HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20180425
AGENDA
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
April 25, 2018
4:30 PM City Council Meeting Room
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
I. 12:00 SITE VISITS
A. None
II. 4:30 INTRODUCTION
A. Roll call
B. Draft Minutes for 4/11/18
C. Public Comments
D. Commissioner member comments
E. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
F. 4:40 Project Monitoring
Project Monitor List
G. Staff comments
H. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
I. Submit public notice for agenda items
J. Call-up reports
K. HPC typical proceedings
III. OLD BUSINESS
A. None
IV. NEW BUSINESS
A. 4:40 Update on HP Benefits
B. 5:00 Mobile tour and selection of 2017 Awards
V. 7:00 ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: 6
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.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 11TH, 2018
1
Chairperson Greenwood called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Jeffrey Halferty, Bob Blaich, Roger Moyer, Nora
Berko, Richard Lai. Absent were Willis Pember, Sheri Sanzone and Scott Kendrick.
Staff present:
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney
Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner
Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner
Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION: Mr. Blaich moved to approve the minutes from March 14th and
March 28th, Mr. Moyer seconded. Mr. Lai made a correction to the March 14th minutes. He said he
mentioned Bach not Beethoven in that meeting. All in favor, motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Berko thanked Ms. Simon and Ms. Yoon for their presentation with
Council. Ms. Greenwood agreed and said they used excellent photographs and the organization was
excellent and everyone should see it. Mr. Lai said he wanted to speak about bonuses on oversized
buildings. He said there are two types of historic resources: museum type and adaptive and reused,
which HPC most often work with. His view on bonuses is that he would like to reserve the 500 sq. ft.
max for museum type preservation. Even with adaptive reused, they should reserve the bonus for a job
that becomes a real asset to the community. When I look at what I’ve seen, I think we’re doing a really
good job, but afraid we are not doing a great service for the zone district of Hallam and Bleeker. He said
the present applicant is exempt on what he is going to say. He said it’s ok to preserve a Yorkie or
chihuahua, but they are not doing a great service to a Saint Bernard or a Great Dane behind a Yorkie. He
said we shouldn’t have developers coming expecting the max 500 sq. ft. If they do an excellent job, we
can reward that, but it has to be asset to the neighborhood or community. He mentioned abstaining
from the 533 W. Hallam St. project. Ms. Greenwood said Mr. Lai has the opportunity sitting on the
board to have his own philosophy and vote on projects accordingly, but she doesn’t feel like this is the
time and place for this discussion and would like to move on. Andrea asked if he wants to abstain. Ms.
Greenwood asked if he is conflicted and if he mentioned that he would like to abstain. He said he would
like to abstain on 533 W. Hallam St. Ms. Bryan asked what his reason is.
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT: Mr. Lai said his reason is apparent. He said he has no personal interest in
533 W. Hallam except his philosophy and would like to abstain. Ms. Greenwood pointed out that he
has been voting on it previously. Ms. Bryan said philosophical reasons aren’t really a reason to abstain
and pointed out that he did vote in the past. She asked if he agreed to understand and analyze the
guidelines fairly. Ms. Garrow said that they should ask the applicant team how they feel about Mr. Lai
voting on their project after what they just heard and Ms. Adams said that if Mr. Lai has a conflict, that is
for him to decide. Ms. Bryan said that if he cannot judge the project fairly and impartially, then he
should conflict out. Mr. Lai said that while it’s true, he voted in the past; he would like to conflict out.
Ms. Greenwood said that is fine because there is a quorum.
P1
II.B.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 11TH, 2018
2
PROJECT MONITORING: None.
STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon apologized to Mr. Blaich and Mr. Moyer for being left out of the HPC
tour with City Council. She said they had to draw names out of a hat since everyone wanted to go.
Council was taken around yesterday to show them HP projects and successes they’ve had with the
bonuses and benefits. She said there is a survey going around right now and so far, they’ve had over
100 respondents. April 17th is the closing date. She said she will talk to HPC at the next meeting
regarding improvements to the benefits and the code language will be presented the day after
Memorial Day. Policy resolution will be at Council on May 14th and the actual code language will be
presented to them on May 28th. We are moving along in response to their response to raise the bar a
little bit. She continued on to say that at the next meeting, it is time to start thinking about the annual
HPC awards and have an update on benefits. She will get a van from the Rec dept. again and do a tour
on projects completed over the past year to get out and about. Ms. Greenwood said this is great and it’s
good to get out in the field and see how the FAR and bonuses are used. It’s good to discuss these things
again and very informative. Ms. Yoon said it’s nice to look at the benefits with Council and others on
board. It was a good visual of what we do and see on paper and brings it more to life. Ms. Simon
mentioned one last item regarding City Council and the owners in areas of Lift One, are talking about
extending lift service downhill closer to Dean Street. There is a potential impact to the historic remains
in this area. On May 15th, there is going to be a council work session and depending on the outcome,
there will be a discussion in front of HPC so we may need some advice from Ms. Bryan on if you all
should attend the work session. There will be lots of newspaper coverage so you guys should know
what is going on.
CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None.
PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Bryan said the first one was continued and she has part of the notice for the
second item. Ms. Simon said it’s just the posting so she should have everything.
CALL UPS: None.
OLD BUSINESS: None.
NEW BUSINESS: Ms. Simon said they are switching the order of agenda items. Item B. 533 W. Hallam
Street will go first.
PRESENTATION: 533 W. Hallam Street
Sarah Yoon
She sent an email to everyone the previous day regarding updates on staff’s position. She will do a
comparison to bring everyone up to date. This is a historic Victorian located on a corner lot, 6000
square feet. It has a strong street presence with very large trees on the property. We are currently on
the third conceptual design hearing for the property. The new design was submitted yesterday and
since the March 14th meeting, the applicant has redesigned the addition to address the location of the
garage relative to the rear setback. It now sits two feet inside the rear property line with the required
setback of five feet so they will need a three-foot setback variation. The out building keeps the
structure within the property line. The repositioning of the doors will not swing beyond the property
line. The relocation of the historic resource is still consistent with the March proposal and will not
require a setback variation on the front. The change occurred with the size of the light well and have
P2
II.B.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 11TH, 2018
3
been increased to 4x4, which will require a dimensional variation on the east and rear lot lines. The
increase does account for about 236 square foot increase in the floor area. The most significant change
from the proposal in the packet, is due to the massing on the above grade addition and the roof form.
The height of the one-story addition has been increased and a window was removed from that addition
and simplifies the form and has a different roof massing that has been changed with the new
submission. The modifications were made in the second story addition. If you look at roof plan, you get
an idea of the simplification and allows for a more consistent reading of the new gables. In regard to the
criteria for the bonus, the applicant’s consistent undertaking of preservation efforts does deserve the
bonus. The revision does take into consideration the second-floor massing. This new application
requests the full 500 square foot bonus. They increased the light wells in the basement, so the extra
square footage is not going into the second story addition, but into the basement. We do recommend
approval for version 4.1 that has been presented and staff does support the 500-square foot bonus
including the following conditions:
1. They will require a developed landscape plan for final since that is not being reviewed or
approved at this time and include storm water mitigation in this plan addressing the drywells.
Ms. Berko asked why the window wells got bigger and Ms. Yoon said that will be covered in the
presentation.
Ms. Greenwood asked if there are any conditions staff is requesting for approval. Ms. Yoon said there
are not any besides the ones she already mentioned. Ms. Simon said they have a draft resolution being
passed around, which is different than the one in the original packet, which lists the aforementioned
conditions and other standard conditions including the 30,000 assurance, which is required anytime you
lift a house.
APPLICANT:
Sara Adams of Bendon Adams, Andy Wisnoski and Bill Poss of Poss Architecture
Ms. Adams said she will focus on the three items that were outstanding in the March hearing. The
Duncan’s worked hard to restudy the second-floor office. The second floor living space is set back
another five feet, which is consistent with what they’ve shown since November. The second-floor
balcony projects to the property line. The requested setback variation is compatible with the alleyway,
which she showed on screen. Issue number 2 was regarding mass and scale, so they have removed the
second-floor office and reduced the above grade floor area. They have instead, focused on the
basement and the light wells. They have simplified the roof forms and are well below the height limit to
be consistent with next door. She said the connector was also slightly reduced and the stairway was
redesigned. Ms. Adams said it feels like they have been responsive to HPC and have listened to all asks.
One of the guidelines HPC has, 10.8, is to do with placing the massing away from the landmark and
locate under the building in the basement, which is where they focused. They have increased the light
wells from 3x3 to 4x4, but the location hasn’t increased as they are pushed more into the basement. As
for the roof forms, they are proposing mostly gables. She said they feel they meet all eight of the
review criteria and showed the existing vs restored project on the screen. The patterns are similar to
the historic building. She said she feels lucky to have an out building to retain and protect ad said they
do have a 3D model which Mr. Wisnoski can show as well.
P3
II.B.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 11TH, 2018
4
Mr. Poss said he brought boards and hard copies in addition to the on-screen presentation. To answer
Ms. Greenwood’s question of why they wanted bigger light wells, she said they’ve made larger rooms
down below so they would like larger light wells for more light. He continued to go over the plans on
the boards and showed the areas of comparison.
Ms. Adams stated that they felt they had clear direction to take back to the Duncan’s after the last
meeting and they now feel like they’ve meet everything the board was asking and gave up the upper
floor office. The Duncan’s have worked hard to meet the requirements and have given up some
important things like the upper level office and are proud of the project under the old guidelines. She is
looking forward to hearing the boards comments on the changes.
Mr. Moyer asked if the current perimeter fence is metal or wrought iron. Ms. Adams said yes. Mr.
Moyer said all of the drawings show a white picket fence so he wanted to know if the metal will be
changed or if they will maintain it. Ms. Adams said they will be developing a landscape plan and will do
a site visit to see what is appropriate.
Ms. Berko asked for the above grade square footage. Mr. Poss said it is 2136. Ms. Greenwood noted
the 550-square foot garage. She asked if they added square footage for the attic space and Mr. Poss
said no, it was reduced.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
Mr. Halferty said he feels the project complies to guidelines regarding mass and scale. The rhythms
along 5th have gotten much better as well as the connecting element. The linking element is in perfect
proportion and conforms to the guidelines and it’s clever how the applicants have used the subgrade
space. He appreciates the shed. There was cost involved for the clients to remove the non-conforming
additions and open up the front porch on Hallam so he can support the proposal as is.
Mr. Blaich said that Mr. Halferty said it all for him so he has nothing more to add. He’s very positive
about this and said it has come a long way. It’s close to his house so he feels it’s a major improvement
to that area.
Mr. Moyer said that Mr. Halferty said it well enough.
Ms. Berko thanked the applicant for listening to the board. She said she can support most of it, but she
still feels as though guideline 10.6 isn’t being met. She said the back module, for her, dwarfs the historic
resource. She supports the underground setback for the alley, but she has a real problem with the
garage. In that, the bonus she can’t support all of it. She said it was noted in the staff memo, the
addition is four times its size, which is not compatible in size and scale for her. She can support most of
it, but there are a couple things she’s struggling with. The rear yard setback for the garage and the floor
area bonus are her thorns.
Ms. Greenwood said she is impressed with the effort the applicant has made to understand the boards
comments and move forward. The direction from complexity to simplicity has definitely been a success
on this latest proposal. She doesn’t think it competes on a massing scale with the historic resource. She
feels they do meet the guidelines and she can now support it. She understands how FAR works and they
have done a remarkable job getting it below grade and appreciates the effort that was made. She feels
P4
II.B.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 11TH, 2018
5
this was a good solution. She one hundred percent supports it. She doesn’t have a problem with the
setbacks in the alley and thinks this is a worthy project and supports the 500-square foot bonus.
Ms. Greenwood supports the resolution as written by staff. Ms. Yoon said they need to make some
revisions regarding the rear setback and side yard setbacks are corrected. There will be a 3-foot rear
yard reduction for the garage, an 8 ft. reduction for all of the above grade, a one ft. 9-inch reduction for
the out building, a two-foot reduction on the east side yard for the light wells and an 8-foot 9-inch
reduction for the combined side yard. Ms. Simon said the measurements in the resolution are not quite
correct, but it was a very minimal change, which Ms. Yoon just listed off. Ms. Simon said the applicant
would like us to add to following clarification: if there are any discrepancies, refer to the floor plan
presented in the packet to HPC. The conditions are as follows:
1. As Ms. Yoon listed above and followed by the clarification statement by the applicant.
2. The landscape plan will be developed and reviewed at a later date, including storm water
mitigation.
3. 30,000 bond for relocating the home.
4. Development application submitted within one year.
MOTION: Mr. Blaich motioned to approve with the conditions listed, Mr. Halferty seconded. Roll call
vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Berko, a reluctant yes.
5-0 all in favor, motion carried.
PRESENTATION: 51 Meadows Rd.
Sarah Yoon
This is one of eight landmark trustee townhomes designed by Herbert Bayer and was built in 1965. It is
one of the AspenModern designations. Staff was unable to locate the original drawings for this location,
so they went by historical photographs and building permit info. They did reach out the Denver Art
Museum, where the Herbert Bayer archives are located so they may have a lead on getting some of the
old drawings. HPC has asked to conduct a minor development review for the applicant. They are asking
for review of the following items: they are adding a small modest addition located on the rear of the
building, which will be up to 55 sq. feet. They will replace some of the existing windows and doors and
enlarge some of the windows. They would like to widen the fire place enclosure and they would like to
replace the existing pavers in the front. Going off of the west elevation, it shows the planter boxes that
are located on the rear of the building and this is the foundation the applicant would like to use. They
are not sure if the existing planter was an original feature, but in terms of mass and scale, the addition is
very small, so staff does support this. The addition is to span the bottom level crawl space and the main
level will be a relocation of the powder room and an extension to the entry level. In terms of the
architectural features, they are proposing to replace all windows and doors on the west, south and east
sides. There were some, which they want to be a replacement in kind and is noted that different
properties have designated the original windows as double hung. We do ask that the applicant replace
what is being taken out back to the original double hung. There are different proportions proposed on
the west elevation and a different type of window than what was suggested. It does appear that
originally the rear façade had fewer windows. In terms of what is existing, the new proposal is a little
P5
II.B.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 11TH, 2018
6
different than what was there so we are asking that cut sheets be provided and they should go over
proportions with staff and monitor. In the packets, it is noted that the three windows, also on south
elevation, suggest a window glazing that is not historic, which is an LCD unit proposed. Because this is
not a feature on any of the trustee houses, staff would like them to look at and reconsider interior blinds
as needed. Regarding the chimney enclosure, we do believe that is original. The enlargement needs to
be taken into consideration and we want to keep the original proportion the same. In terms of the
proposal for replacing the paver material, but they want to keep as much integrity in terms of material
as they can so staff recommends concrete. Staff is recommending approval with the following
conditions are:
1. Restudy window configurations on the rear shingle façade and work with staff and monitor.
2. Provide cut sheets for new windows and doors on the front façade and work with staff and
monitor.
3. Front façade window replacement taken back to the double hung window type.
4. Replacement of concrete paver to remain concrete.
5. Keep dimension of the fire box on the rear façade.
6. Re-look at glazing on the LCD.
Mr. Moyer clarified that by “rear” they are referring to the west side. The front of the building is the east
side. Ms. Yoon confirmed. My Moyer asked if there are 12 units and Ms. Simon said there are 11. Ms.
Greenwood said she designed the new ones and the original designs were by Doug McPherson who she
said she can contact for the original designs. Ms. Yoon said there were 8 originally designed by Herbert
Bayer. Mr. Moyer asked about the shingles underneath the window and asked what state they were in
originally. Ms. Simon said it may have been a painted metal. She said it is hard to make out in the
photographs, but it was not a shingle.
Mr. Halferty exited the meeting.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION:
Luis Menendez of Menendez Architects with the home owners Ricki and John McHugh
Mr. Menendez said the owners are longtime locals and business owners. Ms. McHugh is an interior
designer and has been instrumental in the design of the improvements to her home. Because these
units have been altered so much and all in different ways, please consider this in context of that reality.
He brought a series of photos to help understand the conditions.
The unit is #51. This project is within a modest budget. The sliding glass doors showing on the screen
are not original. None of the windows are original and have all been possibly enlarged from the
originals. In hopes of bringing it closer to the original configuration, we are proposing to replace the
sliding glass doors with windows instead of doors. We would mull them together with the upper
windows, eliminating the structure in between the upper and lower windows. On the existing south
wall, they are replacing the sliding glass door with windows. This is something similar to what has been
done in other units as well. The units are all inconsistent with each other and he showed examples on
screen.
P6
II.B.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 11TH, 2018
7
Mr. Halferty re-entered the meeting.
Regarding not widening the fireplace box, the information they have tells them that it is not an original
feature. John Sarpa is the president of the home owner’s association there and wrote a letter stating
that in the original trustee townhomes, there were stoves and not fireplaces in 1984. He stated that
most owners changed the location of the stove and made them fireplaces as did Merrill Ford who
owned #51. Mr. Menendez said they also have a letter from a close friend of the previous homeowner,
who remodeled the unit and distinctly recalled there was no fireplace where it currently is, but also had
a corner wood stove. Additionally, they have opened up the fireplace and gotten the model number
and sent it to the manufacturer who said that model is from 1997. The existing fireplace is in bad
condition and needs to be replaced and to install a new one, they need to widen the hole five inches on
each side so it is not a big difference.
The third condition is regarding the LCD window, which is in the master bathroom. If you stand back a
way, you can’t discern if it’s obscure or clear glass. The LCD privacy glass is just one form other options
that can be used. They can flip the switch and then it becomes clear when they do not need privacy so it
is not always obscure and is the best of both worlds. This is solely for privacy because the neighbor can
look directly into the bathroom.
On the east façade, staff wants double hung windows to match the original design. Mr. Menendez
showed the elevation on screen and said the two lower windows are casement windows. They would
like to replace as the same window function as currently exists so casements and fixed at the bottoms
and a double hung on top. Unit 61 was the most recently remodeled unit and they were allowed to
install a casement window with a simulated divided light so it appears as a double hung window. The
owners are willing to do the same thing and prefer the function of the casement and has better thermal
properties.
Mr. Menendez said that regarding the installation of painted metal panel in lieu of shingles, the
application has no objection there.
As for the requirement for cut sheets, he has brought three sets here to the meeting. He said it’s an
aluminum clad wood window and a Pella brand, which is very similar to what the neighbor has used.
The concrete walkway definitely needs to be replaced and there is a question of what the material
ought to be and may very well have been concrete, but the owners would prefer something more
attractive. He showed an example of unit 61 on the screen, which used a stamped concrete. They also
showed a tile that is currently being used in the remodel of the restaurant at the meadows and is cut in
the same pattern as the concrete.
Ms. McHugh said that one of the driving reasons to change the windows on the southern face is because
when Merrill Ford remodeled, they used a header that is quite large and blocks the view of the
mountains so they would like to open that back up. The sliding glass doors becoming windows would
just make it easier to see. The fireplace has consumed her for the past three weeks trying to find a
fireplace to fit in the existing hole and cannot find one. It’s obsolete and illegal and there are no
replacement parts for the current one. Regarding the privacy frosted glass, her neighbor’s office looks
right into her shower so they plan to fog it just for showering and then will unfog it. The windows we
are proposing to replace are consistent with unit 61 and then those units would be identical in the front
P7
II.B.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 11TH, 2018
8
and would provide some consistency. The front walkway is dangerous as is so they would really like to
do a similar tile as the neighbors.
Ms. Simon said she wants to be clear on the inconsistency among the units since they were only just
designated in 1995. She said they only have two land use files for approved projects and there have
been a number of things that did not get proper approval by owners. These are Herbert Bayer designed
units and there are some verified characteristics and materials that he used. We are looking to unify
and stop the hodge podge of units. Please keep in mind, we want to make sure these are coherent and
consistent moving forward as these are important historically designated properties. The unit which
was remodeled next door, she doesn’t believe that they recently approved a faux mullion to make it
look double hung. She said their priority is to restore. Ms. Berko asked Ms. Simon to point out which
features she is specifically referring to. Ms. Simon said staff could be wrong about the firebox and
maybe it’s not original, but she knows the pathway to the front would not have been tile in Bayer’s time
since he used concrete.
Ms. McHugh said they collect Herbert Bayer art and respect his art and don’t feel they are diverting
from what it currently looks like.
Ms. Greenwood asked if Mr. Sarpa has any photos and Mr. Moyer confirmed that he worked in Ms.
Ford’s unit many years ago and the fireplace is not original. He painted the units in the 1970’s. Ms.
Greenwood said a freestanding corner stove is very European and is more consistent historically. If she
had to guess, by looking at the framing around it, they have been replaced and now Mr. Moyer just
confirmed that.
Mr. Halferty asked regarding fenestrations, which glazing does staff have the most issue with and Ms.
Yoon said that it was just the glazing with the LCD window.
Mr. Moyer asked if they have the same decks as the other units and Ms. McHugh said that’s true.
Ms. Greenwood asked about the homeowner’s process and Ms. McHugh said they submitted plans to
HOA and to Mr. Sarpa along with the other owners and they said they had no problem and then Mr.
Sarpa wrote the letter.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
Ms. Greenwood suggested that the board discuss based on the resolution and the west façade windows.
She said she wants to come to a consensus on items 1 and 2 to restudy the window and to widen the
fire box. Ms. Greenwood said that widening the box is fine with her. Mr. Moyer agreed and said we
should drop that and everyone is fine with that. Regarding the window restudy, Ms. Greenwood is fine
with and Mr. Blaich is fine with it and said they don’t need restudy. Let’s go with what’s being
presented. All in favor. Regarding item #3, they feel the addition is minor and unobtrusive so there is
no issue there and staff is ok with this too. Regarding item #4 and the glazing, it’s a really good solution
and she feels window treatments can be more distracting. A window unit that goes foggy, is a simple
solution. Mr. Halferty is good with this too and Mr. Blaich so no problem. There is no issue for Mr.
Moyer. Regarding item #5 and the east façade, Ms. Greenwood feels this is a reasonable request by
staff to request double hung windows. The original is double hung on the east side. Ms. Yoon said that
with the photos they have, they’ve seen double hung for another unit. Mr. Halferty said we should do
staff and monitor on this. Ms. Simon said we’re happy to look back on this, but it could have been an
P8
II.B.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 11TH, 2018
9
egress issue for the other unit and why those faux double hung windows were allowed. Ms. Greenwood
feels that staff and monitor can handle this and the same for item #6. Regarding item #7, the cut sheets
have already submitted. Regarding item #8 and the front walkway, it’s too bad all units aren’t similar. I
would assume concrete would have been used. Even though materials in the Meadows have been
approved by HPC, it holds no bearing on this project. Concrete can be done in a beautiful manner. I
would say that would be the correct historic choice and stamped concrete is so wrong. Mr. Blaich said
we should get this clarified. Ms. Berko said that’s not the point and it’s about integrity and the historic
resource. We don’t want to continue making mistakes. Ms. Greenwood pointed out that it isn’t historic
material used by unit 61. Ms. Greenwood is in favor of staff’s recommendation on this one. Mr. Moyer
said that Herbert Bayer used simple, inexpensive and local materials. In keeping with him, it’s natural
organic cement.
Ms. Greenwood said she would like an update and/or outreach on these items.
Mr. Moyer said they’ve gotten everything they’ve requested except for the walkway.
Ms. Berko said if there is any way of restoring the original façade, she would encourage that if it’s being
messed with.
Ms. Greenwood clarified the resolution would be in terms of the conditions in terms of 4, 5, 6 and 7.
MOTION: Mr. Blaich motioned to approve based on the conditions which we discussed, Mr. Moyer
seconded. Roll call vote: Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr.
Moyer, yes; Mr. Lai, yes. 6-0 all in favor motion carried.
PROJECT MONITOR: Ms. Berko volunteered.
Ms. Greenwood motioned to adjourn, Mr. Halferty seconded at 6:43 p.m.
____________________________
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
P9
II.B.
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\86A62EF0-92C9-
4FA2-BD25-9A3CB9032DD7\13886.doc
4/19/2018
HPC PROJECT MONITORS- projects in bold are under construction
Nora Berko 1102 Waters
417/421 W. Hallam
602 E. Hyman
210 S. First
530 W. Hallam
333 W. Bleeker
Bob Blaich Lot 2, 202 Monarch Subdivision
232 E. Bleeker
609 W. Smuggler
209 E. Bleeker
300 E. Hyman, Crystal Palace
128 E. Main, Sardy House
Gretchen Greenwood 28 Smuggler Grove
1280 Ute
211 E. Hallam
124 W. Hallam
411 E. Hyman
300 E. Hyman, Crystal Palace
101 W. Main, Molly Gibson Lodge
201 E. Main
834 W. Hallam
Willis Pember 305/307 S. Mill
534 E. Cooper
Jeff Halferty 540 E. Main and Holden-Marolt
980 Gibson
845 Meadows, Aspen Meadows Reception Center
232 E. Main
541 Race Alley
310/330 E. Main (Hotel Jerome)
201 E. Hyman
208 E. Main
533 E. Main
Roger Moyer 517 E. Hyman (Little Annie’s)
500 W. Main
406 S. Mill
223 E. Hallam
Richard Lai
Scott Kendrick 533 E. Main
122 W. Main
Sheri Sanzone 135 E. Cooper
Need to assign:
134 W. Hopkins
517 E. Hopkins
422/434 E. Cooper
529-535 E. Cooper, Stein Building
420 E. Hyman
110 W. Main, Hotel Aspen
301 Lake
P10
II.F.
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 (5 minutes)
Chairperson identifies 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.
Procedure for amending motions:
A “friendly amendment” to a Motion is a request by a commissioner to the commissioner
who made the Motion and to the commissioner who seconded it, to amend their Motion.
If either of these two do not accept the “friendly” amendment request, the requesting
commissioner may make a formal motion to amend the Motion along the lines he/she
previously requested. If there is no second to the motion to amend the Motion, there is
no further discussion on the motion to amend, it dies for a lack of a second; discussion
and voting on the Motion may then proceed.
If there is a second to the motion to amend the Motion, it can be discussed and must be
voted upon before any further discussion and voting on the Motion for which the
amendment was requested. If the vote is in favor of amending the Motion, discussion and
voting then proceeds on the Amended Motion. If the vote on the motion to amend fails,
discussion and voting on the Motion as originally proposed may then proceed.
P11
II.K.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: Update on amendments to Historic Preservation Benefits
DATE: April 25, 2018
______________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY: At a January 2018 worksession, City Council directed the Planning Office to
evaluate the historic preservation benefits, in place since 1987, for improvements and alignment
with current policies.
HPC was aware of the Council worksession and met in advance of it, on December 7th, 2017 and
January 10th, 2018 to prepare recommendations for staff to pass along. Staff informed Council
that HPC believes that the benefits available to historic properties are important and effective but
that some need to be updated and possibly modified to reflect current policies. Staff also conveyed
HPC feels that preservation projects that allow a historic resource to be expanded only minimally
with most new square footage in a detached structure or transferred off the site is by far the best
outcome for residential projects and some commercial sites as well. Benefits should particularly
aim for this and should not facilitate what one board member referred to as “train wrecks on the
back of historic resources.”
Since the HPC and Council meetings occurred, staff has focused on seeking public feedback to be
considered before formulating recommendations. Staff developed and released an on-line survey,
which ended on April 17th with 123 responses received. We are in the process of assembling a
report that will be provided to HPC and Council, with the responses to the survey questions as well
as comments that some respondents wrote in.
On April 10th, staff took City Council on a mobile tour (route attached), visiting 15 current historic
preservation projects, hosted by contractors and developers at two properties. These project
representatives have completed multiple historic preservation projects in Aspen and offered similar
findings to Council; that historic preservation projects cost approximately triple a non-historic
project ($100-$300 more per square foot for the entire project, not just the historic portion), they
include lengthy processes to source appropriate preservation techniques and materials, they
frequently involve complex custom fabrications, and that there is risk involved with extra
supervision of the project by HPC staff, and delays in resolving unexpected conditions, Both
speakers stated that their preservation projects involved significant costs as a result of the one to
two year HPC review (design fees, carrying costs, etc.) and approximately 3-6 months of extra
construction time. When asked whether the financial value of historic preservation benefits made
up for these challenges, the developer was not able to say that is the case and indicated that there
is typically uncovered “loss” that the owner must assume.
NEXT STEPS: Staff is currently planning stakeholder meetings for interested parties to provide
additional input in early May. Shortly after that a Policy Resolution will be prepared for Council
P12
IV.A.
adoption on May 29th. Policy Resolution is a mandatory first step in the code amendment process
and will state goals and direction for staff to adhere to in preparing new regulations. First Reading
of the code amendments is currently planned for July 9th and Second Reading is anticipated to
occur on August 13th.
As a reminder, following is a complete list of preservation benefits as outlined in the Municipal
Code.
A. Historic Lot Split
B. Increased Density
C. Variations
D. Parking reduction/fee waiver
E. Conditional Uses
F. Floor Area Bonus
G. Growth Management quota system Exemption
H. Waiver of impact fees
I. Rehabilitation Loan Fund
J. Conservation easement program
K. City-Owned Building Rehabilitation fund
L. Transferable Development Rights (TDR)
M. Tax credit applications
N. Community-initiated development
O. Building Codes
P. Contractor Training
Q. Cultural Heritage Tourism
R. Preservation Honor Awards
S. Historic Markers
T. Work Sessions
A description of the most used benefits, and HPC’s recommendations to date, are:
Historic Lot Split: Allows approval of a subdivision of property to create two lots, each often
smaller than would be allowed if the parcel was not designated. HPC has found this to be a very
effective preservation tool, as it generally restores the platting of the original townsite into 3,000
square foot modules and results in smaller homes. HPC strongly recommends retaining this benefit
as-is.
Increased Density: Allows, by right, two detached single-family dwelling units or a duplex on a
smaller lot than would be allowed if the parcel was not designated historic. HPC believes that this
can be a very good preservation outcome because any benefit that makes it possible to detach new
construction from the historic resource (in this case in the form of a second residential unit on the
site) helps to retain the integrity of the resource.
Both staff and HPC recommend one particular change to this benefit. By taking advantage of
building a second residential unit on a site, there is an automatic increase in allowable floor area
by a few hundred feet, depending on lot size. HPC feels that a property that receives this increase
in floor area should not also be eligible for an additional floor area bonus, creating a double dip.
P13
IV.A.
If the increase allowed by zoning is less than 500 square feet, HPC is open to a property owner
asking to earn the “short-fall” as a bonus. HPC’s preference, if a property owner chooses to do a
duplex on a historic property, is that the two units be detached above grade in order to create as
much separation from the new construction and historic home as possible.
Variations: HPC may elect to grant variations that would allow development in side, rear and
front setbacks , development that does not meet the minimum distance between buildings, up to
5% additional site coverage, and less pedestrian amenity for commercial historic properties. HPC
can also provide variations from the Residential Design Standards. HPC recommends retaining
all of these benefits as they are very important and provide necessary flexibility to place new
construction around a historic resource in a sensitive manner.
Parking: HPC may reduce or waive on-site parking and/or cash-in-lieu fees on sites unable to
accommodate parking due to the preservation of a historic resource. Some members of HPC are
not sure they have the appropriate expertise to determine whether waiving on-site parking is an
acceptable impact on a neighborhood, however, like the other variations in HPC’s authority, this
benefit is often very valuable and necessary on a constrained lot. Board members discussed the
possibility of not allowing the cash-in-lieu waiver when other benefits provided to the property
exceed a certain monetary value.
Floor Area Bonus: HPC may grant up to 500 sq. ft. for projects that demonstrate exemplary HP
practices. (The floor area bonus may also be awarded as part of a lot split review). Projects must
demonstrate the following criteria:
1. Design of project meets all applicable design guidelines;
2. Historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in
a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building;
3. Work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance;
4. New construction reflects proportional patterns found in the historic building’s form,
materials or openings;
5. Construction materials are of the highest quality;
6. Appropriate transition defines the old and new;
7. Project retains historic outbuildings; and/or
8. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained.
HPC recognizes this as the most valuable of all of the incentives, and the one that has the most
potential to motivate excellent preservation. Created over 30 years ago at a time when preservation
was a newer concept and often viewed as a burden by long-time property owners on whom it had
been imposed, the bonus was an important incentive. The extra square footage has now achieved
a monetary value to the property owner that is perhaps in excess of the community benefit that
may be achieved in some cases. The board does not want this benefit eliminated but has a number
of ideas for possible adjustments, including:
(1) Amend the floor area bonus so it is not the same for all lot sizes. The existing sliding scale for
by-right floor area already allows a disproportionately large amount of square footage on small
P14
IV.A.
lots and HPC does not wish to aggravate this. HPC suggests that small lots should be eligible
for less bonus area than larger lots to avoid overdeveloping a property.
(2) Update the criteria for the floor area bonus. Some of the criteria address actions any applicant
would likely take and should not earn an extra award, such as using high quality exterior
materials on a new addition.
HPC feels that earning the bonus is about directly preserving the historic resource. It was
suggested that new criteria could be written in a way that each criterion met is equal to a percentage
of the bonus. Some actions would be worth a larger portion of the bonus than others based on the
amount of building fabric that is impacted or the perceived excellence of the outcome. For
instance:
• Restoration of multiple original windows=100 square feet
• Preserving a carriage house on the site= 250 square foot bonus
• Completely detaching an addition= 500 square feet
Currently, the determination of how much bonus to award between 0-499 square feet is hard to
define and property owners typically ask for the full amount. HPC wants an applicant to show
exactly how they earned the bonus, not just jump to including 500 square feet in the design.
HPC feels that updated and more specific criteria will help applicants understand better in advance
what qualifies for a bonus. Clear communication of this information early in the design process is
important because once a full bonus has been designed into a project it becomes an uphill battle
for HPC to disallow it.
Other actions which HPC wants to encourage through a bonus include: “exemplary” restoration
work -a term to be further defined, multiple small structures on a lot rather than one large structure,
a close relationship between the height of the historic resource and any addition, and voluntary
creation of affordable housing.
HPC does not want to grant a bonus in a case where floor levels are removed from the interior of
a historic resource and that “found” square footage is used to create a larger new addition and does
not want to award a bonus to any project where the bonus arguably does nothing but create a bigger
addition.
Growth Management quota system Exemption: Certain projects have fewer or different
requirements in Growth Management because the property is historic. For instance, there is
reduced affordable housing mitigation for commercial development in a historic building than
what is required in a non-historic building. As an example, the recently approved remodel of the
former Main Street Bakery property involved a modest addition of 231 square feet of net leasable
space. A non-historic property would have to mitigate for the 0.5 FTEs (full time equivalent
employees) generated by the addition by providing an affordable housing credits or a cash-in-lieu
payment of approximately $110,000. As a landmark, the property was fully exempt from this
requirement.
P15
IV.A.
GMQS exemption can be positive for preservation because it may reduce or eliminate additional
programming and square footage on the property in the form of on-site affordable housing.
On a large project, the amount of affordable housing waiver or reduction can be significant,
allowing mitigation for up to 6.8 FTEs to be waived before the benefit caps out. This waiver is
“by-right,” does not involve discretion and is typically a matter of applying a code-based formula
to determine the amount of required mitigation. HPC recognizes GMQS exemptions as a
significant financial benefit that should be maintained. The monetary value of this benefit may be
forgotten during consideration and award of other benefits and HPC is open to the possibility of
creating a limit on the benefits that can be awarded to a single application. On a commercial
project, this may be one of the few benefits that is applicable, so its elimination would be
undesirable.
Waiver of impact fees: Certain impact fees are not assessed on a permit to expand a historic
structure. This waiver is “by-right” and does not require HPC to grant approval. Similar to above,
this provides benefit to a property owner without adding bulk to the historic site. The impact fees
that can currently be waived generally are a much smaller value than some of the other benefit
options, but the number should not be overlooked.
Transferable Development Rights (TDR): HPC and City Council may approve the creation of
TDRs, which allows undeveloped floor area to be severed from the historic property and sold, to
be landed and developed on a different non-historic property within the city. HPC considers this
to be a very effective preservation benefit and are open to discussion of some criteria to ensure
that the severing of TDRs clearly benefits a historic resource. An HPC member also suggested
reviewing an example of a property with historic structures on it where so many TDRs were
removed over the years it has made it difficult to effectively renovate the structures.
Building Codes: The Building Department applies flexibility in adopted Building Codes related
to historic buildings when appropriate and without compromise to life/safety. For instance, on a
historic commercial building with a pair of original entry doors, neither leaf of which meets the
minimum clearance for an entry, Building has allowed the doors to remain in use if an automatic
door opener opens both doors at once. Historic buildings also receive relief from aspects of the
Energy Code. This flexibility is provided in the Building Codes used by the City and administered
by the Building Department. HPC has limited direct involvement in this benefit.
ADDITIONAL CONCEPTS DISCUSSED BY HPC:
• Consider the addition of more incentives that do not physically impact the property (eg.
expedited permit review, fee waivers, etc.)
• Consider a sliding scale requiring property owners to return a percentage of financial
incentives for each year less than five that they hold on the property. (See Ordinance #14,
Series of 2015, the Berko family voluntary AspenModern landmark designation.) While
speculative development is not necessarily a negative for preservation, HPC is concerned
that no one is living in the homes that have received benefits.
P16
IV.A.
REQUEST OF HPC: Staff requests HPC provide any further direction or recommendations,
beyond those summarized above, to aid in the preparation of the Policy Resolution and Code
Amendments. HPC will be provided with those documents when they are available and may
continue to provide input throughout the Council review.
Attachment: Council HP tour
SUMMARY OF BENEFIT CHANGES DISCUSSED BY HPC:
• Focus on benefits that allow a historic resource to be expanded only minimally, with most
new square footage in a detached structure or transferred off the site.
• Create a maximum number of incentives any one property can receive. This could be a total
number, a restriction against combining certain incentives, or a limit based on a monetary
value.
• Update the review criteria for a bonus to “raise the bar” and focus specifically on direct
preservation of the historic resource and actions which are beyond standard expectations.
• Adjust the floor area bonus to relate to lot size. Smaller lots would be limited to a smaller
bonus.
• Amend the Code so that if a property owner chooses to do a duplex on a historic property,
any potential floor area bonus available to the site would be reduced by the automatic
increase in floor area provided for the second unit according to zoning.
• Consider the addition of more incentives that do not physically impact the property (eg.
expedited permit review, fee waivers, etc.).
• Provide extra benefits when the property is developed with voluntary affordable housing.
• Update criteria for establishment of TDRs.
• Consider a sliding scale requiring property owners to return a percentage of financial
incentives for each year less than five that they hold on the property.
BENEFIT PROPOSED BY STAFF TO BE DISCONTINUED:
• Review of Historic Preservation Income Tax applications, returning this review to the State
due to complexity and workload.
P17
IV.A.
Historic Preservation of Aspen
City Council Tour April 10, 2018
1
9
5
2
6
3
7
4
8
110 E. Bleeker
417 W. Hallam
515 Gillespie
124 W. Hallam
629 W. Smuggler
229 W. Smuggler
624/626 W. Francis
513 W. Smuggler
530 W. Hallam
P18
IV.A.
Historic Preservation of Aspen
City Council Tour Apriil 10, 2018
10
13
16
19
11
14
17
20
12
15
18
21
202 N. Monarch
205 S. Spring
980 Gibson
28 Smuggler Grove
302 E. Hopkins
630 E. Hyman
328 Park
135 W. Hopkins
623 E. Hopkins
549 Race
308 Park
211 W. Hopkins
P19
IV.A.
1
RESTORATION/REHABILITATION
Eligible Projects:
• 110 E. Bleeker
• 211 E. Hallam/215 E. Hallam
• 229 W. Smuggler
• 530 W. Hallam
• 28 Smuggler Grove
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 2017 Awards Selection
DATE: April 25, 2018
SUMMARY: Since 1990, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission has celebrated
local historic preservation successes by presenting awards to individuals, companies, and
projects demonstrating excellence in preservation. This year’s awards are to be held on
May 29th during a City Council meeting. Descriptions of the categories are below, along
with a list of eligible projects. HPC will review the sites as a group by taking a mobile
tour during the regular meeting time.
Eligible projects received Final Inspection or Certificate of Occupancy between April
2017 and March 2018. Only projects that were relatively significant in scope or effort
and which have no outstanding enforcement issues are being presented for HPC
consideration. There is no limit on the number of awards that may be presented. Within
the last few years, HPC identified a point system that could be used for reference in
determining which projects to recognize. Staff is not providing any scoring. The award
selections are left to the board.
Maximum of 40 points:
o The quality and compatibility of design (including landscape) and workmanship with
the historic resource (0-5 points)
o The quality of new materials and restoration of historic material in accordance with
the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (0-5 points)
o Sensitivity to the building’s historic and architectural character (0-5 points)
o The impact of the project on the surrounding neighborhood/community (0-5 points)
o An outstanding example of creative work within the HPC design guidelines (0-5
points)
o An outstanding investment of time and money in restoring a building and landscape
to it’s historic appearance (0-5 points)
P20
IV.B.
2
THE “EXTRA EFFORT” AWARD
This award is for an individual or group that has taken extra steps to preserve a historic
resource.
Potential Recipient: ?
o Adaptive use of a historic building that enhances the interpretation of the historic
resource (0-5 points)
o Contribution or enhancement to the interpretation of the historic resource or Aspen
history (0-5 points)
Maximum of 25 points:
o The quality and compatibility of design (including landscape), workmanship, and
materials within the historic district (0-5 points)
o Sensitivity to the adjacent buildings’ historic and architectural character (0-5 points)
o The impact of the project on the surrounding neighborhood/community (0-5 points)
o An outstanding example of creative work within the HPC DesignGuidelines (0-5
points)
o Contribution or enhancement to the interpretation of the historic resource or Aspen
history (0-5 points)
Maximum of 25 points:
o The participants’ dedication to look at creative options in an effort to find the best
solution for the project (0-5 points)
o The participants’ willingness to volunteer designation of a property or to sacrifice
some aspect of a property’s development rights (0-5 points)
o The quality of design (including landscape), workmanship, and materials (0-5 points)
o Sensitivity to the district’s or building’s historic and architectural character (0-5
points)
o The impact of the project on the surrounding neighborhood/community
(0-5 points)
NEW CONSTRUCTION ON A LANDMARK PROPERTY
Eligible Project:
• None
NEW CONSTRUCTION WITHIN A HISTORIC DISTRICT
Eligible Project:
• 100 E. Main (remodel)
P21
IV.B.
3
THE ELIZABETH PAEPCKE AWARD
This award is for an individual or group that has been a long-time preservation leader,
demonstrating commitment to historic preservation or for an individual or group who
has lead an outstanding one-time preservation effort that has had a clear impact on Aspen.
Potential Recipient: Aspen Historical Society, Archives renovation
Maximum of 20 points:
o The overall quality (craftsmanship, design, landscape, programming) of
their work (0-5 points)
o The innovative interpretation and enhancement of Aspen’s heritage
through their work (0-5 points)
o Their dedication to preserving Aspen’s heritage (0-5 points)
o Contribution of their work to the Aspen community (0-5 points)
Maximum of 20 points:
o The overall quality (craftsmanship, design, landscape) of their work
(0-5 points)
o Sensitivity to context (0-5 points)
o The innovative interpretation and enhancement of Aspen’s heritage
through their work (0-5 points)
o Contribution of their work to the Aspen community (0-5 points)
Exhibit: Photos of eligible projects
THE WELTON ANDERSON AWARD
This award is for an individual or firm that has contributed to Aspen’s built environment
through outstanding new design over a sustained period of time, or through one
particularly important project.
Potential Recipient: ?
P22
IV.B.
4
Exhibit: Photos of eligible projects
Restoration/Rehabilitation Project:
110 E. Bleeker
211 E. Hallam / 215 E. Hallam
P23
IV.B.
5
229 W. Smuggler
530 W. Hallam
28 Smuggler Grove
P24
IV.B.
6
New Construction within a Historic District:
100 E. Main
P25
IV.B.
k .w. ,�,Aa-a, i.w t � <��r��a\Jr � /7,14�r`� ���ti. s r �Ca.►0 ?,.. Zai/ 1
EXHIBIT
) •♦' ? .,u,�T`+��:���i't� 4iL a }.V, P�`�5.,{��,a�fi.t�r � 1r �' },t`.4x �'��'G,� { Cr.
'MQr.{
ll�°Yt�a, t T Sflr\ 't -\t �iY i'trl I
#��.� � a Y4+J' ➢j:IL` r'>�,��.a �,r �t P �.4:,.i�ye+FJC_.i+'�:� t iSfF".f• `, `w� C,aa ��'"1
a at � . ><• 1 ta ) .r e r � :J L+I J+.y J f \� � C� � f �
ilr.�'- - .rum?" LtG J."�i}4 .•tr / ,.. ,r�E.'!? '°` `r' 7 ( .1',� �f�. ^�'e 17, :-�
'erg w p- �{ iti"' faf'r k / ri�f7a Y pST 1� �lt{ �•� e-. 1 � fr,,.� .y¢_ F+" �i�'Ta r� .
' at;l /�•pya{iv'�.'7!1�-J�! �)�ijaT'���r� `v3�\ Y � � `ram r L J�`S/S� ),h�,kY ���I'i �(�_ J��Y"/ !! � 1sy
��'.. 0 �ngnfc Y ♦y,�� / { - `.y 4' � �Y,`� C"�l 00111
I '1a♦lkII..+ 1 vn / ,
�"!�1���l�'�bi "'�� xEAA '�,fr ✓ , „ .}.its , y Ytsl-� f t
�riy �i}n a /I a r 'S�� t'i' <� � rCi `{:��{� C!'-oxv i�1+'•1'%'f f, � �v
-' ��,(,,[•,{{yy,,��yapt1 ` t.^u LI1 r ` -S" nY�3pp1,� �D� -it� y�\�K`./ x 16 �1l' l\'^ Z✓'f,'s��„.br�f "^�4
�Cl�.._$}'�� n)ti�'='I�.L .� F�'?S �-)R,. . '� R Y.L ' '� ) y{.�[' ��h•�j '[ `� .R a
t ' =� h317 s 4 rl -r/ .�i rtT�"tt ,wit. w. J rV�•J�ii "��•-/•� - - 9 Lro.si t L�J }.
# ���, �`�I` a��tL fr'����a„[r., 71� h 7�-i j..�Y.Hrv.✓�'hr,.#;s.y'1�� (j s�t'y l „mac . �/�'. yya,.✓. ,,;
�♦ � r � h r L , � 3 -,` s T a7•r . t P "�" nl S}•..�� - r !�%.
� � y di p3s4����,V�'J�(. '�`�?�i�rrt7.#� •�� t� ti'aa�}�7r��#7u �Yi�• � ,t.+. .i�•�(.
� 1tT �.�^'^;�.a(rr7fg 38tk C°•� `r',�,t'(t� r/1;"a: 1> I r�LA fi�h3
Tfi ✓fin t ✓a. n'�{!� f t`7 e • t 3� �,,.
�u 2J • 'sGy, {t` y_h/�y • • fi
` 4 •�I+Y��3i;tsl .7 {'lfK � r_,f r�t77 t 6
��..�iv •Ib\tr y[`rJJ)(({{{{{{{��� v}. 1 .� q�. •k4" f?'.1: r�urnti+ s r r;.
h�T��:Qyrr�s<'a
[n�;���"��r ')vs.t--
t"" �'f
4
it
,� t +itr / qT aw�or+ }�,y��` hy-ja r
a - T 1 a.tAl.r rr•�� a r
� vs s r AI
t i
�/ \�l� � . - '�•.-�r�a�,`-�• v .6'atC•'t• rrr •ri=O� l'•t t\\IA
�tl F�k r�e �i r, ..ii ..�f �'•iQf�!!!�.�}J )LsV� r >ary,,.,� 'iGl�`,}, r`�,�'t1 r,l'�
T1' r t=Jar n• 1{ �:rS3j.{iOYatXcyyl�r(�vty�. wq�l+s� '� t4(�h,,l lr 1,.1/
���1 �atm•mm 1 t(. rhrat.p� n
am,., �y ;, Y� ti7ve �k� �[ iA
o sai v� tame�C�yp1 I'll,
�r..� ! � � f �a1lj i v 'a- ♦ 1 'Tj/.7/!10 6A�-3114 t t }.t,t 1 J v r rl ���� `Yr G �?,f(,i�`(•. / c
r)•�f. 101 �''/.J1�. `'OaT�o` 9tH 'I1MI '" 1 t 1 ?} 11 It /l lfS �( l'r
{ i�, r v A'1 ill. 7fi•Ai 1l3i17 1 t ` tit - r 1 1
9.Y. Y11�1116iP1 t� SI f 1 H ti}'it} � r yJ �
UVB, ,A{ it {
� , �'� , t S Rr2 ✓ f:R }>�� vp Up�r.,. Jn I,l�gt,�> l a` $r'r r }aly � �
rf�`�
r• r• air vjy�r; \r t •l �$I .� a,ry �,. .�� f+
1� } �, ' OILS }' tit t•�:`r � ''+it +M�''tr}, ll ^ �a..1. rt 1 1.\:.''rt�t�`ii�1 i 1 :,,ir
{. 'Qj # <� '�a >s s� '1 Y. , tv T. 9iullY h It?^' uk.r• ,s'-�I�% .
allf. + . �J � ytt KM,b � y�,Sl� >k Y+a•q ��rt�L ,r
I:
At
r3� w��\'�^, r• ����+A•�)� a>,ti�` �'�~atvry\ •a. '� t •�,1�� ' J�� rl
��yL,>t/ r 1 ry , a y \ atL ° �Ai b �Vi�ia'�-y{��,i� �L�l° � t�•��
�{4/��tily{��.�� � �ti� N iG�� a `1 Vis_. r>•�'�i��-� �J�l i{Jr
'i r'F' ���t �/'•�t0 �1'..r . J('ytL! �,,!1(��r .. 4..� '� � .i rs.�.�. jh•�,t r ., j ', 'ItL.
'YS' F- i{ .niL ��,ky�'LW f•�'"i ��' { X11 �'(�-"� R?•;`• �.C{ �•Il�t• !k+ w��
:�� ;c, ��t9f,16L�uJ'�Ls,Q�F�y+'-� �c, �•i � "�ti9H,', ' ,'+t:'�'1:u;-'� � .aab.L �/ ���31t' j{V, �'
{`1 . ,tu/2 1r J�p eF .`>t"�1�'� / •' t�i�'. IIIF 1 eat' �rS(. Z.Y.-,1� I. r
L4 if_ tt'��r�yi �t °Y�' .w+• F .��.� • l� ,S ti`�t `.it � rt`I". f t `�S{ 1 rl �I�I r''
��,t.r�r�� �\�}• 3�;7G.si�! �✓�/� P, ��a�. ! S to +. �+i � \ � O .,-� t� riIle7
bpfY'�:� •.�.�r'r�sr-`:�stta'`D, �� '!EJ a m n I y{{10'J�Y+-�`�r�,\, `•',1�����R. �,P�, �ti. +(� y/J ' �
Jrr�y _ i'!� N 11� �14�.`�1'4` 1 L il�,'Y"f �`.r' ,� Vii. Fill• 1�1 '�mp II i i I��
- .dam✓� O � ,'.��.r' ri-�5,�}-/I ��fa fiY.. 14r pp y�' �- � ` r-�I t ;' O ��b��F,f�
A � �3'l; � �t a'.caR�'} �'J��r��`��t,�h+1�rk:`�y5�.��d�*y.�f���'"•'{ tl `3''` , ',••"'��XjJ�•�`�1�� ���
X It F^ �L .+ r • '+ �_ ti• -a, "b !r'� �, !>.
'Y/�/1S'i �},aye` � ' '�`LLl� •-r< 'p '7
-car•• J „ �F e t' ,q 'ai. a t L - >\ R. d�J� ,� r
b
/r � '� ` .Yr''c�lli`r 1"�'�4tl)��,}�Il� S'R�•- Jq<.c-�'`� a���^ J"�'r >"a.�•'t' �� t:,
IInT �d"� � l �-+�^''F4�� r�cpl�'1- i� t1;��b��. 1��`�Vr.•i ��b q�
i' w t 3 a Jar pi- , r F>► .r v\.4� � A r4,1 :� L
MAN���) •V M
�r°� ' '` trr�/'a,'/ � � .'a���v1�� 6�.y e.Jti A• `relat y Fav ' � 1� {, 1'.
r �`'Ly�J,jr��J'� { ; • •�J7��Li�J'�t tY „b 1-i /!^'• � ,� _;,yJ ^'ti ..i7
�� h l f.}' i J '���t ;' ' s ril• {}F�'�i4��LirrL:,,� ''r+l �'sc� . '; �i�r�� �',
''�?i .� °�NsY� r7� .fi� '.�aasv.,.d,1b4" � y,w
�i �`,\'.6'�•j,.��7�i/'/ 11r `� .:�•.I�y''i a,!�tCs�`z -�C='F�.. v�.•,c��,,�'L�rJ,. .,�i. , ,,o,. i� iYti, S3
` j•blTj r 'in k } Z' -� s•.,V r •YS •��' f i ..ti ,.
41S ) \ yr,�J 4 /•K,�` D' L-s' 7 r,,7 G �Ly
�1 r��v�{'{1 fw+°fJ /t , Pf
J"� {� �r , k I{�i•.y F�,J•.' r9 r^��Li N�,� t/ -`�=.," i;' { I ��'�:�({`; I
71aa i�g>a,t✓,�yi'�f'iy,.i u\i3,n��/�•�nc 1l/� �f, r P�Xf I2� r,�t .rL•�%tY 1
'moi`-�`'S'L: fmcl'4�4'(vbb �G >j�f`R 3C`��i3�(R�J'IIt:/jlulY �sS'\'r t' siyi ✓
'rtLM�"�'. n J }, 'C ^G C ..
21
t V
17
•' '-•• � �'�`, - �Oui®n RYS:V�.A�-�I t � di� - y �, �
\\�i \; • 1t i �. i /�,nom`.-�t".� ��r0 ,i 54. -j
t 1 y r t',. I 1. .. - ! r=�`,. � t/«. r hwzac H T�.•- �{ �" y, 1 `•�
"-'1'.���
`�1jj8I�'A �7J
I , 1 \�' �ns
ly'',''jj$$jj f.S -LCA [_ � � �-� .� �• `J�.
AJ T1, rF1tr ?�� _ 1 l•-- �ai��,`� �J. _`ah\'�.� �[f�l'.1�IDd'B ti � • \,� , 7J7B �~
'",t• . �i�•� vat r.r.r.[d> sNPa"�it-e�.�.ii r "t,� L�c P��[t��,, f±
6 � ` I►�-
IIS
w, paS --s:rv�ei IaYr�$e �aavErrl�a � • , , , '
TV
TIb?te1'hyA'r17 ..sid OlIbSiC��T �J/{t V y�y,�I .1 t t iJ iiJi iii
�r ,141 rll L7 Tllnd .0qn.
'`.•yt� 01.t1 t0tl-'lotf]l AG•X� �G�17IV ,4 �r)I'f�
VIM
.%&y�� i!0 OaL9.11H11 t'.i1 ,L Jr r�i 11{at}IF f,t t f �yr'tJ�r' �J't
C1 I �(-7 ; 1s/l � t q �'° (� V t{ 9'1 �b rt~ill-I,— }y�Jv5,1� .,4 {yl;alT
IJ" ° .�k.Ji�, 'gf •il ♦.qi rirl!'� }' �.JwA v ` �r r,,
1
v t 1 I 1 t
[l,�/ "FJ t • l/ 1 ��i A}( {I.1 r �!� \l tl+r-..i ll� t jlY�l �.�5•J- --+c 1•'
j"y'[1a1i011Tq� 1.�.:> ��r ° �7�,t�,�.bj`>tj ���,..�J_ " li.�--r'Q'.'�- :• !�y ��1.1•` t��5�
•!. ,P J •✓ �
at' ti� „<�'s1' ? 1 t l !{ ��ir i:r 1 �"c1aL f t -tJjriV IYZy^a:-`a• t S t 'I,1,'i}l~.: 5 , ra.
al�:��' ✓ � :� � 9J 6A � y.TKI �-�J. `�t4•;6.�+Ta� s<:;I�T r,tihl'—.��^1'f��� �, .
J� tY, H Y„ '!i� � h�• "`nYK htL'-t/,1r�J n .,..:
= }
' 1
I.
a,>wl>f I!eiva ZSZ7�-SZ6-OL6 lap pill 9 �°
Sp'.J6314'Jab'pIIOW BE{Wljp'MMM ye.e4siNVId d00�1 Cl:
=g<
OO `N3dSV ? _ 111
.5 3nN3AV 83�i33191S`d3 Z£Z ` iY C P 9 ? `? B e
3p_y
��s�ii ll i X31df14 NH3GOW 011JOiSIH
FTr I!
I 1
r r
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
1 I I
I I I I
�
� I I I I
I________
I__ _ ______ _ _ r
I 1 y I 1 I
I I I
$I I m
L----------i------ ----- ----- - ----- - --�
I I t'
I i I I 14a I I I
i I 5
I
°z! 1 I
6%RjO
I
—3
QI Q° I
I I I I
- - - - L - - ' — -----------------1 ------ - - - - - - -
I I
I I I I 4 I 1 I I
I I i I I I I i I
I I I I
9J wp111vwo zsz -szs-ops IaA �=:94f Y9;@
'siao114�AV Puow�Xeljwlyl'ti.an'n Y+_CCq �.§ Op 1,��;\ SNOUVn313 a:
oal
v r v ]
I
Y ° wA OO 'N3dSb
aDYgs�9se� 3nN3AV 213N33191Sb'3 ZEZ
MIN I X3ldn(I NUMOVY OIHOlSIH
6 g pp ® s 9
VLO k S Jlry zl0 m�ry
j 6 S jl� al.� 9 JIB
Jla
�Y y >I' n'n H o 8 �Im OID 8 Fla
y Y + wl� YC � } wl Uly F wim
It
I
`� ' �, I FI'1.1 zlp ZI'ry ZI•r
I '.1 wl! Kli } KIS
I I I I ;�m
to
�I SII I ' Olry wIJ i C wl-I
1 I 01
0
WE
SII
I 1 I
p3f I 1 � I 1
S([ I I
1 eY —
1
I I FaP I I I I 1 1 1
I
8
I I q1I I II
I 1 I I
I I I I II
I I I I I II I
O
VIII I I I I I
I � I
4 , II
® C� I
II 11 IIII
--—--—--—-- INII
---------
I I I II II
il� I I i t i t Y
I g aI w P�11111�1�11� II
I
I I
-
'--- I
I III II I e§(C I v I -�I—__—__—_ _ _— _—__ _
I
II I I I
\\ r�� ': ` i✓'•QiR�a .r�j�W9'!Y� 1 A7,��my�,t• - fJ 1
�vj`f\•{�{(�y��� a1:'7� �f.� fir..v�'yy j��TJ�ti�b��� •1 'It 1 � 1 1
�-+V�,ii�1��ll�����'f 4^.ip^1► �'/" `� ��''°'•�I��,(:',yt,�t�� •- �''C��'��"�I,I�,�i�_'��,�� ''.7�
'_>�'e/ �~, .,1♦„ '!f'''cr'".� 1 d` ,�.� `rY' , • yi'`- }-Vis.+^ -�._ .
l (Mll - - •. ..� �_ _ __-`"" .� �
eZa� yyyy" I .6 'Uk,` 43Ie �.s#�5.•', cam '[/ / ��•..i ..
:' ..J.. rx• jt .,., �ir tWi�,'..•,,,;4 - L '
I(t,� � Ptlyy��}�{;/�.+ GWWrYY ,L� 1 1 �/
.J��t • � " •. r r�f� //"(j11°°, 1,,1� 'e �,•�.s`t Q1�'4g� �b'�Y�3.d��1;{`'t, �1
i' ,'�' i^-. ` ,17,h+ .." vii. `��; #t.. "c• -SCh. `�"J..�'�i ���ti4; !{
1� . , '�' r •�,• ` a: -...�} ,•� 1� `; 'oc-•} �,y 4'i��,^q: . '`i. -, F i.cy�� art -,, �
J f ,r� ✓ r �� �`GL'rgJ v � �•��`/�•v `T'•• .a.t 0. .!` �" • 'I
' �.,pf•"�jLf -iAr �W �`.o�y' �`F' U, JT� y f'�'� �t4�,Lf�ylb�r?�+,e,,..._J-- ..•'� "3�jt�C 'Y a bJ 111'^.1 n� \'!� +•� ♦ r�.F �" ..r v�'',2:z 'y f'' .
ti
Mooy
�-�/,ti Alit 1t3�:"-:1��y� �'ice`��V7 4; Pii✓L7/•�y r.�9 i�Vs.� �.v'-•.�� ((
{� J. t �a" 4 J• ` t'Y,t`1� .� Ia �._� -.����(i; f .r.'�y.�z• i,
n Y NN
' �� •.•�r�, F� 1 , 131!'•:1/ `���•*h�+'e ••(, . ! (f;-r+ '► .+ .
\}, 1 \ I�zy'7g1R '�4'Jt v . f ♦ k i h ' .�7� •. \ p ■Y 1
j. y� 7�#"�1r;,_, �d
ll S' f!f � I,� �1?� ., 4�r,. �.Z,•;p,� '' T
Y "j`t
4N C q ,"�� �j� - • Yir .a'.. ��/-}/, . 0 \ ,i J_ ���.��YO �J' J
SSC 1 W, +i
yrA� V w v `(J�atCpip, 5{' �.0 ..s:•..'. �_�ta�'q �=
�+6i Z t Ay, ��1, i.r1LVs4T✓"-.,\9�5f' .�_r� ! ,f �. � j;RIP, "
fall, 1 A" r ♦ i CC. 4 .
11.7
g ''.= P,-•'�! �.
1 .. U �
7��.1• ,/.:.r�� �F�"1a.`?�u.\.�cy�.����'�i�Li•''� r1.. _ .� t%ta't. ����iIl.r��y�1.�.1 �:i'-'Y.�%,.,. .
.�A rc��'7���)"vim•• �.-., '`(G _
6
,�
"'7.1ifL;f` P r 'Vi' �!:�� '�, 1� n 1 .fl"f: P � . saw• - ia.�,�.�_��r-.;r_-.
t X4 .1 , if'L
74-
ON V � • r• r�.'.. / ,� I rel 9 iil �. �. . i,
��N'�<� ':.-'�°.7J��? '�� � i� � r ti� ,[/•i,��� .rl.� / � � �n,�J��r{II y _ -
t ,ar�, ,�`� 1 JI C��• ��t •,� iv y ^� Ii��Y� .! . '� ) ,r, J l:� ' _•9
�;41
.r` �.. t4S Ifa`fir•�K• 1�f J' '� i .J ,�I � IUYi .-
G4v, f: .r'••4 v FST ,Vy � ¢r r p/j!/� 1rh,1
E ,1A.� • '�a�.�J r •��'!. i ✓j u �� � .-rte
�`e � _ ..l� 1:v �:i. _{, ..ter. �:/•/ o A�/S .fj �. •--j—
Q••='ej
Fly
J .. �. �� ::G .13 K�, \`dos `��.
' f%�n479^/
Y
. . r f
Sv 6;,r� .' 1 f
II .1 0 f
%r a
10• i
•� ! r;
o w Dewe ZGaZ-SZ6-OLr lot E94�f64 j
's4�e1.gOIVP.OW ey WIM .F 9gg SNOIIVOOI 1N3A HIM M
(4::e
n u o w A r tl w 1 A i:'•4i_7p
3f1N3/sb'213N33191S`d3 ZEZ
� apE�] F
[
< -@{tl I., X31dnC] NH300N 01HOlSIH o F€3 1
1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -o — T - - �
I I I oo I I
II - - - --------' ---- - - ---- --- -- I
----------+-----Q-------------
I-m
too I I
10
u I
dl I I mM[p r I
�I ><I I I wmit,
dl �I I "0g 3 -0
of ml = § I
•,I
_____ __ _ __
rc
I I I + Iiwp 0¢Ee .n 1. m I
Y
Iz
I I I �m�� 1 I
ip.W x
W=d=
I I I y m=« I
- - - - -I- - -I— - - — — — — — — — — -
-- - - - -I- - -
I I I k2) o I
I Utl >v I
I i t I 4 Sao ffio I
I I ¢-3
L. ao I
Y az I
- - - - -I- - -+— r _—_- --- _ -- - - - - - - - -I- - -
4
I I I
I
1
I 1 1 I I i • .. i I
i\►f. _� �' BVI ?i U��; ` .i i `' µ�jtl i� \i },,I'Iy(f
� c � •fii� pyo, . : Ij �\ � +� i
► ( , ,
i
� pp
Lte "r � TI 'x'+'11":. e�?ice.•
It
It
Crj
it
o
tJ
� N I` 'lF to '1.f sir NY
I
I
eIVI
47
CD
' ,
`'�
t `r
�`` .
y i
' � i4 , v
',Y �y ^,1, .. .. � '
t�• � y .
�,
r T tr
n c
� � �
r
1. � ��` ��`\ _ ,
Y {.
\\ � � ���
`� t� _ `�' :. ms` s+ `�� �R�� . -
Via` ':.. ti� ,` ` �.a� �
`� � 4 � �_
,�
1`
��_
�,y �� � 'a �.,
� ��
i � i
� ` � �
i0 0
�� �� , .
, 1 �, � _ � _- �,�-
�, t, �
W
� .� � ;�, .
1' 1((((.. _ � �� 1��
1 � *�
1 l • i^ ` \1
1 t '' '
<`
'�
\`
1 , �1 � .
�� �� � � � _
EXHIBIT
Historic Preservation Benefits- Survey I
9
Q1 Transferable Development Rights (TDR): Square fol
be added to a historic property can be severed, sold and built on a
different, non-historic property within the city. The historic property owner
captures the value of the square footage without making an addition to a
historic building.My perception of TDRs is:
Answered: 122 Skipped: 1
Appropriate in
all cases
Appropriate In
some cases
Rarely
appropriate
Not appropriate
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Appropriate in all cases 25.41% 31.
Appropriate in some cases 57.38% 70
Rarely appropriate 10.66% 13
Not appropriate 6.56% 8
TOTAL 122
. # COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS:. DATE
1 Additional development should occur where permitted by basic zoning rather than transfer 4/9/2018 10:35 AM
additional impacts to other neighborhoods.As I recall,Historic TDRs are in part created by historic
FAR bonuses,increasing impact.
2 In the case below,the lot size is disproportionate to the building.Allowing for a TDR would 4/5/2018 9:56 AM
appropriate the site more cohesively.This also should not be a historic property as the building
has very little aesthetic and architectural value.
3 1 think the TDRs should be capped at 3.......this is a"make believe"market and it seems silly to 4/4/2018 9:47 PM
allow that much to be removed from one site
4 make it a staff-level review.requiring City Council review is an unnecessary disincentive;the 4/4/2018 4:23 PM
criteria are objective anyway
5 5 TDRs is too much to preserve 1,250 sq ft.in the case you list here.%TDRs has more than a 4/4/2018 11:32 AM
million dollar value
1 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey
6 1 don't believe all development rights should be severed from a property.Some should remain to 4/3/2018 7:34 PM
allow minor expansions in the future.
7 keep buildings as historically accurate as possible 4/3/2018 1:47 PM
8 TDR's are great,but as per usual,case by case evaluation better keeps to the mission of historic 4/3/2018 1:34 PM
preservation.Unusual circumstances require attention is all.
9 This would be appropriate where the Owner of the historic property wishes to(1)first and foremost 4/3/2018 1:14 PM
retain the historic nature of a listed historic property,and(2)not be financially harmed by its
preservation.This is NOT a tool or trick to be used by a developer to gain square footage on
another parcel.
10 1 wish that there wasn't a square footage bonus at all...but having it on a non-historic building is 4/3/2018 12:34 PM
better than having it on a historic building!!
11 TDR are an outdated incentive for historic preservation.Aspen's real estate is all based on 4/2/2018 6:18 PM
maximizing developable sq footage.Secondf why should meighbors of a receiving site bear the
burden of a de facto upzoning that is the result of a speculative real estate development.
12 TDRs are not always the answer to appropriate historic preservation.Too many TDRs flood the 4/2/2018 7:33 AM
market and impact the value of the incentive.There is a delicate balance that needs to be
considered when granting TDRs.
13 Hard for the Board to determine which projects do and do not deserve the bonus;too subjective.In 4/1/2018 7:38 PM
addition,the question does not let the reader know that the bonus is currently determined by the
Board.
14 just a way to promote corruption 3/29/2018 8:34 PM
15 Appropriate when a building fits in with the Victorian Character of Aspen.Not appropriate when a 3/29/2018 3:23 PM
bullding is preserved simply to be preserved and may not actually be worth preserving.
16 The ability to sever TDRs should be available to all properties. It will then be up to the property 3/29/2018 2:10 PM
owner to decide if it is appropriate for histher situation.
17 TDR's are too freely given and shift mass&scale to other properties. In the example below,the 3/2912018 1:38 PM
site and location can appropriately accommodate 1,250 SF in new development
18 We need appropriate easements and multigenerational homes 3/29/2018 12:59 PM
19 Don't allow additions. 329/2018 12:35 PM
20 It is very subjective whether the site is better as-is,or added to.There are many excellent 329/2018 12:09 PM
examples of historic buildings with interesting modem additions.
21 It should only land on certain(size limited)properties 3/27/2018 11:47 AM
22 Historic property must not look out of place but more a base where newer building appearances 3/27/2018 10:28 AM
are based on.A segue to modem building appearances etc
23 1 think the TDR program has been administered in a haphazard way based on political whims not 3/27/2018 10:21 AM
on the guidelines of the program.There needs to be consistency and fairness with this program.
2 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits- Survey
Q2 Historic Landmark Lot Split/Density Increase: Instead of attaching a
large addition to a historic building, a property owner may divide their
allowed square footage into two buildings; the historic structure and a
new structure alongside it. The historic property owner achieves. his/her
development rights, while the development is comprised of smaller
structures which are likely more in scale with the neighborhood. My
perception of the historic landmark lot split/increase density is:
Answered: 118 Skipped:5
Appropriate in
all cases
Appropriate in
some cases
Rarely
appropriate
Pam
Not appropriate
IO% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Appropriate in all cases 21.19% 25
Appropriate in some cases 62.71% 74
Rarely appropriate 7.63% 9
Not appropriate 8.47% 10
TOTAL 118
it COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS: DATE
1 Parking should be accommodated on site-not depending on street parking 4/14/2018 7:37 PM
2 good idea 4/12/2018 2:02 PM
3 Lot split should not increase permitted FAR 4/9/2018 10:36 AM
4 If the historic structure is saved,the lot split should be allowed to go whichever direction. 4/5/2018 10:26 AM
5 Jane Jacobs states that new builds should be interwoven with old builds to gain a more complete 4/5/2018 9:59 AM
timeline and aesthetic of a city/town/neighborhood.This is excellent.
6 no physical connection should be allowed when allowing lot split 4/4/2018 11:34 AM
3119
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey
7 1 believe this is the most important benefit for ensuring sensitive development next to historic 4/3/2018 7:35 PM
homes.
8 The historic value of a building should include the property it is on. 413/2018 3:51 PM
9 Appropriate in Most Cases. 4/3/1018 1:36 PM
10 Appropriate when fire ratings of exterior walls is not required for code when 2 buildings are too 4/3/2018 1:16 PM
close together,and the lot is wide enough,and has adequate access to both homes as if they
were individually built(including adequate parking for both.)
11 The reality however seems to be that the add on structures ovehwhelm the scale of the historic 4!2/2018 6:21 PM
resource.
12 Depends on the size of the lot. 4/2/2018 4:18 PM
13 While sometimes appropriate,this can result in more density that negatively impacts the landmark. 4/2/2018 7:35 AM
However,the new Design Guidelines are challenging to meet for new additions,so a lot split may
be the best option.
14 Appropriate in all cases,if the lot size meets the minimal requirement. 4/1/2018 7:39 PM
15 Destroy's the character of the town 3/29/2018 8:34 PM
16 A small house will rarely fit the needs of many families. 3/29/2018 3:25 PM
17 Again,I like having this tool available to property owners.They can determine if it makes sense for 3/29/2018 2:11 PM
them.The example below is wonderful!
18 Lot splits increase density and total developable SF due to exclusions.Lot splits are very valuable 3/29/2018 1:40 PM
so an increase in(exempt or other)SF is inappropriate if lot split granted.
19 Style should be consistent 3/29/2018 1:00 PM
20 don't allow additions. 3/29/2018 12:36 PM
21 I do like the smaller massing. 3/29/2018 12:14 PM
22 'in scale':a presumption that small is better.Not always so. 3M/2018 12:11 PM
23 The architecture of the new,separate building takes away from the character of the neighborhood. 3/27/2018 6:25 PM
24 Building a mansion behind a historic house is a joke and an abuse of the system 3/27/2018 5:29 PM
25 except where we want to limit overall sq ff.building divide remains the best choice. 3/27/2018 11:49 AM
4 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey
Q3 Variations: Historic properties are eligible for reductions in required
building setbacks from property lines, reduction of parking requirements,
and increase in maximum building footprint. This provides the property
owner with flexibility given the fact a historic structure may occupy much
of their lot, and variations may allow more sympathetic placement of new
development on a historic property.My perception of the variation benefit
is:
Answered: 113 Skipped:10
Appropriate in
all cases
Appropriate in
some cases
I
i
Rarely
appropriate
Not appropriate
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Appropriate in all cases 25.66% 29
Appropriate in some cases 54.87%= 62
Rarely appropriate 10.62% 12
Not appropriate 8.85% 10
TOTAL 113
# COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS: DATE
1 Street parking should not be an option 4/14/2018 7:38 PM
2 Should include permission to remove overgrown trees planted in historic times that threaten 4/12/2018 2:03 PM
foundations OR are providing too much shade and blocking interface with the residential streets.
3 Reduction of set backs impacts neighbors 4/9/2018 10:37 AM
4 There's no a reason a shed should be considered historic.In this case the addition could be 4/5/2018 1 0:03 AM
compensated by the removal of this shed.Allowing for more landscaping and a better design all
around.
5 it needs to not 4/4/2018 9:53 PM
5 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits- Survey
6 eligibility is appropriate in all cases;whether or not to grant the variation is appropriate in some 4/4/2018 4:25 PM
cases
7 not appropriate when impacting neighbors or changing line of sight 4/4/2018 11:36 AM
8 Setback variations are appropriate almost all the time. I don't think parking variances should ever 4/3/2018 7:36 PM
be allowed.
9 Not All cases,a scenario where a historical home's presence is dwarfed or diminutized is a 4/3/2018 3:50 PM
scenario of failure.
10 Appropriate when the goal of design is historic preservation.NOT appropriate to give developers 4/312018 1:18 PM
more square footage or relaxed requirements when developing on a historic lot.
11 1 think it could be percentage based so that we retain green space. I think having yards increases 4/3/2018 12:37 PM
the feel of having a community here.
12 ' Set backs for off street parking seem logical 4/2/2018 6:22 PM
13 Variations are necessary for all hp projects.They should not just be granted to the historic 4/2/2018 7:36 AM
landmark,but also to the new construction.There needs to be a compromise on historic
developments and appropriate variations for new construction that support good preservation and
placement of additions is necessary.
14 In some cases a zero,or minimal setback id not sympathetic to the neighboring property. 4/1/2018 7:40 PM
15 We tried.We refused to pay the bribe demanded. 3/29/2018 8:35 PM
16 The more tools the better! 3/29/2018 2:12 PM
17 Front&back yard set back variances only-side yard set backs with adjacent properties produce 3/29/2018 1:43 PM
unreasonable impact on neighboring lots.
18 This Is only true of historic properties which already been'improved' 3/29/2018 1:01 PM
19 Leave the buildings they way they are. 3/29/2018 12:36 PM
20 Old buildings generate the same number of cars as new.Forgiveness of on-site parking just 3/29/2018 12:13 PM
pushes the car on to the street.
21 Moving a historic house to make room for a mansion should never be approved 3/27/2018 5:29 PM
22 variances to set backs and parking requirements should be reviewed on a case by case bases to 3/27/2018 10:19 AM
ensure they do not have negative impacts on the neighborhood and/or surrounding development
6 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey
Q4 Square Footage Bonus: Historic preservation projects that
demonstrate exemplary practices and meet specific criteria may be
awarded up to 500 square feet of bonus square footage to construct on
the site. This provides the property owner with additional value to off-set
the potential extra costs of a historic preservation project.My perception
of the square footage benefit is:
Answered: 113 Skipped: 10
Appropriate in
all cases
Appropriate in
some cases
Rarely
appropriate
Not appropriate
0% 10% 20% 30-A 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Appropriate in all cases 31.86% 36
Appropriate in some cases 49.56% 56
Rarely appropriate 11.50% 13
Not appropriate 7.08% 8
TOTAL 113
# COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT: DATE
1 Bonus SF should never become a TDR-must only be used within basic zoning,set backs without 4/9/2018 10:38 AM
impact to other properties.
2 eligibility is appropriate in all cases but the granting of the bonus is case-by-case and that's 4/4/2018 4:26 PM
appropriate
3 not in addition to TDRs 4/4/201811:39 AM
4 'We should not be adding more development on historic properties. 4/3/2018 7:37 PM
5 When appropriate.Bonuses and incentives to keep very strict to a historic profile should be offered 4/3/1018 3:52 PM
if they actually show that they encourage folks to embrace the historical qualities.
7 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits- Survey
6 Not appropriate.Historic residences were typically small and allowing more footage than currently 41312018 1:19 PM
allowed only diminishes historical significance.
7 Historic buildings cannot be removed.The great number of renovations is for speculative resale 4/2/2018 6:27 PM
purposes.Why because the developer is getting a free upzoning of additonal act footage.Quesd6n
how many of the recently renoved Victorian builidngsd have been doen for owner occupants-very
few.The free additonal space is a developers dream becasue they didn't have to pay for the extra
s developable land.Eliminating it would likely result in lower prices for the roperties for a while.But
not for long since the supply is fixed.
8 The bonus provides an important award for the detail,time and patience required to go through the 4/2/2018 7:38 AM
historic preservation review process and to accurately restore a historic home.
9 Rules are far to strict.One either has to""""or spend thousands finding historic pictures. 3/29/2018 8:36 PM
We tried and gave up.
10 If a property owner is performing outstanding stewardship,they should be commended for it. 3/2912018 2:13 PM
Historic properties are expensive to maintain and to improve.This is a great incentive!
11 500 square foot bonus is highly valuable and in my view typically too freely given-a bad trade for 3/29/2018 1:45 PM
the community that creates excess value for property owner and impacts on neighbors in the forth
of increased development.
12 Connector requirement should be eliminated. 3/2912016 1:32 PM
13 Live small.More square feet with fewer year round residents is not desirable 312912018 1:03 PM
14 The point is to"PRESERVE".The whole neighborhood has to be considered.Taking one lot out of 3/2912018 12:43 PM
context ignores the overall effect.There is nothing in the'constitution"that says one has to have a
bigger house.If you need a bigger house,go somewhere else.
15 real estate value is market driven.Extra cost of historic project?Myth. 3/2912018 12:15 PM
16 Developers will always jump through hoops to increase square footage which is the only reason 3/27/2018 5:31 PM
people want to do these projects
17 Where exemplary practices are demonstrated 3/27/2018 10:19 AM
8 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey
Q5 Affordable Housing Reduction: Historic properties are allowed to
provide less affordable housing mitigation than non-historic properties to
offset the impacts of new development on the site. This alleviates the
requirement to add more mass to a historic site in the form of affordable
units and/or reduces a significant cost to the property owner, who can
then direct those funds to preservation.My perception of the affordable
housing reduction benefit is:
Answered: 110 Skipped: 13
Appropriate in
all cases
Appropriate in
some cases
Rarely
appropriate
Not appropriate
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Appropriate in all cases 42.73% 47
Appropriate in some cases 28.18% 31
Rarely appropriate 11.82% 13
Not appropriate 17.27% 19
TOTAL 110
# COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT: DATE
1 AH is a critical community need that should not be burdened by Historic preservation. 4/9/2018 10:40 AM
2 If you're going to make me look at an eye-sore it better have some benefits to the community.In 4/512018 10:06 AM
this case the whole thing should have been tom down.
3 1 think commercial properties need to have more strict guidelines 4/4/2018 9:56 PM
4 with historic properties,an owner does not have the demolish option and renovation of historic 4/412018 4:28 PM
fabric is often quite expensive and more expensive than demolishing and rebuilding would be.
don't punish people for having to maintain a historic property by making it more expensive to work
with than a non historic property.allow the offset to remain.
9 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits- Survey
5 not appropriate if there are real increases in number of employees 4/4/2018 11:41 AM
6 1 think commercial reductions are appropriate,but not residential reductions. 4/3/2018 7:37 PM
7 Who is actually building ADUs?They are mitigated to the city with a check,not an actual bed for a 4/3/2018 3:57 PM
head.Obviously that check affords to build elsewhere,but could you imagine how cool it would be
to live in an Affordable Housing Unit attached to a historic home?Cause I can't,too few of these
exist.Some day none will.
8 housing requirements should be kept and the owner/builder need to offset housing somewhere 4/3/2018 1:51 PM
other than the historic site.The buyers of these properties can afford it.
9 Again,not appropriate.Affordable housing or lack thereof has no impact on historical significance. 4/3/2018 1:20 PM
This would be a loophole for a developer to overbuild and under-provide for the community.
10 Need more information. 4/3/2018 12:39 PM
11 However its questionable whether or not the"saved"fees actually result in better historic 4/2/2018 6:32 PM
preservation.
12 HP projects are generally much more time consuming and expensive than typical non-historic 4/2/2018 7:40 AM
development.Waiving affordable housing is an Important balance to the overall development
equation.The new Design Guidelines restrict above grade development on a site which will create
a huge road block for onsite affordable housing.
13 This is an important cornerstone benefit and should continue to be available. 4/1/2018 7:47 PM
14 Bad example since it appears all work has stopped there and the suggestion of a new business is 3/3112018 8:03 AM
gone.Now an eye sore on Main.They should loose any exceptions.Dont let them add mass or
avoid the affordable housing requirement.A business that purchases an historic building can pay
for it and requires housing off site.
15 limit to commercial only 3/30/2018 11:19 AM
16 The idea of affordable housing is good.Many cities are now using. However,affordable housing 3/2912018 8:38 PM
does not bring more workers into the town.It just rewards the lucky few,many who retire and do
not work in Aspne.
17 Waiver of AH fees for historic preservation unfairly burdens other community needs.$100,000 AH 3/29/2018 1:48 PM
fee is immaterial compared to acquisition and development cost.
18 The intent is desirable the actual consequences are not. 3/29/2018 1:05 PM
19 """` 3/2912018 12:44 PM
20 "direct those funds to preservation."All development must meet AH requirements.In your 3/29/2018 12:18 PM
example below-the developer needs no help.This is a purely commercial enterprise,and the for-
profit venture must stand on its own.
21 I think that offsets like this are crucial to the affordability of renovated an historic structure. 3/29/2018 12:16 PM
22 The new developments often result in homes that are large enough they require several 3/28/2018 9:57 AM
employees to run them,or at least several to manage them throughout the year.
23 On site mitigation for employee housing for residential(ADUs)have been removed from the land 3/27/2018 10:25 AM
use code.The burden of employee housing should be shared equally by all development,
especially businesses,with credit for the existing floor area that is remaining.
10 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits- Survey
Q6 Exemptions or reduced affordable housing requirements is often one
of the few Historic Preservation Benefits applicable to Commercial
properties.Should this benefit be offered to:
Answered: 100 Skipped:23
Residential®
properties only
Commercial
properties only
Both
residential...
I
Neither(or no
properties)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Residential properties only 7.00% 7
Commercial properties only 12.00% 12
Both residential and commercial properties 55.00% 55
Neither(or no properties) 26.00% 26
TOTAL 100
11 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits-Survey
Q7 Development Fee Waivers: Historic properties may be allowed a
reduction or waiver in fees associated with city parks, transportation, and
parking that are typically charged to offset the impacts of new
development. This reduces costs to the property owner, who can then
direct those funds to preservation.My perception of development fee
waiver benefit is:
Answered: 110 Skipped: 13
Appropriate in
all cases
Appropriate in
some cases
Rarely
appropriate
Not appropriate■
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Appropriate in all cases 37.27% 41
Appropriate in some cases 40.00% 44
Rarely appropriate 9.09% 10
Not appropriate 13.64% 15
TOTAL 110
# COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT: DATE
1 Purchase price of a property should reflect the cost of development Cost of fees should be bome 4/9/201810:41 AM
by the sellerlowner/new owner not the broader community.
2 When my client can save money wherever they can,that means I'm more likely to get that contract 4/5/2018 10:08 AM
signed and which may lead to reallocated money into the project budget.
3 problem is,City Council never likes to grant any fee waivers 4/4/2018 4:28 PM
4 only for the historic properties which best reflect Aspen's history 4/4/2018 11:43 AM
5 These are relatively small fees,but can provide a major benefit to enable preservation.I think 4/3/2018 7:38 PM
these are important to retain.
12 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits- Survey
6 The buyers and owners of these properties can still afford to support parks,transportation and 4/3/2018 1:52 PM
parking.
7 fess for tree removal should be removed.Too many historic houses are blocked from view or 412/2018 6:34 PM
excessively shaded by evergreens in parwlicular.Evergreens are generally not native to the valley
floor.
8 The benefit of historic preservation to the community is on par with the Impact fees for 4/2/2018 7:42 AM
Transportation/Air Quality and Parks.The community benefits from restored historic properties the
same way that the community benefits from Parks and from Transportation initiatives.
9 Residential only.Commercial should pay to play! 3/31/2018 8:04 AM
10 Not a good idea.It promotes corruption. 3/29/2018 8:38 PM
11 A fourth generation aspen family should not be forced to sell and move out of aspen because of 3/29/2018 1:07 PM
'affordable housing'fees
12 .....• 3/29/2018 12:44 PM
13 'direct those funds to preservation'??These are simply real estate deals-no help needed.You 3/29/2018 12:21 PM
won'tsee any Aspen developers standing in line at the St.Marys soup kitchen.
14 It is too time consuming and too expensive to renovate historic structures in Aspen.More waivers 3/29/2018 12:18 PM
and more efficient and quicker approvals are helpful.
15 Saving 100k means nothing to these people,why are we giving them anything? 3/27/2018 5:32 PM
13 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits- Survey
Q8 Do you think the historic preservation projects you are aware of in the
community contribute to telling the unique story of Aspen's past?
Answered: 111 Skipped:12
I
Greatly
contributes
Contributes
Somewhat
contributes
Does not
contribute
1don't know
of any histo...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Greatly contributes 34.23% 38
Contributes 39.64% 44
Somewhat contributes 19.82% 22
Does not contribute 6.31% 7
I dont know of any historic preservation projects 0.00% 0
TOTAL 111
14 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits- Survey
Q9 Do you think that the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Program is
successful in retaining and maintaining historic landmarks?
Answered: 110 Skipped: 13
I
i
very successful
Successful
Somewhat
successful
i
Not successful
I don't know
0% 10°,6 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Very successful 20.00% 22
Successful 38.15% 42
Somewhat successful 29.09% 32
Not successful 9.09% 10
I don'tknow 3.64% 4
TOTAL 110
15 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits- Survey
Q10 Please provide your zip code of residence.
Answered: 109 Skipped: 14
#. RESPONSES DATE
1 81611 4/14/2018 7:40 PM
2 81611 4/12/2018 2:05 PM
3 81611 4/11/2018 10:58 PM
4 81611 4/10/2018 10:31 AM
5 81611 4/10/2018 9:15 AM
6 81612 4/9/2018 3:36 PM
7 81611 4/912018 3:27 PM
8 81611 4/9/2018 10:42 AM
9 81621 4/6/2018 11:29 AM
10 81611 4/6/2018 10:30 AM
11 81611 4/6/2018 9:13 AM
12 81623 4/6/2018 8:41 AM
13 81611 4/5/2018 5:54 PM
14 81611 4/5/2018 11:55 AM
15 81611 4/511018 10:30 AM
16 81623 4/511018 10:17 AM
17 81611 4/5/2018 10:09 AM
18 81611 4/5/2018 7:54 AM
19 81611 4/4/2018 9:56 PM
20 81611 4/4/2018 4:29 PM
21 81611 4/4/2018 11:44 AM
22 81611 4/4/2018 9:48 AM
23 81621 4/3/2018 7:44 PM
24 81611 4/3/2018 7:38 PM
25 81611 4/3/2018 6:47 PM
26 81611 4/3/20184:47 PM
27 81611 4/3/2018 3:58 PM
28 81611 4/3/2018 3:55 PM
29 81611 4/3/2018 3:16 PM
30 81621 4/3/2018 2:44 PM
31 81623 4/3/2018 1:55 PM
32 81656 4/3/2018 1:52 PM
33 81611 4/3/2018 1:45 PM
34 80122 4/3/2018 1:42 PM
35 81611 4/3/2018 1:21 PM
16 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey
36 81611 4/3/2018 1:21 PM
37 20016 4/312018 1:17 PM
38 81623 4/3/2018 12:40 PM
39 81611 4/2/2018 6:35 PM
40 81611 4/2/2018 4:23 PM
41 81621 4/2/2018 10:19 AM
42 81611 4/2/2018 9:43 AM
43 81623 4/2/2018 8:29 AM
44 81611 4/2/2018 7:56 AM
45 81621 4/2/2018 7:43 AM
46 81611 4/1/2018 7:48 PM
47 81623 4/1/2018 12:44 PM
48 81611 3/31/2018 8:05 AM
49 81611 3131/2018 7:33 AM
50 81611 3/30/2018 12:49 PM
51 81611 3/3012018 11:20 AM
52 81611 3/30/2018 9:28 AM
53 81611 3/30/2018 8:01 AM
54 81623 3/29/2018 9:12 PM
55 81611 3/29/2018 9:02 PM
56 80220 3/29/2018 8:39 PM
57 81611 3/29/2018 8:17 PM
58 81611 3/29/2018 6:20 PM
59 81615 3/29/2018 6:09 PM
60 81611 3/29/2018 5:27 PM
61 81611 3/29/2018 5:04 PM
62 55345 3/29/2018 3:43 PM
63 81611 3129/2018 3:28 PM
64 .81611 3129/2018 3:06 PM
65 81651 312912018 2:47 PM
66 81611 312912018 2:21 PM
67 81611 3/29/2018 2:18 PM
68 81654 3/29/2018 2:14 PM
69 81623 3/29/2018 2:14 PM
70 81623 3/29/2018 2:11 PM
71 81654 3/2912018 2:09 PM
72 85266 3/29/2018 1:51 PM
73 81611 3/29/2018 1:49 PM
74 81611 3/29/2018 1:33 PM
75 81611 3/29/20181:31 PM
76 81623 3/29/2018 1:27 PM
17 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey
77 81612 3129/2018 1:11 PM
78 81611 3/29/2018 1:10 PM
79 81611 3/29/2018 1:09 PM
80 81154 3/29/2018 1:03 PM
81 81611 3/29/2018 12:47 PM
82 81623 3/29/2018 12:45 PM
83 81623 3/29/201812:41 PM
84 80911 3/29/2018 12:35 PM
85 81621 3/29/2018 12:31 PM
86 81611 3/2912018 12:27 PM
87 81611 3/2912018 12:22 PM
88 81621 3/2912018 12:18 PM
89 81650 3/2912018 12:14 PM
90 81611 3/29/2018 12:13 PM
91 60616 3/29/2018 12:12 PM
92 81623 3/29/2018 12:09 PM
93 81611 3129/2018 12:09 PM
94 81611 3129/2018 12:07 PM
95 81621 3/29/2018 12:06 PM
96 81611 3/2812018 8:51 PM
97 81611 3128/2018 10:01 AM
98 81611 3/28/2018 8:07 AM
99 81611 3/2811018 7:26 AM
100 81623 3/27/2018 8:30 PM
101 81611 3/27/2018 5:33 PM
102 81611 3/27/2018 5:09 PM
103 81612 3/27/2018 4:42 PM
104 81611 3127/2018 12:16 PM
105 81611 3/27/2018 11:51 AM
106 81611 3/27/2018 11:38 AM
107 81611 3/27/2018 10:43 AM
108 81611 3/27/2018 10:28 AM
109 81611 3127/2018 10:27 AM
18 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits- Survey
Q11 Do you own a designated historic landmark in the City of Aspen?
Answered: 106 Skipped: 17
Yes ■
No
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes 10.38% 11
No 89.62% 95
TOTAL 106
19 / 19