X a P74 133?J1S NIHW '3 ££S ERIC _z_� Ho�If1H3 3I1OHlbO J.�IbW '1S oua 'u a ^ LL P75 00'N3dSV a 71TA. M z o A3?JIS NIVW'3££S IE© _ E _ � Ho�jnH3 3I1OHiVO )., IJVW '1S x w oua P76 00'N3dSV a < - A3?J1S NIVW '3 ££S to 1���■ o m ERIC _zu Ho�If1H3 3I1OHlbO J.�IbW '1S oua 'u P77 1 /■ T. N z o SNIVN'l a v 133?J1S NIHW '3 ££S « x _ � Ho�jnH3 3I1OHiVO J.ZI` VW '1S g ©© uuua 0 V ERIC _ E uua - _ 'u a ^ LL Ho�InH3 133?J1S NIVNNIHW 3 ££S ' 3I1OHiVO J.ZI` VW '1S T. 71T 133?J1S NIHW '3 ££S w «x _ � Ho�jnH3 3I1OHiVO J.ZI` VW '1S g \ o o \ \ w TE- EM: 00'N3dSV a < O A3?J1S NIVW '3 ££S O O 1���■ ERIC ..E o�P Ho�jnH3 3I1OHiVO )., IJVW '1S wow zu w Z O w J w co H Z FO < re, Z cn § W 00'N3dSV a 71TT. M zoo A3?JIS NIVW'3££S IEEE HO�MH3 3I1OHiVO ),AVW '1S �ww W I J.J I.LI Z 4 roc Z_ U) O 2 w w O J d LU W O H U W 2 A� 71T M 'az O NIVN'l O Z o a 133?J1S NIHW '3 ££S O �' _zx _ � Ho�jnH3 3I1OHiVO J.ZI` VW '1S wIEEE S U K = Z U p C7 � z ~ w N J X LEI w r w § J J Q =� � ir w a =w C,)of w o 9 y O F O U U z W LU W U } Z O in J � d O L _ W P84 No r o ERIC xI uua 'u 00'N3dSV z = 0 A3?J1S NIVW '3 ££S E° Ho�InH3 3I1OHiVO J.ZI` VW '1S a Z 0 z O O O '- w � o No ERIC xI oua 9 00'N3dSV < - A3?J1S NIVW '3 ££S ° Ho�jnH3 3I1OHiVO )., IJVW '1S W Z g a L w w U o H � O U Es ® EE (EM ERE m w J LU 4 i w �11 I LU - -- U Q J � L� W lbm Rc r+ ffr�f.fft• r+�#aj' _. ..ail o 1 1 �ftf�t■Ri�IRtR�l1uR �714� #"'0444amaxrmaga■■ �'g ilia Jlijlj"aa.jMSRAMtffjRN0,n LEO 10 fIififaall",1i1141as Its ■o MEE RECEPTION#: 628096, 03/28/2016 at W.A.10:51:10 AM, 1 OF 4, R $26.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION r Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO RESOLUTION #8 (SERIES OF 2016) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC'PRESERVATION COMMISSION GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, SPECIAL REVIEW, GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND VIEW PLANE APPROVAL FOR 533 E. MAIN STREET, LOTS A -I, BLOCK 93, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Parcel ID: 2737-073-31-801 WHEREAS, on May 4, 2015, the Community Development Department received an application from The Archdiocese of , Denver/St: Mary's Church, represented by Charles, Cunniffe Architects and Stan Clauson Associates for the following land use review approvals: Major Development, Special Review, Growth Management and View Plane review; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Environmental Health Department, Parks Department, Parking Department, Public Works Department, and the Transportation Department as a result of a Development Review Committee meeting held on July 15, 2015; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Application and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.304, Common Development Review Procedures, and Section 26.304.060.B.4, Modification of Review Procedures, all other necessary land use reviews, as identified herein, have been combined to be considered by the Historic. Preservation Commission at a duly noticed -public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, such combination of review procedures was done to ensure clarity of review, was accomplished with all required public noticing provided as evidenced by an affidavit . of public noticing submitted to the record, and the public was provided a thorough and full review of the proposed development; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the Application at duly noticed public hearings on August 26, 2015; January 27, 2016 and March 9, 2016, during which time the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were requested and heard by the Historic Preservation Commission; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on March 9, 2016, the Historic Preservation Commission approved Resolution #8, Series of 2016, by a 4 to 3 vote, granting approval with the conditions listed hereinafter. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1• Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Historic Preservation Commission hereby. grants Conceptual Major Development approval, Historic Preservation Commission Resolution #8, Series 2016 Page 1 of 3 W.A. Special Review and View plane Exemption for the proposal identified as Option B, including a connector to the existing structure, and makes a recommendation to City Council on the matter of Growth Management review, with the following conditions: 1. No new exterior exit stair is approved at this time. 2. Continue to work on the design of the entry canopy for Final review. 3. Reduce the height of the trash enclosure, if possible. 4. HPC recommends to City Council that affordable housing mitigation be addressed by requiring that two years after Certificate of Occupancy, of the project, an employee audit shall be conducted by the applicant. At such time, if any additional employees have been generated, the Church will mitigate by providing additional on -site housing or by the purchase of the Affordable Housing Credit Certificates. 5. The applicant shall incorporate the TIA improvements endorsed by Engineering into the Final design for the project. 6. The applicant shall incorporate the Parks Department's comments on sidewalk design and tree protection into the Final design for the project. 7. HPC finds that no new on -site parking is required for this project. 8. On March 9th, 2016, HPC reviewed story poles representing the height of the project relative to the Courthouse View .Planes and confirmed the Community Development Department recommendation that Option B has a minimal effect on the viewplanes. Section 2• Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Applicant is required to obtain Final Major Development Review and Growth Management approval. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an -application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. Section 3• All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department and the Historic Preservation Commission are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. Section 4• This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Historic Preservation Commission Resolution #8, Series 2016 Page 2 of 3 '•1 W.A. Section 5• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 9"' day of March, 2016. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Willis Pember, Chair Attest: Kathy Strickland, Deputy Clerk Historic Preservation Commission Resolution #8, Series 2016 Page 3 of 3 P91 W.A. Section 5• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 9`h day of March, 2016. Approved as to form: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Attest: Kathy Str4ckland, Deputy Clerk ro d as to content: Willis ember, Chair Historic Preservation Commission Resolution #8, Series 2016 Page 3 of 3 P92 W.A. RESOLUTION #19 (SERIES OF 2016) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AMENDING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, SPECIAL REVIEW, GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND VIEW PLANE APPROVAL FOR 533 E. MAIN STREET, LOTS A -I, BLOCK 93, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Parcel ID: 273 7-073-31-801 WHEREAS, on May 4, 2015, the Community Development Department received an application from The Archdiocese of Denver/St. Mary's Church, represented by Charles Cunniffe Architects and Stan Clauson Associates for the following land use review approvals: Conceptual Major Development, Special Review, Growth Management and View Plane review; and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the Application at duly noticed public hearings on August 26, 2015; January 27, 2016 and March 9, 2016, during which time the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were requested and heard by the Historic Preservation Commission; and, WHEREAS, on March 9, 2016, the Historic Preservation Commission granted Conceptual Major Development, Special Review, Growth Management and View Plane approval by adopting Resolution #8, Series of 2016, by a 4 to 3 vote; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.415.120.13 and C of the Municipal Code, following the adoption of a resolution approving a Conceptual Development Plan, the HPC was required to promptly notify the City Council of its action to allow the City Council an opportunity to call-up the decision for additional discussion. Notice to City Council took place on April 11, 2016 and a Call-up meeting took place on April 25, 2016, at which time City Council directed HPC, by a 3-1 vote to reconsider the placement of the above grade addition included in the project so that it is along the alley (Option A) rather than along Main Street (Option B.) Council also directed HPC to consider the elimination of a connector/enclosed hallway between the addition and the church; and WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 8, 2016, the Historic Preservation Commission, by a 4 to 1 vote, revised the approval encompassed in Resolution 48, Series of 2016, so as to require the above grade addition to be as represented in Option A. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: All provisions of Resolution #8, Series of 2016, remain in effect except that the approved design is Option A, as depicted in the March 9`" Historic Preservation Commission packet for 533 E. Main Street. The approved Option A does not project into the Courthouse Viewplanes. RECEPTION#: 631336, 08/11 /2016 at 09:35:02 AM, 1 OF 2, R $16.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Historic Preservation Commission Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO Resolution #19, Series 2016 Page 1 of 2 P93 W.A. FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 8th day of June, 2016. App oved as to form: Approved as to content: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Grc' h n Greenwoo , Vice Chair Attest: Kathy Stric nd, Deputy Clerk Historic Preservation Commission Resolution # 19, Series 2016 Page 2 of 2 P94 W.A. ORDINANCE #12 (SERIES OF 2017) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND VESTED RIGHTS FOR AN ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY AT 104 S. GALENA STREET AND 533 E. MAIN STREET, ST. MARY'S CATHOLIC CHURCH, LOTS A -I, BLOCK 93, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO Parcel ID: 2737-073-31-801 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application for Growth Management review and Vested Rights for an expansion to St. Mary's Catholic Church. St. Mary's proposes the construction of a social hall to accommodate new classroom and gathering spaces. The application was submitted by Father John Hilton on behalf of St. Mary's Catholic Church, authorized by The Archdiocese of Denver and represented by Charles Cunniffe Architects and Stan Clauson Associates. The application requires the following land use review approvals: • Growth Management Review — Essential Public Facility, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 26.470; and, • Extension or Reinstatement of Vested Rights pursuant to Municipal Code Section 26.308.010.C.; and WHEREAS, all code citation references are to the City of Aspen Land Use Code in effect on the day of initial application — May 5, 2015, as applicable to this Project; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.304.060 of the Land Use Code, the Community Development Director has elected to allow combined reviews in this case where more than one development approval is being sought simultaneously; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments in August 2015 from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority board related to the Growth Management component of Council's review. The board recommended an employment audit two years after completion of the project, to determine if any affordable housing mitigation is warranted; and, WHEREAS, On March 9, 2016, the Historic Preservation Commission provided a recommendation to Council regarding Growth Management as part of their evaluation of the project for Conceptual Major Development, Special Review and Viewplane compliance. HPC recommended that City Council approve the application with the condition recommended by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority board; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department reviewed the application and the recommendations of APCHA and HPC and recommended approval with conditions; and, Ordinance #12, Series 2017 Page 1 of 4 P95 W.A. WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of APCHA, the HPC, and the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council hereby grants approval for Growth Management Essential Public Facility and Vested Rights for the development of the site subject to the conditions of approval as listed herein. 1. Two years after Certificate of Occupancy, an employee audit shall be conducted showing the current FTE head count at that time. If additional employees, beyond the 3.575 FTE's represented in this application are identified, mitigation will be required at the rate the Municipal Code requires at the time of this approval. Mitigation will be required in the form of on -site housing or by the purchase of the Affordable Housing Credit Certificates, to be reviewed and approved according to the provisions of the Municipal Code and Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority guidelines as applicable. 2. The auditor and audit will be reviewed and approved by APCHA. Any costs associated with the audit will be at the expense of the applicant. The Housing Authority shall request the audit from the applicant and the applicant shall provide the Housing Authority and the Community Development Department with the audit report. Failure to request the audit shall not render any of the approvals invalid. The Housing Authority and Community Development shall forward the audit to the Housing Board and/or City Council for review, as applicable. 3. Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Applicant is required to obtain Final Major Development Review from HPC following approval of the reviews outlined herein. The applicant must apply for Final review no later than one (1) year following HPC's approval of Conceptual Major Development, which occurred on June 8, 2016. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render the Conceptual Major Development approval, and therefore this Growth Management and Vested Rights approval null and void. This deadline may be extended pursuant to Section 26.415.070.D and 26.445.090.0 of the Municipal Code. Ordinance #12, Series 2017 Page 2 of 4 W.A. Section 2• No later than fourteen (14) days following Final Major Development approval by the Historic Preservation Commission, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to Chapter 26.308, Vested Property Rights. Pursuant to § 26.304.070(A), Development Orders, such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of ten (10) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 104 S. Galena Street and 533 E. Main Street, St. Mary's Catholic Church, Lots A -I, Block 93, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the Development Order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this Ordinance of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this Ordinance. The vested rights granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review. The period of time permitted by law to exercise the right of referendum to refer to the electorate this Section of this Ordinance granting vested rights; or, to seek judicial review of the grant of vested rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as set forth above. The rights of referendum described herein shall be no greater than those set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. Section 3• All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department, the Historic Preservation Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. Section 4• This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Ordinance #12, Series 2017 Page 3 of 4 P97 W.A. Section 6• A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 8th day of May, 2017, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 24th day of April, 2017. Attest: Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2017. Attest: Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor Approved as to form: James R. True, City Attorney Ordinance #12, Series 2017 Page 4 of 4 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODa ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 10 4 S • qcl_� $V :A- 5-33 Ma' )" pen, CO 15-. K"�--_n� C0.A4ACUL C4� SCHEDULMD PUBLIC HEARING DATE: Fe_P rua,r I L&- P 4-'• 30 W 20LV STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) 11 (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (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 ' 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).ofAh 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 { MCproperty;subject.=;to;'the'•,development application. The names and addresses of !i property io1wrier -, thall 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 p,� copy of the:ownersand 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, SPAS or PUDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and. new Specially Planned Areas, 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 dining 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 this2$• day ofS=. , 20�$ by ,e� NOTICE OF pUSL1C HEARING SE 10s 5. Gslana SCA, eM 833 E. Win SbmL St Nary CatlpBc Ch�A Pub I Iffy: 4:30 p.m., waeneseey, Febwry WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL 14,2018 _ RInJWIg Location: ay Nae, City Ceuntli Chem Eem 130 S. Galena StreeL Aspen, CO 81811 L— St Mdry S- GaI C Ana My commission expires: NemS�Lol utfon: IN S. Galere ShaeV 533 E. T�II e0ea Pwn: Lob A.I. eben 93. Ciy ene of Aspen. cobs . PIDa2737-00 3 1d 1 0naoept o - The appff� rat—, ep""� b "n Notary Public Nary Catlwre Clwrtll artl lame d 81e 4"'Mg Fetley wim a new sacral natl antl meeting apace. Line Use Nav D Fvrel W W Oevebpmant ene V Desgn"�"" KAREN REED PATTERSON Ben conmpabn9 NoeY: Alden Ifelae Prexnva- mn Fames.bm Hamm on Oehel a Tne NOTARY PUBLIC ar9se of Demrer, 1300 S. Stearn Street DemeLCG80210. TE OF COLORADO Wm ml-.WI n: Forke mbn Nien re W ATTACHMENTS AS APPL C 1"Y ID COLD ADO moo M""m° +Commission pBn 02787 1 tY De"II M nt DePen r, 1330 s B PUBLICATION �" �' E4kes February 15, 2020 PIU$anW.sh ainft A� Ti "' PH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) Pwa:nae m me Aspen rmm on Jalaery zs.2ole . j00°°18 7S1 — E OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 104 S Galena St. and 533 E Main St., Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, Tawn Hillenbrand (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (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. _X_ Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the 29`h day of January 2018, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. _X_ 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 (I5) 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. NA 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) NA_ 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. NA_ 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. Signatfire The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 30`h day of January 2018, by Patrick Rawley. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL =S.AWLEYBLIC M commission ex ires: 2 0 2 b LORADO Y P994012259es July 23. 2020 Notary Public ```�� ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPY OF THEPUBLICA TION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) o 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 EXHIBIT �i THE Crry OF ASPEN City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 p: (970) 920.5000 f: (970) 920.5197 w: www.aspenpitkin.com NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RE: 104 S. Galena Street and 533 E. Main Street, St. Mary Catholic Church Public Hearing: 4:30 p.m., Wednesday, February 14, 2018 Meeting Location: City Hall, City Council Chambers 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 Project Name: St. Mary Catholic Church Project Location: 104 S. Galena Street/ 533 E. Main Street Legal Description: Lots A -I, Block 93, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. PID#2737-073-31-801 Description: The applicant requests final design approval for modifications to the exterior of St. Mary Catholic Church and for the expansion of the existing facility with a new social hall and meeting space. Land Use Reviews. Final Major Development and Final Commercial Design Review Decision Making Body: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Applicant: Father John Hilton on behalf of The Archdiocese of Denver, 1300 S. Steele Street, Denver, CO 80210. 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. Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius From Parcel: 273707331801 on 01/17/2018 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. hftp://www.pitkinmaDsandmore.com KANDYCOM INC ASPEN PLAZA LLC ROTHBLUM MARCIA QTIP MARITAL TRUST 766 SINGING WOOD OR PO BOX .1709 40 E 80TH ST #PH 26A ARCADIA, CA 91006 _ ASPEN, CO 81612 NEW YORK, NY 10075 ROTHBLUM PHILIP ALH HOLDING CO 204 S GALENA ST LLC 40 E 80TH ST #PH 26A 435 E MAIN ST 2001 N HALSTED #304 NEW YORK, NY 10075 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 60614 HUNTER SQUARE LLC JURINE LLC CANTINA BUILDING LLC PO BOX 2 PO BOX 2 PO BOX 1247 SONOMA, CA 95476 SONOMA, CA 95476 ASPEN, CO 81612 CITY OF ASPEN PUBLIC FACILITIES AUTH 517 EAST HOPKINS ASPEN LLC GODIVA HOLDINGS LLC 130 S GALENA ST 2001 N HALSTED #304 435 E MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 60614 ASPEN, CO 81611 SL PROPERTY LLC BORCHERTS HOLDE H REV TRUST BORCHERTS ROBERT H REV TRUST 2606 STATE ST 1555 WASHTENAW 1555 WASHTENAW DALLAS, TX 75204 ANN ARBOR, MI 48104 ANN ARBOR, MI 48104 BROUGH STEVE & DEBORAH EMPHASYS SERVICES CO BULKELEY RICHARD C & JULIE J 599 TROUT LK DR 1925 BRICKELL AVE BLDG D, PENTHSE 11 600 E MAIN ST #401 SANGER, CA 93657 MIAMI, FL 33129 ASPEN, CO 81611 DORAN RALPH WTF LLC LARSON MARIA M 2600 WOODWARD WAY 3506 LAUREL LEDGE LN PO BOX 8207 ATLANTA, GA 30305 AUSTIN, TX 787314046 ASPEN, CO 81612 MARCHETTI FAMILY LLC GRIMES DAVID L REV TRUST RKJR PROPERTIES LTD 1526 FOREST DR - 600 E MAIN ST #301 5934 ROYAL LN #250 GLENVIEW, IL 60025 ASPEN, CO 81611 DALLAS, TX 75230 LEBARRE FAM LLC SMITH JAMES F & N LINDSAY KAHANEK FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LTD 7518 MIDDLEWOOD ST 600 E MAIN ST #302 2727 ALLEN PKWY # 1500 HOUSTON, TX 77063 ASPEN, CO 81611 HOUSTON. TX 77019 MAESTRANZI ALEXA LEE TRUST MANN KATHLEEN A REV TRUST VAN WALRAVEN EDWARD C REV TRUST 1736 PARK RIDGE PT PO BOX 1455 PO BOX 1455 PARK RIDGE, IL 60068 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 COPPOCK RICHARD P A CONCEPT LLC NR HOLDING CO 600 E MAIN ST #407 325 SHARON PARK DR #703 580 MALLORY WY ASPEN, CO 81611 MENLO PARK, CA 94025 CARSON CITY, NV 89701 GILKERSON.LINDA REV TRUST LAMB DON REV TRUST UNREGISTERED TRUST 611611983 1449 E 56TH ST 1449 E 56TH ST 3674 WOODLAWN TERRACE PL CHICAGO, IL 60637 CHICAGO, IL 60637 HONOLULU, HI 96822 ASPEN LEGACY LLC MARASCO BERNARD R MARASCO EMILY A 17740 E HINSDALE AVE 320 DAKOTA DR 21701 FLAMENCO FOXFIELD, CO 80016 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 MISSION VIEJO, CA 92692 MARASCO FAMILY TRUST MARASCO RAE O TRUST STARMER MARY JOSEPHINE 653 26112 RD 653 26112 RD 12738 W 84TH DR GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 ARVADA, CO 80001 GENE MCCUTCHIN LTD II KAPLAN 8. CO LLC MCGAFFEY FAMILY & CO NO C LLC PO BOX 802043 300 S POINTE DR # 1105 2465 NOB HILL AVE NORTH DALLAS, TX 753802043 MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139 SEATTLE, WA 98109 117 SOUTH SPRING STREET HOLDINGS LLC SLS LLC MARSH HUGH PO BOX 81016 117 S SPRING ST #201 631 E MAIN ST SAN MARINO, CA 91118 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 THOMAS KATHRYN HOVERSTEN PHILIP & LOUISE HOLLAND AND HART 631 E MAIN ST 2990. BOOTH CREEK DR PO BOX 8749 ASPEN, CO 81611 VAIL, CO 81657 DENVER, CO 80201 CONCEPT 600LLC BIG HOPKINS LLC MYSKO ASPEN HOLDINGS 5048 CAMINO DEL LAZO 421 N BEVERLY DR #300 615 E HOPKINS AVE TUCSON, AZ 85750 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 ASPEN, CO 81611 BRAND BUILDING LLC BLAU JEFF T HINDERSTEIN FAM REV TRUST 205 S GALENA ST 60 COLUMBUS CR 19TH FL 4415 HONEYMOON BAY RD ASPEN, CO 81611 NEW YORK, NY 10023 GREENBANK, WA 98253 BRAND 13 LLC LEVY ASPEN RESIDENCE TRUST WALL JANET REV TRUST 623 E HOPKINS AVE 5959 COLLINS AVE 205 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ALPINE BANK ASPEN CITY OF ASPEN 420 E HOPKINS AVE PO BOX 10000 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 ASPEN, CO 81611 PITKIN COUNTY PITKIN COUNTY CAPITAL LEASING CORP BANKERS MORTGAGE CORP 123 EMMA RD #204 530 E MAIN ST 1616 ORCHARD AVE BASALT, CO 81621 ASPEN, CO 81611 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501 BASS CAHN 601 LLC HORSEFINS LLC STEWART TITLE CO PO BOX 4060 601 E HOPKINS AVE 1980 POST OAK BLVD STE 900 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 HOUSTON, TX 77056 KREVOY SUSANNE BELZBERG SP TRUST OSA TRUST ERNEMANN ANDREW & ASHLEY 2311 LA MESA DR 2311 LA MESA DR 39 POLECAT DR SANTA MONICA. CA 90402 SANTA MONICA, CA 90402 ASPEN, CO 81611 HENDERSON JAMES C KUCK KATHERINE M LESTER JIM 4880 HARLEM RD 4880 HARLEM RD 395 SOUTH END AVE 429N GALENA, OH 43021 GALENA, OH 43021 NEW YORK, NY 10280 LEWITES JORDAN SMITH GARY W BOHNETT MARSHA ANN TRUST 2728 MCKINNON ST #1317 800 W 5TH ST#606 10780 NAVAJO WY DALLAS, TX 75201 AUSTIN, TX 78703 OREGON CITY, OR 97045 DANIELS SIMON B HENRY WILLIAM STONE REV TRUST FAREY SIOBHAN C 431 E HYMAN AVE 3382 TURNBURY DR 7903 CURTIS ST ASPEN, CO 81611 RICHFIELD, OH 44286 CHEW CHASE, MD 20815 STAPLE GREGORY C _ 530 HOPKINS LLC MARIPOSA REAL ESTATE II LLC 7903 CURTIS ST 530 1/2 E HOPKINS 500 S POINTE DR #240 CHEW CHASE, MD 20815 ASPEN, CO 81611 MIAMI BEACH, FL 331397318 AUSTIN LAWRENCE CONNER LLC CICUREL CARY LUCKYSTAR LLC 532 E HOPKINS AVE 2615 N LAKEWOOD PO BOX 7755 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 60614 ASPEN, CO 81612 WILSON FAMILY TRUST ORR KEITH MURPHY GEORGE W 101 FOUNDERS PL #201 4545 N STATE LINE PO BOX 4146 ASPEN, CO 81611 TEXARKANA, TX 75503 ASPEN, CO 81612 OP LLC VECTOR ENTERPRISES LLC BOSELY MARY ANNE REV TRUST 424 PARK CIR #6 0490 ASPEN OAK DR PO BOX 26 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 WOODY CREEK, CO 81656 OBP LLC G & G CORPORATE OFFICES LLC NGS LLC 101 FOUNDERS PL #104 2520 S GRAND AV # 114 101 FOUNDERS PL #109 ASPEN, CO 81611 GLENWOOD SPGS, CO 81601 ASPEN, CO 81611 CRUMMER KLEIN TITLE TRUST CAMPBELL JAMES D LARK INGALIL E 1305 N BEVERLY DR PO BOX 404 PO BOX 404 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 BALLINGER ELIZABETH F SEYFFERT STEVEN J HANDLEY DENNIS 102 FOUNDERS PL #102 102 FOUNDERS PL #201 102 FOUNDERS PL #202 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 KLEIN JAMES J & SALLIE R SMITH H W III HUNTER ALEXANDER PO BOX 12022 PO BOX 10914 PO BOX 1638 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 DONAHUE ELIZABETH SINTA SCOTT GWM PROPERTIES LLC 102 FOUNDERS PL #2302 PO BOX 2872 PO BOX 4146 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 311 ASPEN LLC GOLDFEIN MICHAEL R TRUST GOLDFEIN PAMELA J TRUST 2317 PENNSYLVANIA AVE 1724 BRAESIDE LN 1724 BRAESIDE LN WILMINGTON, DE 19806 NORTHBROOK, IL 60062 NORTHBROOK, IL 60062 LIPNICK FAMILY ASPEN LLC WELSCH SUSAN F REVOC TRUST RAMOS WALTHER JR & MARJORIE R 1825K ST NW #507 101 N SPRING ST #201 133 TALL TREES DR WASHINGTON, DC 20006 ASPEN, CO 81611 BALA CYNWYD, PA 19004 1 GALANTER YALE & ELYSE FESUS FAMILY TRUST ATWOOD STANFORD H & PAMELA S LVG TR 101 N SPRING ST#3301 PO BOX 9197 16125 GREENWOOD LN ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 MONTE SERENO, CA 95030 MARTINEZ RITA PEARSON DOUG DOCKEN ANDREW 101 N SPRING ST #3104 101 N SPRING ST #3105 101 N SPRING ST #106 ASPEN, CO 816111518 ASPEN, CO 816111518 ASPEN, CO 81611 MACLEAN HANA SHAPIRO FREDERIC M & SUSAN SUMNER VERONICA 101 N SPRING ST #3107 101 N SPRING ST #3108 101 N SPRING ST #3109 ASPEN, CO 81611 . ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 GRAHAM NARELDA SATTLER SANDRA A CURET JORDAN 101 N SPRING ST #203 101 N SPRING ST #3204 101 N SPRING ST #205 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 LAZAR FAMILY TRUST BASSI PETER & BARBARA.FAMILY TRUST COHEN NANCY C REV TRUST 5342 ALDEA AVE 18 CHANNEL VISTA 31275 NORTHWESTERN HWY #208 ENCINO, CA 91316 NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657 FARMINGTON HILLS, MI 48334 LEONARD FAMILY TRUST MOSCOE THOMAS D SMITH GAILEN B FAMILY TRUST 999 LA PAZ RD 445 GRAND BAY DR #607 625 E MAIN ST #102B SANTA BARBARA, CA 931081022 KEY BISCAYNE, FL 33149 ASPEN, CO 81611 OBERMEYER 204 LLC PARDEE JAMES LEE III REV LIV TRST BIG BOY LLC 2727 ALLEN PKWY STE1400 PO BOX 4153 205 S MILL ST 4301A HOUSTON, TX 77019 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 LINDENAUSCOTT A REV TRUST TGS LLC UNIT 109 OP LLC 501 RIO GRANDE PL #104 PO BOX 1913 501 RIO GRANDE PL #107 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ARENELLA BETH & FRANK J III FELDMAN JONATHAN MILNE SHEILA 100 OBERMEYER PL # 101 100 OBERMEYER PLACE DR #102 PO BOX 8286 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 DAD OANH KIM NGUYEN MICHAEL TAM UNIT 106 OP LLC 430 E HYMAN AVE 430 E HYMAN AVE 205 S MILL ST #301A ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 816112497 GRW RIO GRANDE PROPERTY LLC FORTIER TIMOTHY MAROLT ENTERPRISES LLC 11653 E BERRY AVE 601 RIO GRANDE PL #102 PO BOX 8705 ENGLEWOOD, CO 801114156 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 TSE HOLDINGS LLC PAM LLC JOSA LLC 601 RIO GRANDE PL #120 PO BOX 4446 601 RIO GRANDE #110 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 LCC ASPEN HOLDINGS LLC SCHENKELBERG LLC PO BOX 1550 140 VISTA GRANDE ASPEN, CO 81612. GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81507 OBERMEYER PLACE RENTAL GRP LLC DIXIE DOG VENTURES LLC 115 AABC 1690 HOMESTAKE DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 BRUNSWOLD KIRK LANE TAMMIE 601 RIO GRANDE PL #118 601 RIO GRANDE PL #118 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 KIMPLE 2004 TRUST OLITSKY TAMAR & STEPHEN 3505 TURTLE CREEK BLVD #PH2OA PO BOX 514 DALLAS, TX 75219 GWYNEDD VALLEY, PA 19437 CARVER RUTH A OBERMEYER PLACE CONDO 116 S ASPEN ST COMMON AREA ASPEN, CO 81611 210 N MILL ST #201 ASPEN, CO 81611 GALENA PLAZA CONDO ASSOC BRAND BUILDING CONDO ASSOC 420 E MAIN ST 205 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 CONCEPT 600 CONDO ASSOC 601 EAST HOPKINS CONDO ASSOC 600 E MAIN ST COMMON AREA ASPEN, CO 81611 601 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 DML REALTY LLC ASPEN PARKING LLC PO BOX 305 5956 SHERRY LN # 1500 CHAVIES, KY 41727 DALLAS, TX 75225 GRABOW KENNETH 214 WEST COOPER LLC 3334 E COAST H WY #442 6 NE 63RD ST #220 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 WARK RICKEY E & CYNTHIA ANN HAUSER MARY JANE 45 N WILLOW CT 1540 BOHNS POINT RD ASPEN, CO 81611 WAYZATA, MN 55391 K & J ENTERPRISES LLC 601 RIO GRANDE PL #119A ASPEN, CO 81611 FURTHUR CANCUN LLC PO BOX 2199 ASPEN, CO 81612 ARTIM LLC PO BOX 30106 NEW YORK, NY 10011 WFP INC PO BOX 4290 ASPEN, CO 81612 620 E HOPKINS CONDO ASSOC COMMON AREA 620 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 SPRING STREET CONDO ASSOC 117 S SPRING ST #202. ASPEN, CO 81611 TROYER TROUSDALE TOWNHOMES CONDO COMMON AREA 611 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 RIO GRANDE PARTNERS 88 LLC 1008 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 HUTCHESON LAURA TRUST 98 SAN JACINTO BLVD # 1009 AUSTIN, TX 78701 CALHOON THOMAS C 315 LAVACA ST AUSTIN, TX 787013036 WAGAR RICHARD H HUNTER & HOPKINS PROF BUILDING COND( ISIS THEATRE CONDO ASSOC PO BOX 9063 COMMON AREA COMMON AREA ASPEN, CO 81612 600 E HOPKINS AVE 406 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN FILM ISIS GROUP CONNER CABINS & LOFTS CONDO ASSOC 110 E HALLAM ST #102 2301 N MERIDIAN AVE COMMON AREA ASPEN, CO 81611 MIAMI, FL 33140 530 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 625 MAIN INVESTMENTS LLC PENEL LLC TRACY KATHLEEN 407 S HUNTER ST #3 655 MADISON AVE 11 TH FLR 625 E MAIN ST #202 ASPEN, CO 81611 NEW YORK, NY 10065 ASPEN, CO 81611 ROY ADAM C & SARAH G STUDIO SIX LLC EMCAR LLC 625 E MAIN ST #203 PO BOX DO 655 MADISON AVE 11 TH FL ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 NEW YORK, NY 10065 CAREM LLC 625 MAIN ASPEN LLC HOPKINS DEV LLC 655 MADISON AVE 11TH FL 420 E MAIN ST 345 PARK AVE 33RD FLR NEW YORK, NY 10065 ASPEN, CO 81611 NEW YORK, NY 10154 RUDIN MICHAEL & SABRINA SPRING BUILDING CONDO ASSOC HOPKINS BARN LLC 345 PARK AVE 632 E HOPKINS AVE 623 E HOPKINS NEW YORK, NY 10154 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 HOPKINS CABIN LLC BAD LLC ASPEN BLOCK 99 CONDO ASSOC 623 E HOPKINS 35850 S WOODLAND RD 532 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 CHAGRIN FALLS, OH 44022 ASPEN, CO 81611 MAIN STREET LANDLORD LLC 426 EAST MAIN LLC M & G CONDO ASSOC 625 E HOPKINS 623 E HOPKINS AVE 426 E MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 Lisa Markalunas 15 Williams Ranch Court, Aspen, Colorado Mailing: P.O. Box 8253 Aspen, CO 81612 970-925-8623 February 14, 2018 City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: St. Marys Catholic Church, 533 E. Main Street, Aspen, CO Proposed Pavilion/Social Hall Addition & Entrance — Final Approval Dear HPC Commissioners: I would like to make the following comments regarding the Final Approval application before you tonight for St. Marys Catholic Church. I am supportive of the suggested changes to the front entry and believe it is preferable to a suspended piece of very modern plexiglass above the Church entrance. Contrary to references in the applicant's submittal, I believe that there are indeed historic landscapes on site at St. Marys. The large yard space, as viewed from the west, between the Church and the rectory is a historic landscape in an area with very few open areas and the view planes across this landscape to such a historic structure are significant. Both the large cottonwood trees along Main Street and the rows of lilac on both the north edge along Main Street, but also along the alley and around the rectory building, are also significant landscape elements. Every effort should be made to retain as many of the lilacs as possible, including the ones along the alley, and not just those on the north side of the lawn, as they all have been significant landscaping elements on this entire historic block for well over sixty years. I am very concerned about the connector between the above -grade addition and its attachment to the historic Church. The new connection is of highly contemporary material of steel and glass, with'a high probability of light spillage, and I feel the materials are inappropriate in this context. I still believe it would be afar more successful project if this connector were eliminated entirely in favor of the sub -grade connection to the significant spaces located below grade or perhaps a simple covered walkway connection without walls and glass. If this is not possible, given conceptual approval, and the applicant is unwilling to consider any modifications, a smaller connector element with less impact on the historic window opening should be considered. The current proposal, with the connector, has the effect of creating a lengthy visual barrier across the alley side of the property. The use of a high amount of glass may create some transparency but it will also create a great deal of light spillage immediately adjacent to the historic building from both the addition and the connector. These are significant changes to a very significant historic site. I appreciate the efforts of the HPC now and in the past in trying to minimize the impacts of the proposed level of development on these significant historic structures and their important and historic setting. Sincerely, Lisa Markalunas